Bought/Thought April 15th, 2009

[Obi-Ron]

I'm talking about Superman Returns.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Nobody really liked that anyway.

 

[Themanofbat]

Okay, skipping past your immature fashion of a rebuttal, what do you think about all this? And if I'm not mistaken, you're a long time Spidey reader, right? Prior to Peter being married?

Yes... somebody peed in my syrop this morning...

I've been an on-going Spider-Man reader since 1975... which means I had a good 12 years of a single Spidey prior to the wedding, and then 20 years of a married one, and now 1 year of being single again...

Having said all that, I can understand why Marvel Comics Inc, as well as JQ, think that Spider-Man simply works better as a single guy... heck, the cartoons & movies portray him as such, and while many older married fans watch those movies/tv shows, he does strike a chord with all the nerdy goth "wanna-be asperger" kids who all like to think that they are different... it's why I liked Spidey as a kid... I honestly felt like I could relate to this hero.

And anybody who was reading the book at the time knows that the wedding was a publicity stunt because Stan Lee was doing it in his strip... there was no major "bonding" of the two prior to the proposal... they were very good friends and she was the first of Peter's friends to know his secret life, making them closer I guess... but if they really wanted to head towards the nuptuals, they should have given us a few years of "engagement" issues and let things really flow naturally...

In any event, I like MJ a lot, and I know I'll see her character again... there was a lot of good in the 20 year marriage, and some yawners, but I like to read Amazing SPIDER-MAN, not Amazing MARY JANE, and I don't agree with you that she's a quintessential requirement to his stort... yes, she's an important supporting cast member, but not a requirement.

I like the new direction, even though like most people have already stated, I thought OMD sucked donkey balls... the stories are refreshing without rehashing the stuff from the 70's... if anything, the soap-operatic storytelling format of the 70's seems to show in the new direction, and I think that's great... as opposed to the boring decompressed storytelling formula made for easy tradepaperbacks...

And btw, something you said from an earlier post, you'd be investing 9 bucks per month... not 12 bucks...

 

[Phaedrus45]

Well said, TMOB. I haven't enjoyed Spider-Man this much since the early 90's. And, I would even say I've enjoyed the full year of BND more than even then.

Sure, you can dwell on OMD...but, that's like having a great summer, but you only focus on the one day that it rained and you couldn't go outside to play.

Anyway, I've read a few books today.

Walking Dead is still doing great...and, best of all, this book is coming out on time!

For that matter, Zorro has been pretty much doing the same. Lone Ranger got bigger promotion and acclaim...but, it still has long delays; especially for a book that gives you so little each issue. Zorro is packed each issue with good dialogue and an interesting storyline that keeps the reader coming back for more.

Man With No Name is an alright book, too. If you're a fan of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, the current storyline picks up nicely where that movie left off.

While it didn't come out this week, Image has a great 3-issue comic, called Killer Of Demons, by Christopher Yost. It's got some great action, and mixes in humor nicely. (Kind of how Deadpool is best when the humor is added to the story.) I just read the first two issues, and would recommend it to anyone.

Finally, I have liked Star Wars-The Clone Wars. Critics really blasted that movie...but, failed to see it from the eyes of the target audience: Children. My son and daughter LOVED the movie, and I've heard the same from other parents who took their kids to see it. It was filled with action, and while it was slammed for that reason by critics, that's what a kid wants to see. Anyway, I'm enjoying this 6-issue miniseries.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I thought it was slammed by critics for introducing yet another annoying sidekick and having a razor-thin plot.

Granted, I enjoyed the follow-up animated series whenever Ahsoka wasn't around.

 

[iloveclones]

I thought it was slammed by critics for introducing yet another annoying sidekick and having a razor-thin plot.

Granted, I enjoyed the follow-up animated series whenever Ahsoka wasn't around.

Meesa don't be understandin' you....

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Oh man, they totally put Jar-Jar in some episodes, too. They were almost unbearable, not because he's such a terrible character (although he is) but because they literally all had the exact same plot: Jar-Jar is on some mission he has no business being on, something goes awry, everyone else is captured, and Jar-Jar somehow saves the day purely by accident.

 

[Phaedrus45]

I thought it was slammed by critics for introducing yet another annoying sidekick and having a razor-thin plot.

Granted, I enjoyed the follow-up animated series whenever Ahsoka wasn't around.

Critics absolutlely hated this film; but, like I said, they didn't see it for what it was. As I mentioned, every kid that I know who's seen it...and, from what I could tell, every kid in that audience...loved it.

That's one thing I never liked about watching Ebert and Roeper, especially Roeper. They could never see a movie through the eyes of it's target audience. I remember their review of the first Scooby-Doo live action movie...they hated it, but admitted they had never watched a single cartoon of Scooby-Doo when they were younger. Really, how can you review a movie fairly, like Scooby-Doo, without not being able to relate to it's target audience?? (Sure, it's not a great film...but, when it came out, my son thought it was great.)

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Well, they're professional critics. Kids tend to simplify things a lot more than they would, and it's hard to basically "turn off" your brain to that extent when you've been reviewing films for decades. Frankly, I don't mind it. I'd prefer to see more from professional film critics than, "There were explosions and spaceships and it was awesome!" It's the same reason I loved Transformers to an absurd degree when I was a kid but I utterly despise some of the episodes when I watch them now because of how repetitive and boring they are. Plus, there are things like Batman: The Animated Series and Beast Wars and Justice League that are enjoyable to both kids and adults because they contain just the right amount of sophistication without being too intellectual.

 

[Blader5489]

Action Comics has been kind of a strange beast. I love Greg Rucka's work (notably Checkmate), but his story here has been kind of boring so far; I find it hard to care about anything that's happening.

The art is unbelievably gorgeous though.

 

[Alastor]

I thought about picking it up, because I usually enjoy Rucka's work, but I'm just not really feeling the characters or premise. I would give it a chance, but my budget only goes so far.

 

[JewishHobbit]

Yes... somebody peed in my syrop this morning...

I've been an on-going Spider-Man reader since 1975... which means I had a good 12 years of a single Spidey prior to the wedding, and then 20 years of a married one, and now 1 year of being single again...

So then here's my thinking. While you've read all the years of his being married, you first read his single days and had 12 years to grow to love that rendition. So for you, you'll always have that fondness to that time period. So him becoming single, resurecting Harry, Flash back, etc. is all a nostalgic trip for you, and I'm assuming for the rest of the old fans who think this is a good idea. You don't have the experience of ALWAYS having MJ there to support him, help him, etc. So for you, it's just a nice swing back to what made you fell in love with the book, whereas for people like me it's removing a central aspect of what made Spider-Man so relatable and great. And not only that, you have those 12 years of solid spidey material before the OMD started messing stuff up. For people like me, we have to face the unfortunate fact that everything we read is now altered and questionable and we aren't even certain what's in continuity and what isn't thanks to the shoddy explanations and such.

And even to go deeper than that, for people like me who have had no moral compass in their lives, I had to rely on people like Spider-Man, as sad as it is, to teach me what was right and what wasn't. Then he goes and does the crap he does in OMD and ruins every bit of morality he has. Though I'm old enough now to know that it's no big deal, that kid in me that still looks at Peter Parker as the ultimate good guy now looks at him as the ultimate hypocrite, and when Marvel thinks that's not a problem, then they've already lost sight of the character that I fell in love with.

Having said all that, I can understand why Marvel Comics Inc, as well as JQ, think that Spider-Man simply works better as a single guy... heck, the cartoons & movies portray him as such, and while many older married fans watch those movies/tv shows, he does strike a chord with all the nerdy goth "wanna-be asperger" kids who all like to think that they are different... it's why I liked Spidey as a kid... I honestly felt like I could relate to this hero.

They use him as a single person because everything starts with the origin story, and he was single in the origin. However, in the cartoons and Movies (granted, I've not seen the new cartoon) MJ is always right there, though not married yet (and they did get married in the 90's cartoon). And I actually don't see how he works better. In fact, now he's just like the hundreds of other single guys in comics. What makes him any differant from the Human Torch, or Nova, or Ricochet, or whoever? Now he's just one in a million and not at all anything special.

And anybody who was reading the book at the time knows that the wedding was a publicity stunt because Stan Lee was doing it in his strip... there was no major "bonding" of the two prior to the proposal... they were very good friends and she was the first of Peter's friends to know his secret life, making them closer I guess... but if they really wanted to head towards the nuptuals, they should have given us a few years of "engagement" issues and let things really flow naturally...

I know this. Like I said, I read them. However, their timeframe for fixing it quickly and pretending it never happened was back then, 20 years ago. Not today when it's a cemented part of Spidey's history in the minds of who knows how many readers. Due to how long it's had to build, it deserved a better send off and sadly, Joe Q and his people decided that wasn't necessary and gave us crap. Obviously those of us who do consider their union so important weren't necessary enough for them to care about or consider. THEY WERE GETTING THEIR SINGLE SPIDEY BACK YAY!!!

In any event, I like MJ a lot, and I know I'll see her character again... there was a lot of good in the 20 year marriage, and some yawners, but I like to read Amazing SPIDER-MAN, not Amazing MARY JANE, and I don't agree with you that she's a quintessential requirement to his stort... yes, she's an important supporting cast member, but not a requirement.

But again, I think this is coming from someone who had 12 years without her. For those of us who have grown to know Spidey with MJ at his side, she really is as big a part of his character as his abilities. Without her he really does just feel dim and flat. I've skimmed and read a few issues here and there at the comic shop and I just can't get into him now. He's very generic. For me, MJ is what gave him depth. He was a hero, a fun guy, but also a family man, but young enough to still be cool.

I like the new direction, even though like most people have already stated, I thought OMD sucked donkey balls... the stories are refreshing without rehashing the stuff from the 70's... if anything, the soap-operatic storytelling format of the 70's seems to show in the new direction, and I think that's great... as opposed to the boring decompressed storytelling formula made for easy tradepaperbacks...

I agree that I hate the tpb formats, but that really was my only problem. My favorate pasing was when storylines could be in single issues or 2 issue arcs. 3 issues were pretty big deals and 6 part stories were the huge important tales. As for the soap-opera stuff, if I wanted that I'd watch a soap opera. For me, if it's not MJ it's fake.

And btw, something you said from an earlier post, you'd be investing 9 bucks per month... not 12 bucks...

Couldn't remember if it was 3 or 4 issues a month, but there's also a one shot or two, plus the Spider-Man Family thing, etc. So I was close.

But yeah, overall, I tend to find that those who are really enjoying BND are typically those who either 1) Read Spidey before he was married, or 2) are fairly new to Spidey and haven't grown attached. I think everyone who I've talked to who are from my generation, hate it. And just about all of them have dropped it entirely.

So (and I say this with respect) you can criticize those of us who are so strongly against this, our 'hatred' of Joe Q and Marvel due to it, but I don't think you have a point of reference to know how we feel in regard to this, or at least how I feel. To you, they gave you back your glory days, but for me, he's just erased all the tales that made me fall in love with the medium to begin with.

 

[Phaedrus45]

Well, they're professional critics. Kids tend to simplify things a lot more than they would, and it's hard to basically "turn off" your brain to that extent when you've been reviewing films for decades. Frankly, I don't mind it. I'd prefer to see more from professional film critics than, "There were explosions and spaceships and it was awesome!" It's the same reason I loved Transformers to an absurd degree when I was a kid but I utterly despise some of the episodes when I watch them now because of how repetitive and boring they are. Plus, there are things like Batman: The Animated Series and Beast Wars and Justice League that are enjoyable to both kids and adults because they contain just the right amount of sophistication without being too intellectual.

You still have to put stuff in the context of which they were made (and, when they were made.) Clone Wars - The Movie was made to hype the 30 minutes show that would appear in less than a month on Cartoon Network. And, of course Transformers would be boring now, especially considering the time it was made. (I, also, have tried watching the Transformers cartoon movie, and can't get through it. Just having Scatman Crothers being one of the voices is bad enough!)

There is also the extent that many critics feel like they have to go beyond cruel when reviewing a film that is getting a lot of hype. That's what happened with Clone Wars; it was as if the critics had a personal grudge and were dying to rake the movie over the coals. (Entertainment Weekly had a great article on how far some critics went in their writing of how bad it was.)

There is a decent movie by Jamie Kennedy called "Heckler" that is worth seeing. It's been on On Demand...and, as movies keep popping up over and over again on there, you might take a look for it. (Some things I didn't agree on..but, he makes some good points in this documentary.)

To me, as a reviewer of books, comics, movies, music, ect..., there are many criteria for doing reviews. (In college, I took a course on Literary Criticism, and it was quite fascinating to see the many different viewpoints a person comes at when critically reviewing literature. And, kind of weird to be critiquing criticism.) It's alright to voice your opinion, saying whether you think something is good or bad; but, you also need to acknowledge the audience the movie is aimed towards. Another example, my kids DESPERATELY wanted to see the Hannah Montana Movie. I was bored and I thought the acting and script were terrible...but, my kids loved it. How can I not acknowledge that the movie succeeds in reaching it's core audience? (I did note that most reviewers of the film did note this....maybe it points to the fact they really did have a personal vendetta against Star Wars - The Clone Wars....or, they don't want to piss off Miley Cyrus fans.)

 

[JewishHobbit]

Well said, TMOB. I haven't enjoyed Spider-Man this much since the early 90's. And, I would even say I've enjoyed the full year of BND more than even then.

Sure, you can dwell on OMD...but, that's like having a great summer, but you only focus on the one day that it rained and you couldn't go outside to play.

I'm pretty sure you fall in the same category as TMOB due to how long you've been reading. But for me, there's no going back. And it's not that I'm just dwelling on OMD because if I ignore it and read the newer stuff, I can't ignore the fact that Harry's back, Peter's single and dating other woman, MJ's nowhere to be seen, and people suddenly don't know that Spider-Man is Peter Parker. How can I read anything now and not remember OMD or have that bad taste in my mouth. It really does make me sick.

And really, Phaed... do you want to start a debate here too? I don't think these basic comic posters can handle the colossal level of one of our debates.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

You still have to put stuff in the context of which they were made (and, when they were made.) Clone Wars - The Movie was made to hype the 30 minutes show that would appear in less than a month on Cartoon Network. And, of course Transformers would be boring now, especially considering the time it was made. (I, also, have tried watching the Transformers cartoon movie, and can't get through it. Just having Scatman Crothers being one of the voices is bad enough!)

There is also the extent that many critics feel like they have to go beyond cruel when reviewing a film that is getting a lot of hype. That's what happened with Clone Wars; it was as if the critics had a personal grudge and were dying to rake the movie over the coals. (Entertainment Weekly had a great article on how far some critics went in their writing of how bad it was.)

There is a decent movie by Jamie Kennedy called "Heckler" that is worth seeing. It's been on On Demand...and, as movies keep popping up over and over again on there, you might take a look for it. (Some things I didn't agree on..but, he makes some good points in this documentary.)

To me, as a reviewer of books, comics, movies, music, ect..., there are many criteria for doing reviews. (In college, I took a course on Literary Criticism, and it was quite fascinating to see the many different viewpoints a person comes at when critically reviewing literature. And, kind of weird to be critiquing criticism.) It's alright to voice your opinion, saying whether you think something is good or bad; but, you also need to acknowledge the audience the movie is aimed towards. Another example, my kids DESPERATELY wanted to see the Hannah Montana Movie. I was bored and I thought the acting and script were terrible...but, my kids loved it. How can I not acknowledge that the movie succeeds in reaching it's core audience? (I did note that most reviewers of the film did note this....maybe it points to the fact they really did have a personal vendetta against Star Wars - The Clone Wars....or, they don't want to piss off Miley Cyrus fans.)

Depending on which reviewers we're talking about, they very well may have. I know a lot of people from my generation and a little earlier (the 20s and early 30s crowd) have a bit of a vendetta against Star Wars in general for the new trilogy not measuring up to the old trilogy and what they perceive as George Lucas' attempts to further "kiddify" the franchise (which has some merit, although many people conveniently forget the Ewoks).

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you took issue with specifically, but there are some commonalities to films regardless of whom they're aimed at or when they were made. Narrative tropes and the principles of good drama haven't really changed all that much for ages. A bad plot is a bad plot, for example, even if the primary audience wouldn't notice it because they're taken by all the dazzling visuals. That's what I meant about not being able to shut off the critic part of their minds.

Plus, as you mentioned, a lot of them do note that if you're a certain age or a fan of the material or whatever, you'll probably enjoy it. But that shouldn't really factor into its merit as a piece of art; that's the commercial aspect of the film.

 

[Doomed_hero]

The whole "deal with Mephisto" is dumb, but thats comics. Should they have went in a different direction? Probably, but WHY the LOVE for this couple? I just can't process this, and I fail to see how this ONE thing can cause someone to stop liking comics, to stop buying the book in some sort of half-assed "protest". Just like these Tea Party people, this "protest" is really silly, and ultimately wont accomplish anything. Amazing has been great since BND, great artists and writers, ones who I would have never imagined on Spidey and others like Marcos Martin that I have just discovered. Get over it and stop *****ing.

It was not like they ended the M.J marriage and stopped there, they ended almost every layer of growth for Peter over the years and made the 15 years i have been a spider-man fan and made it mean nothing. They bring Harry back whose death I felt was a good bookend to his story and not much else needed to be told. these new stories all feel like rehash, Spider-Man' has been stopped from growing up and now i have to watch him grow all over again learning lessons he has already learned before. Its not like they took M.J away and left things, they changed everything and to boot they made Peter make a chioce he would never make, he would not give up M.J Aunt May herself would be against the very idea and Peter would never be stupid enough to trust a deal with Mephesto. He is trusting yes, yet not when it comes to the lord of lies. So sorry if i dont want to stop *****ing when I see my fav characte f'ed over and the 15 years of comics i have followed meaning nothing.

 

[Themanofbat]

So (and I say this with respect) you can criticize those of us who are so strongly against this, our 'hatred' of Joe Q and Marvel due to it, but I don't think you have a point of reference to know how we feel in regard to this, or at least how I feel. To you, they gave you back your glory days, but for me, he's just erased all the tales that made me fall in love with the medium to begin with.

Nice post... but I just want to say that I don't "criticize" people who currently hate the new direction of ASM... my earlier rant was me trying to point out the fact that this decision was probably made above JQ's head... I'm not suggesting that he's merely the fall guy... he approved of the decision as well, but when you ranted against JQ, I just wanted to point out that the situation is more than "his" fault (if you want to call it that).

And for the record, most of all the immediate "changes" seen in the first issues of BND have been explained, and they work within the confines of established Marvel continuity, which is VERY important to me... are they "good" explanations? some have been lame-ducks, but that's the nature of comic book storytelling... they can't all be gems.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[JewishHobbit]

Nice post... but I just want to say that I don't "criticize" people who currently hate the new direction of ASM... my earlier rant was me trying to point out the fact that this decision was probably made above JQ's head... I'm not suggesting that he's merely the fall guy... he approved of the decision as well, but when you ranted against JQ, I just wanted to point out that the situation is more than "his" fault (if you want to call it that).

Thing is, JQ's been saying for years that he'd like to see the marraige ended, and since he accepted the job that'll make him the face of Marvel, AND has been making statements for years of how he'd like to end the marraige, it's only fitting that people point their agression towards him. Even if higher ups wanted it done, it was JQ who publically talked about wanting to do it, and under whose watch it happened. Sadly, for all the good he's done, this junk will be what I will remember from his tenure. He will be the fall guy and he has no one to blame but himself.

And for the record, most of all the immediate "changes" seen in the first issues of BND have been explained, and they work within the confines of established Marvel continuity, which is VERY important to me... are they "good" explanations? some have been lame-ducks, but that's the nature of comic book storytelling... they can't all be gems.

Cheers,

Mike

I don't really care if they explain things. They've altered so much of my time reading Spider-Man that everything I loved feels useless now. I've put too much time into falling in love with the Spidey-Verse. I have no desire to start over again with Harry having issues yet again, with yet another goblin, with Peter learning to date, etc. If I wanted to read all that I'd have gone back and read the 80's or so Spidey. They were good the first time, no need to rehash it for me.

And honestly, some of it's starting to flow into New Avengers and other titles, which is leading to me debating on dropping them as well. For me, New Avengers was the only 'real' spider-man (as sad as that is) but now I can't even have that. I about got sick an issue or two where they made it a big deal that he unmasked and revealed who he was to his teammates. Jessica Jones' reaction, etc. This was all done already and now we're getting the same stupid storylines over again. I'm tired of it all.

 

[Blader5489]

I don't really care if they explain things. They've altered so much of my time reading Spider-Man that everything I loved feels useless now. I've put too much time into falling in love with the Spidey-Verse. I have no desire to start over again with Harry having issues yet again, with yet another goblin, with Peter learning to date, etc. If I wanted to read all that I'd have gone back and read the 80's or so Spidey. They were good the first time, no need to rehash it for me.

That "first time" was back in the 60s. The 70s and 80s were as much rehashes--of Peter dating, Harry having issues, goblins--as BND is now.

 

[kguillou]

Yea but in all fairness the difference is back in the 70's and 80's Peter was progressing and growing up. Now that he's a full adult and outta school Marvel has no idea what to do with him.

 

[Phaedrus45]

I'm pretty sure you fall in the same category as TMOB due to how long you've been reading. But for me, there's no going back. And it's not that I'm just dwelling on OMD because if I ignore it and read the newer stuff, I can't ignore the fact that Harry's back, Peter's single and dating other woman, MJ's nowhere to be seen, and people suddenly don't know that Spider-Man is Peter Parker. How can I read anything now and not remember OMD or have that bad taste in my mouth. It really does make me sick.

And really, Phaed... do you want to start a debate here too? I don't think these basic comic posters can handle the colossal level of one of our debates.

But, Peter really hasn't dated anyone...and, we did get to see MJ in one storyline...and, dead villians come back all the time....and, while there were some good stories during the married MJ time, there was also a lot of crap. (And, that's crap I'd consider much worse than OMD.)

This also isn't anything new. Remember, in the 90's, many, many people knew Tony Stark was Iron Man; but, he wiped out everyone's memories of that fact. (I think he got into an argument with Cap about that.)

One thing BND has done is let you know MJ isn't gone. As I mentioned, we had one storyline that featured her, and I got a clear feeling that we'll be seeing her again.

Also, as I'm thinking about it, how different is this compared to all the things that have happened in Thor. Thor and Donald Blake had been separated for years. Now, Donald Blake is back, and it's like old Thor again. (Not to mention Thor did have another persona for a while there.)

The comics are constantly rehashing, redoing, rewriting old stories. Spider-Man, for some reason, just upset people a lot more than any other comic that has done that.

 

[JewishHobbit]

But, Peter really hasn't dated anyone...and, we did get to see MJ in one storyline...and, dead villians come back all the time....and, while there were some good stories during the married MJ time, there was also a lot of crap. (And, that's crap I'd consider much worse than OMD.)

Man, name one story during his Married days that was worse than OMD. Even the Clone Saga was better, in character, and had more goods than bads.

As for villains coming back to life, yeah, it's no biggy when it's someone like Doc Ock or Venom, but when it's Peter's Best Friend who had a mini-epic of a storyline and a great death, it always sucks. Plus, this wasn't just a return from death, it's a return from death with the purpose of bringing back that "Old Spider-Man Feel". Blah.

This also isn't anything new. Remember, in the 90's, many, many people knew Tony Stark was Iron Man; but, he wiped out everyone's memories of that fact. (I think he got into an argument with Cap about that.)

I'm actually not a big Iron Man fan and hadn't read much of his stuff until the Extremis arc and the arc that followed it, so I have no emotional connection to the character, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't a 20 year alteration.

One thing BND has done is let you know MJ isn't gone. As I mentioned, we had one storyline that featured her, and I got a clear feeling that we'll be seeing her again.

Good to hear, but if she's not his wife, I don't care to see her.

Also, as I'm thinking about it, how different is this compared to all the things that have happened in Thor. Thor and Donald Blake had been separated for years. Now, Donald Blake is back, and it's like old Thor again. (Not to mention Thor did have another persona for a while there.)

The comics are constantly rehashing, redoing, rewriting old stories. Spider-Man, for some reason, just upset people a lot more than any other comic that has done that.

I've also never been a big Thor fan. Really, I've never been much into anything Avengerish for the most part, so Iron Man and Thor really have no bearing on me, and I only faintly even understand their histories. I think with Spider-Man it's because the change has effected an entire generation of readers' impression of the character and supposively erased a lot of what they've read from continuity (even if it's stated it still happened, if it doesn't make sense without MJ being married to Pete, then it didn't happen). If it was just Spidey's identity it wouldn't have been much of an issue, it was expected, but it was that, plus his separation from MJ to save his 80-something aunt who didn't want saved, plus his dealing with the devil, plus the resurrection of Harry Osborne, plus the erasing of all his additional powers, and on and on... all down out of character without real explanation or reasoning, and all without a concern of how some of us might take it. I think THAT's why it's such a big deal.

 

[Themanofbat]

As for villains coming back to life, yeah, it's no biggy when it's someone like Doc Ock or Venom, but when it's Peter's Best Friend who had a mini-epic of a storyline and a great death, it always sucks. Plus, this wasn't just a return from death, it's a return from death with the purpose of bringing back that "Old Spider-Man Feel". Blah.

So I bet you hated it when Norman Osborn returned from the "dead"... seeing as his death was also an "epic" storyline (to say the least) and a great death...

 

[Tron Bonne]

So I bet you hated it when Norman Osborn returned from the "dead"... seeing as his death was also an "epic" storyline (to say the least) and a great death...

Did he say he didn't or something?

 

[kguillou]

I feel like Norman's return solidified his role as Spider-man's arch nemesis. Cause remember he had been dead for 20 whole years prior to that. When i was growing up in the 90's i remember thinking that Venom was spiderman's arch nemesis, then i read the clone saga and realized that Norman will always be spidey's #1 baddie.