CBR Poll... Spider-Man married or single?

[Themanofbat]

Didn't you say that it's understandable if you consider Peter a man-child if you're reading Bendis' Spider-Man? In Avengers that's all he is. Bendis NEVER focuses on Peter. So if that works, then so does this.

I didn't say it's understandable if it's Bendis... I meant that you can't count Bendis' writing of Spider-Man because HE writes like an idiot man-child... but the general concensus around here is that we ALL agree that Bendis writes a bad Spider-Man...

Now, if Spider-Man uses a fart joke in battle, how is that different than ANY of the jokes Spider-Man has used in battle for nearly 50 years... Just because Spider-Man is a experienced super-hero doesn't mean that he's going to stop with the quick quips and funny banter... now in 2011, we can make fart jokes in comics where they were still inappropriate in 1991.

However, if you want Spider-Man to fight crime more like Batman, then maybe you should just read Batman. But the funnies are an essential part of Spider-Mn, so much so that he jokingly entertained the idea that his quips were another "weapon" that he could use while fighting crime. (see ASM #23)

Maybe the JMS Spider-Man was above fart jokes while he was battling Gwen & Norman's kids...

Then he's being unresponsible in bringing her into the dangers of his life without preparing her... which is also childish.

And that would include every super hero in comics that date people without revealing their identities.... methinks you're just being childish with these stupid responses to my valid points because you so desperately want to hold on to your beliefs as to why you cannot possibly ever enjoy a Spider-Man comic ever again.

Honestly, being unable to commit to a relationship IS childish. If you are holding onto issues that keep you from moving forward, as adults should be able to do, then yes, I find that akin to being a man-child. If he isn't ready to commit then don't lead Carlie on and don't lie to her... both of which are also childish.

Now compare that to 5 or 10 years ago when he was 100% open and honest with MJ, completely committed to her, and trusted her with every fiber of his being. You see the step backwards here?

Peter is in an unfortunate position of being unable to commit to NAYTHING because of his guilt-ridden drive to be Spider-Man... jobs, relationships, friends... and that never changed when he was with MJ... but now he's not with her, though he is still able to count on her for support when he needs her (read the last part of Spider-Island). Peter is not acting like a child here... he just wants his normal life pie and eat his Spider-Cake too... unfortunately, it can't work... and that's normal.

He was able to be honest with MJ because she knew his identity... and remember, it's not like HE TOLD HER FIRST. If she had never known, which was as bad (if not worse) a retcon than OMD in my opinion, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Peter - "Can I crash with you, Flash?"
Flash - "Dude, I'm banging Betty?"
Peter - "What's that mean?"

Peter - "Hey MJ, can I live with you?"
MJ - "You mean, like husband and wife?"
Peter - "Hey honey I'm home"
MJ - "Yeah right, like that could ever work. Haha, snort."
Peter - "Yeah, pretty stupid of me."


Not ringing any bells?

Yes... this was in ASM #648... a story that where Peter is between apartments... oooooh, that only happens to man-children...

Sheesh...

It doesn't matter that he's grieving. You gave no stipulations only that it had to be within the past two years. That was a very naive and childish thing for him to say and he's been through enough heartbreak to know better by now.

Are you serious?

See my answer above about your "childish" behaviour in wanting to hold onto something clearly near and dear to you...

Let it go man... be a grown up and let it go...

And technically, the Broke thing and the needing to live with someone else thing should really be separate. So By my count, I have 5.... go get yourself some crow.

Peter has ALWAYS been broke (with few exceptions here and there). In fact, I think he was using Mary Jane as his Sugar Moma for most of those marital years... and again, seriously, being broke is childish?

I'm going to tell all my bill collectors that I cannot pay this month because I am a man-child....

Gimme a break...

 

[Themanofbat]

Now I'll be fair TMOB, i think part of my problem is that I may not be used to this younger version of peter parker. I think when BND started, one of the mandates was that Peter needed to look and sound younger and therefore the writers and artists followed suit. But the thing is, i come from the era of J.M. Dematteis and his interpretation of Spiderman which was a more mature interpretation i think. And JMS had a similar style to Dematteis' so, I think i was just too used to this kind of spider-man.

But sometimes i do feel like the writers sometimes try too hard to make Spiderman into Deadpool, this slapsticky character who never shuts up. I never really saw Spiderman like that. Like on Avengers, its such a damn shame Bendis writes him the way he does. There was a time when everyone respected Spider-man because he was the undefeated champion of the marvel U. He's fought and beaten everyone including the likes of Captain America. Nowadays, he's just that annoying guy on the team who never shuts up.

But again, to be fair, thats just my personal taste i guess.

Don't forget about Roger Stern and Tom DeFalco. They were probably the 2 best spidey scribes of the 80's, and they also wrote the character with a more mature portrayal.

But most of the above writers still wrote Spider-Man as being quick with the quips and witty banter, especially Stern & DeFalco... with the exception of JMS (other than Spidey & Loki sharing a hot dog), who kept Spidey's "funnies" to a minimum... in my opinion.

Spider-Man is known for being the hero with the "funnies"... some current writers do it well (Slott, Wells), while others do it wrong (Bendis)

 

[runawayboulder]

Peter David too....

 

[JewishHobbit]

Now, if Spider-Man uses a fart joke in battle, how is that different than ANY of the jokes Spider-Man has used in battle for nearly 50 years... Just because Spider-Man is a experienced super-hero doesn't mean that he's going to stop with the quick quips and funny banter... now in 2011, we can make fart jokes in comics where they were still inappropriate in 1991.

I never said anything about jokes being childish... I specifically mentioned fart jokes which are pretty much universally accepted as childish. Nothing to do with inappropriate, it's immature.

Maybe the JMS Spider-Man was above fart jokes while he was battling Gwen & Norman's kids...

That was a darned good story save a scene or two. I'd read Sins Past over current Spidey anyday. And honestly, you act like Straczynski's run is what BND is to be rivaled with. The 90's run was my favorite and where I felt Peter hit his peak.

He was able to be honest with MJ because she knew his identity... and remember, it's not like HE TOLD HER FIRST. If she had never known, which was as bad (if not worse) a retcon than OMD in my opinion, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

A retcon so that a girl knows his identity or a retcon undoing 20 years of history and regressing the main star 20 years.... and you confuse these two as being comparable? Wow.

And that would include every super hero in comics that date people without revealing their identities.... methinks you're just being childish with these stupid responses to my valid points because you so desperately want to hold on to your beliefs as to why you cannot possibly ever enjoy a Spider-Man comic ever again.

Yes... this was in ASM #648... a story that where Peter is between apartments... oooooh, that only happens to man-children...

Sheesh...

Are you serious?

See my answer above about your "childish" behaviour in wanting to hold onto something clearly near and dear to you...

Let it go man... be a grown up and let it go...

Peter has ALWAYS been broke (with few exceptions here and there). In fact, I think he was using Mary Jane as his Sugar Moma for most of those marital years... and again, seriously, being broke is childish?

I'm going to tell all my bill collectors that I cannot pay this month because I am a man-child....

Gimme a break...

Someone has anger issues. You ask for something and I offer what, in my opinion, is potential suitable answers. Thus, you respond with insults and attitude. Is it because you're frustrated that people are criticising YOUR version of Spider-Man? To quote you...

Let it go man... be a grown up and let it go...

Fact is... if you recall... I'm not even one who complains about Peter being written as a Man-Child. My beef is character regression. You asked a question and a couple things came to mind so I thought I'd throw them out there. Don't get mad because someone attempts to answer a challenge you proposed... that's childish

 

[Themanofbat]

I'm not mad... I've been out for a few hours and had some time to reflect upon this conversation... I guess I'm more frustrated at what kguillou said...

In any event, I would like to clear up something...

The MJ knowing since the beginning retcon doesn't work for me because there's a LOT of stories that took place prior to ASM #257 where this clearly doesn't work... the biggest one happening in ASM #127 & 128, where Mary Jane witnesses a murder by the new Vulture and is afraid to tell Peter about it because she doesn't want to get him involved... it's so obvious that she doesn't know his identity, but we're suppose to "accept" that she knew from day One... there's also a scene in ASM #156 when Spidey enters the room to fight the Mirage and Mary Jane yells to all their friends "Hey! Where's Peter?".... if she knew his identity, then that's an awfully prick thing to do to your friend... lol

In any event, I'm expected to swallow 25 years worth of stories where some of them clearly COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AS PRESENTED.

You can throw the argument for the other way around with OMD, but that 20 year history DID happen as presented except that they read as a common-law couple instead of a married one... I know you'll argue semantics with me about that, but I can pretty much pick up ANY comic from 1987 to 2007 with the sole exception of ASM Annual #21 and I don't see anything where Mary Jane and/or Peter Parker act differently because of a retcon.

The only reason you call it "undoing 20 years of history" because it helps fuel the anger with what happened... but that history still exists... there have been comments in BND that support that continuity... whether you like it or not.

At the end of the day, we all like reading comic books... and if people don't like a particular book, in this case, ASM, then that's fine. But I would appreciate it if people just stopped making up BS about the book; ie, he's a man-child, he's childish, the stories didn't happen, etc... when clearly, that's just simply not the case in reality.

 

[JewishHobbit]

You can throw the argument for the other way around with OMD, but that 20 year history DID happen as presented except that they read as a common-law couple instead of a married one... I know you'll argue semantics with me about that, but I can pretty much pick up ANY comic from 1987 to 2007 with the sole exception of ASM Annual #21 and I don't see anything where Mary Jane and/or Peter Parker act differently because of a retcon.

The only reason you call it "undoing 20 years of history" because it helps fuel the anger with what happened... but that history still exists... there have been comments in BND that support that continuity... whether you like it or not.

At the end of the day, we all like reading comic books... and if people don't like a particular book, in this case, ASM, then that's fine. But I would appreciate it if people just stopped making up BS about the book; ie, he's a man-child, he's childish, the stories didn't happen, etc... when clearly, that's just simply not the case in reality.

It's undoing 20 years of written page history. We have to mentally edit nearly every issue since 1987 that mention husband or wife or wedding or anything that showed images of their wedding, etc. That's 20 years erased and rewritten as a What If uselessly. The only BS involved with that is that it even happened. It's100% fact. That is precisely what's happened with zero exageration and is grounds for any and every complaint people want to give it. Those complaints are current and justified for as long as the current status quo reflects the altering of the character's history.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Plus it means he and MJ were living in sin for all those panels Larsen and McFarlane loved to draw of the two of them in bed together.

 

[JewishHobbit]

Let's remember, if they were married during those panels they might have gotten pregnant. Thank Mephisto that MJ came to her senses and cut that off at the pass.

 

[Themanofbat]

It's undoing 20 years of written page history. We have to mentally edit nearly every issue since 1987 that mention husband or wife or wedding or anything that showed images of their wedding, etc. That's 20 years erased and rewritten as a What If uselessly. The only BS involved with that is that it even happened. It's100% fact. That is precisely what's happened with zero exageration and is grounds for any and every complaint people want to give it. Those complaints are current and justified for as long as the current status quo reflects the altering of the character's history.

Who's getting uptight now?

It's not written as a "what if" because I can pick any story... and it happened.... as presented... they were a couple... that's a given in all these stories.

But I can look at a LOT of MJ scenarios of yesteryear that does not make any sense if she knew identity.... now THAT's a rewritten what if...

Retcons are what they are... retcons... tehy will make the books of the past different with the retcon in question.

We all have to live with that in regards to any and all retcons that are created.

Again, if you don't like what they've done to the character, that's cool... nobody's twisting your arm to read the book... in fact, I'm kind of glad that you don't, because I would hate to read a negative review twice a month in the B/T threads... and at the en of the day, if it hurts you so much to read all those 90's Spider-Man comics, and the "oh the humanity" of having your heart ripped out of your chest when you even look at those old covers... then I'm happy you have moved on and that you can at least enjoy reading your X-books.

 

[Themanofbat]

Plus it means he and MJ were living in sin for all those panels Larsen and McFarlane loved to draw of the two of them in bed together.

Yes, because Peter was a virgin up until ASM Annual #21...

Spare me the biblical soapbox morality...

 

[JewishHobbit]

Who's getting uptight now?

It's not written as a "what if" because I can pick any story... and it happened.... as presented... they were a couple... that's a given in all these stories.

But I can look at a LOT of MJ scenarios of yesteryear that does not make any sense if she knew identity.... now THAT's a rewritten what if...

Retcons are what they are... retcons... tehy will make the books of the past different with the retcon in question.

We all have to live with that in regards to any and all retcons that are created.

Again, if you don't like what they've done to the character, that's cool... nobody's twisting your arm to read the book... in fact, I'm kind of glad that you don't, because I would hate to read a negative review twice a month in the B/T threads... and at the en of the day, if it hurts you so much to read all those 90's Spider-Man comics, and the "oh the humanity" of having your heart ripped out of your chest when you even look at those old covers... then I'm happy you have moved on and that you can at least enjoy reading your X-books.

Alright, agree to disagree. We'll just have to take our differences out on each other in Fantasy Football... where I win... when McFadden playes... which he isn't... which ticks me off.

Yes, because Peter was a virgin up until ASM Annual #21...

Spare me the biblical soapbox morality...

Well, Peter and Gwen never did it (per Peter's confession in that amazing classic, Sins Past) and he and MJ didn't have time prior to getting married because it was a rushed gimmick. So it's possible

 

[Themanofbat]

Back in 2000, my first ever post here on Spider-ManHype was about "when" Peter lost his virginity.

Two iconic moments came to mind between myself and the people I was debating this with... one was "off panel" at the end of ASM #99 with Gwen, but Pete's comments during the 00's classic Sins Past would now negate that incident... the other moment, which is the moment I will always consider when Peter lost his virginity, was at the end of ASM #149 when Peter and MJ have a moment as the door closes... in fact, I remember reading an interview with I believe it was Peter David in the mid 80's which it was THAT very moment that the Marvel staff (writers, editors, etc...) all considered to be the moment Peter lost his virginity... now purists will claim that if it was never mentioned in the comics, then it doesn't count... though I doubt in the fall of 1975 that you could actually state something like that in comics... and context of the story... Peter loses his one true love Gwen to the Goblin... Gwen comes back, messes with Peter's emotions, clones... when that story came to close, it would make sense that Peter would find that "release" with the woman who had taken over Gwen's spot in his heart... remember, they had that heavy kiss in 6 issues prior before Peter went to France.

You forget that Peter had proposed to Mary Jane once before in ASM #182 only to be rejected in the next issue, and then she leaves for 5 years (our time) before Roger Stern brought her back in the book in ASM #243... so Peter and Mary Jane were dating for a couple of years (our time) where they would have had plenty of time for the "doings"... especially if Marvel considers ASM #149 to be the first time...

 

[Themanofbat]

You may have beaten me in the regular season, but I'll win if we meet in the playoffs... where it counts baby... t: t: t:

 

[SpideyInATree]

How does liking fart jokes mean someone is a man-child?

Farts are freakin' hilarious. If you don't like fart jokes that generally means that you just don't have a sense of humor or you're one of those people "who are above fart jokes".

Give me a break. Everyone poops and it's hilarious.

 

[kguillou]

I think the general point here is that some of the current spidey writers do write Spiderman like he's 16 years old. Yes Spiderman is supposed to be a funny character who makes jokes, but I always saw it as more of a sophisticated wit rather than yelling out "oh poop!" or "yay! i love ninjas!!". Sort of like how Mark Waid is writing Daredevil right now. But again, thats just me. Zeb Wells got it right in Avenging Spiderman.

 

[JewishHobbit]

How does liking fart jokes mean someone is a man-child?

Farts are freakin' hilarious. If you don't like fart jokes that generally means that you just don't have a sense of humor or you're one of those people "who are above fart jokes".

Give me a break. Everyone poops and it's hilarious.

I must be above fart jokes then because I do have a sense of humor but find nothing funny about farts or poop, not since I was around 12 or 13 maybe.

 

[Spider-Gnome]

I think it really boiled down to, what era of spiderman you grew up in. Obviously Qeusada, Slott and all them grew up in the 'single' era of Spider-man and probably pined for that. People like me who grew up during the 80's/90's, obviously probably prefered the married spidey. To me, Peter and Mary Jane have been as synomous with each other as Clark Kent and Lois Lane.

This is not necessarily true. I grew up in the "single" era of the 70's and a was a big fan of the marriage! My actual 2nd issue of Amazing I ever got was #121, The Night Gwen Stacy Died. So, I started in what I call the post-Gwen 70's. I think that's why I am a big fan of Pete & MJ because I was there at the beginning.

my only major gripe with current spider-man comics is the way Peter is portrayed as a manchild.

Without going into the whole argument with you, TMOB, Hobbit, & others, the whole immature slacker thing was a product of BND. Yes, I hated it as Pete didn't even act like that when he was in high school!

Fortunately, Dan has gotten rid of this and has a great handle on the character. He might not be of the "married 90's" maturity, but he seems pretty much back to his "70's/80's" maturity.

2) Inability to trust and commit himself to Carlie (which is why she left him)

Think for a second of how much Pete went through to get his secret identity back! Now he's going to reveal it to a girl he's dated a year in real life (much shorter in comic time)? He's only revealed himself to one girl in the past, and that was Black Cat who could handle herself, not to mention how bad that went. He didn't even reveal himself to Gwen or MJ! And when Pete had Dr. Strange & Co. "put the genie back in the bottle," he decide to let MJ still know, and look how that turned out. It lead to or contributed to the current break-up that started with BND. So, I give him a pass on this (plus I didn't like Carlie anyway).

However, if you want Spider-Man to fight crime more like Batman, then maybe you should just read Batman.

100% Agree! This is why I hated the whole I Am The Spider/Peter No More stuff after robo-parents right before the Clone Saga of the 90's. It was an attempt to copy the popular Dark Knight image of Batman at the time. It does not work for the character.

But the funnies are an essential part of Spider-Mn, so much so that he jokingly entertained the idea that his quips were another "weapon" that he could use while fighting crime.

When I "discovered" Spidey in the early 70's courtesy of the 60's cartoon, aside from the costume, his making jokes while fighting bad guys was a BIG part of what made me love the character!

That was a darned good story save a scene or two. I'd read Sins Past over current Spidey anyday.

Don't! Don't even go there! That story was an abomination from the start!
EVERYTHING was wrong with the story! Joe Q & JMS, NEITHER gets a pass! Whether the father was Norman or Pete, it was WRONG! And Gwen willingly having sex with Norman? Kids growing up at an accelerated rate to have a confrontation? So forced. No defending this story.

You can throw the argument for the other way around with OMD, but that 20 year history DID happen as presented except that they read as a common-law couple instead of a married one... I know you'll argue semantics with me about that, but I can pretty much pick up ANY comic from 1987 to 2007 with the sole exception of ASM Annual #21 and I don't see anything where Mary Jane and/or Peter Parker act differently because of a retcon.

Sorry, 'bats, but I think OMD was a much bigger deal than MJ knowing Pete was Spider-Man since Amazing Fantasy #15. I agree, I don't like her knowing from the start and would have preferred she discovered it sometime in the continuity, maybe sometime in the 70's just before she left the series. But at least it didn't ignore a MAJOR EVENT in Spidey's CONTINUITY (the wedding) and had Pete make a deal with the devil to arrive at it. (See, there's that word - continuity )

which is the moment I will always consider when Peter lost his virginity, was at the end of ASM #149 when Peter and MJ have a moment as the door closes... in fact, I remember reading an interview with I believe it was Peter David in the mid 80's which it was THAT very moment that the Marvel staff (writers, editors, etc...) all considered to be the moment Peter lost his virginity... now purists will claim that if it was never mentioned in the comics, then it doesn't count... though I doubt in the fall of 1975 that you could actually state something like that in comics... and context of the story... Peter loses his one true love Gwen to the Goblin... Gwen comes back, messes with Peter's emotions, clones... when that story came to close, it would make sense that Peter would find that "release" with the woman who had taken over Gwen's spot in his heart...

Technically, that's just speculation. All I know, when I first read the comic at age 10, when Pete shut that door, Pete & MJ did a whole lot 'o kissing! That was it!

... remember, they had that heavy kiss in 6 issues prior before Peter went to France.

Did they really? (glances over to my avatar) t:

You forget that Peter had proposed to Mary Jane once before in ASM #182 only to be rejected in the next issue, and then she leaves for 5 years (our time) before Roger Stern brought her back in the book in ASM #243... so Peter and Mary Jane were dating for a couple of years (our time)

And plenty of history that would lead up to a marriage proposal and wedding, right...?

How does liking fart jokes mean someone is a man-child?

Farts are freakin' hilarious.

you, sir, are a man-child.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Don't! Don't even go there! That story was an abomination from the start!
EVERYTHING was wrong with the story! Joe Q & JMS, NEITHER gets a pass! Whether the father was Norman or Pete, it was WRONG! And Gwen willingly having sex with Norman? Kids growing up at an accelerated rate to have a confrontation? So forced. No defending this story.

Yeah, the story really was quite a mess overall. And it's sad to have had Sins Past after such a great run by JMS and JRJR.

 

[SpideyInATree]

you, sir, are a man-child.

I think we're all man children. Most here are grown men and women still reading Spider-Man comics.

Farts are still freakin' hilarious!

 

[JewishHobbit]

I like Sins Past as a story in itself. Yes, it was flawed and I hated that the sex between Gwen and Norman was consensual, and I hate that Mj kept it a secret the whole time, but for some reason I just really found the story heartwrenching and entertaining. I think the fact that it was also my first exposure to Deodato also helps my enjoyment of it.

 

[Themanofbat]

I like Sins Past as a story in itself. Yes, it was flawed and I hated that the sex between Gwen and Norman was consensual, and I hate that Mj kept it a secret the whole time, but for some reason I just really found the story heartwrenching and entertaining. I think the fact that it was also my first exposure to Deodato also helps my enjoyment of it.

Sins Past would have been much better if Norman actually "raped" Gwen...

I know that might not sound popular, but such a nasty villain as the Green Goblin would not be opposed to forcing himself on his enemy's loved one.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I like Sins Past as a story in itself. Yes, it was flawed and I hated that the sex between Gwen and Norman was consensual, and I hate that Mj kept it a secret the whole time, but for some reason I just really found the story heartwrenching and entertaining. I think the fact that it was also my first exposure to Deodato also helps my enjoyment of it.

Deodato's art was one of the few if any good things about the story, IMO. As I said, it was sad to see a story like that after the greatness that was The Book Of Ezekiel. Well, great, IMO.

 

[kguillou]

Sins Past would have been much better if Norman actually "raped" Gwen...

I know that might not sound popular, but such a nasty villain as the Green Goblin would not be opposed to forcing himself on his enemy's loved one.

I actually fully agree with that TMOB. On top of all the awful, evil crap Norman had done to peter's life, adding the rape of the love of his life would have been the icing on the cake and really solidified norman as an evil ****. Although, it definitely would've made the story very very dark and controversial, i can see why marvel wouldnt go down that route.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I'm 27 and not married, but I have several friends who are. They're pretty much the same married as they were before being married.

Thank you very much

I don't see the "I relate to the married person cause I'm married", or "Single is easier to relate to cause I'm single" due things like that, I'm still single and most of my favorite Spider-Man stories are of him with his wife, especially JMS written stories.

Marriage was a huge step up for both Peter and MJ, both grew up a great deal to get married, OMIT is crap in explaining why they are no longer married

Still, I won't say I don't like the recent stories, I enjoy them, and unlike most Spidey readers I actually like Carlie Cooper, think she has a decent personality, never warmed up to the idea of her becoming Peter's girlfriend

 

[Dan_Slott]

Peter - "Can I crash with you, Flash?"
Flash - "Dude, I'm banging Betty?"
Peter - "What's that mean?"

Peter - "Hey MJ, can I live with you?"
MJ - "You mean, like husband and wife?"
Peter - "Hey honey I'm home"
MJ - "Yeah right, like that could ever work. Haha, snort."
Peter - "Yeah, pretty stupid of me."

Haven't really been reading this thread, just skimming...
...but I wanted to point out that THIS, right here, is one of the really CHEAP shots that people take on the internet when they don't like something:
Paraphrasing a scene they don't like, telling it in their own voice, in the worst possible way.
I can't stand this practice, because (like a game of "telephone"/"Chinese Whispers") someone else ALWAYS thinks that that's the ACTUAL dialogue and/or scenario, and, like ripples in a pond, starts spreading that horribly rewritten version around the internet as if THAT'S what was in the book.

Look, if you're going to use quotation marks, can you please go to the extra effort of using the ACTUAL quotes?
If I'm going to be damned for bad writing, can it at least be my OWN and not YOUR version of it?

And for the Peter-looking-for-a-place-to-live beat...
Yeah. It IS tired and old. That was the POINT of that sequence.
It was Pete going "THIS AGAIN?!"
And, by the end of the issue, there's a resolve that that's NOT what the Big Time run was going to be about.
The thing that you're railing against is the EXACT reason why that sequence was in the 1st issue-- because the STORY was railing against it too.