Comics Marc Guggenheim's latest explanation for why some folks hate Brand New Day

[Jack O Lantern]

I do. It is you who I think does not. If I were to say to someone one the street "wrestling is a soap opera for men" they will undoubtedly think of my definition. That is, cheesy storylines with not much depth. They will not think of intersecting concurrent storylines or any of that nonsense.

WE can argue definition of "soap sopera" all we want. I'm telling you the way in which it was used in this thread. And that the way it was used in this thread is the way normal people react when "soap opera" is used to describe a storyline. Cheesy, bad drama, usually focusing on relationships.

If you don't agree with this everday useage of the word, that's fine, and kinda silly. But don't think that when we say "We don't want Soap Opera Spidey" we mean "we want all good drama gone". We are simply reffereing to what most people understand "Soap Opera" to mean in a coversation about storylines: Bad and Cheesy personal storylines.

That should not have been that complicated.

Oh sorry, I guess I'll go with the man in the streets defination of all words and phrases. I guess it is ironic when it rains when you're already wet.

 

[Themanofbat]

Sorry that was long and looked boring, but how do you find the time to comment in between making love to my dead mother and buring crosses in front of gay people's houses? You're a model of efficiency, hard weird creepy efficiency.

Hahaha... what a lazy response (Re: I cannot write an answer because you're right, TMoB)...

You're Mom and I do not make "love"... that implies emotion... something she is sorely lacking in... probably got the apathy from raising ******ed children.



But I'm no cross-burner... I thing you're confusing me with carnageehw... t: t: t:

 

[Jack O Lantern]

I already pointed this out several times that the only wrong opinion someone can have is to tell someone else they're opinion is wrong. It is ironic that you still can't see that. Or maybe sad.

Oh just for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something which it is either impossible to verify the truth of, or the truth of which is thought unimportant to the person. It is an assertion about something especially if that something lies in the future and it's truth or falsity cannot be directly established e.g. induction. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact.

(cues "the more you know" banner)

As I already stated, i know what an opinion is.

As for the rest of your points:

1. I only responded to your post, I only responded to your post. Let that sink in throughly. I don't know your board history and I don't care but when you say something stupid you'll get called on it. Just man up.

I have "man'd up" and debated with you, and beaten you. But you didn't just respond to my post. I said, I have a history of defending other people's opinions, you replied by saying, only when people agree with you.

2. I was just restating your opinion which you won't shut up about. I didn't tell you what it was, you keep stating it and I used it to compare and contrast our different OPINIONS (see def. above.) so you could see how something you find fundamental to the character isn't necessarily what I find fundamental (I know you probably don't understand that). I don't see why this is an issue for you

Well as I already proved by repodting my original post, that's not what i said. I said it was foundamental to the book, you change that and you change the book, not the character. So that's not my opinion, and it's not what I've been arguing about. So for you to continue arguing with me about what MY opinion is as you argue the merits of opinion is baffleing to say the least.

3. Hey that's cute using only a section of a wiki to augment your point. Just for giggles let's see what the whole def is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_opera

A soap opera is an ongoing, episodic work of fiction, usually broadcast on television or radio. Programs described as soap operas have existed as an entertainment long enough for audiences to recognize them simply by the term soap. The name soap opera stems from the original dramatic serials broadcast on radio that had soap manufacturers such as Procter and Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, and Lever Brothers as the show's sponsors.[1] These early radio serials were broadcast in weekday daytime slots when mostly housewives would be available to listen; thus the shows were aimed at and consumed by a predominantly female audience.[1]

The term soap opera has at times been generally applied to any romantic serial,[1] but is also used to describe the more naturalistic, unglamorous evening, prime-time drama serials of the UK such as Coronation Street.[2] What differentiates a soap from other television drama programs is the open-ended nature of the narrative, with stories spanning several episodes. The defining feature that makes a program a soap opera is that it, according to Albert Moran, is "that form of television that works with a continuous open narrative. Each episode ends with a promise that the storyline is to be continued in another episode".[3] Soap opera stories run concurrently, intersect, and lead into further developments. An individual episode of a soap opera will generally switch between several different concurrent story threads that may at times interconnect and affect one another, or may run entirely independent of each other. Each episode may feature some of the show's current storylines but not always all of them. There is some rotation of both storylines and actors so any given storyline or actor will appear in some but usually not all of a week's worth of episodes. Soap operas rarely "wrap things up" storywise, and generally avoid bringing all the current storylines to a conclusion at the same time. When one storyline ends there are always several other story threads at differing stages of development. Soap opera episodes typically end on some sort of cliffhanger.


^that doesn't sound like spider-man. Arcs wrap up, the comic isn't a tv show or radio show and it's not aimed at a predominately female audience. You confused drama with soap opera, and you just don't want to admit it.

Arcs do wrap up. But there are always stories running throughout different arcs. Like how right now Peter is having problems with his room-mate as well as being in a love pentagon right now. When the arcs are over those stories continue.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Hahaha... what a lazy response (Re: I cannot write an answer because you're right, TMoB)...

You're Mom and I do not make "love"... that implies emotion... something she is sorely lacking in... probably got the apathy from raising ******ed children.



But I'm no cross-burner... I thing you're confusing me with carnageehw... t: t: t:

Dear lord I just got tired of semantics with you and Jack, it's not like your shakespeare or anything. But if you think it's cause you're right, well that works you could probably use the boast of confidence right now.

She's dead dude, you're talking about ****ing an old dead chick. That's just gross. I don't mind, I find it flattering but make love, ****, whatever you want to call it you're still dipping TSMOTMOB into necro flesh.

Sure you are, you a gugg, go run some gays out of canada I think you'll feel better.

Final point, although you felt the need to call me and my siblings ******ed and make mother comments (which are the height of popularity now and you're in no way jumping on a horse ten years dead now) I haven't called you anything, just took your own comments to show what you are. Let that sink in, that I took the high road and still made you look like a jackass not that it's a hard job, you really do it to yourself.

 

[moraldeficiency]

As I already stated, i know what an opinion is.



I have "man'd up" and debated with you, and beaten you. But you didn't just respond to my post. I said, I have a history of defending other people's opinions, you replied by saying, only when people agree with you.



Well as I already proved by repodting my original post, that's not what i said. I said it was foundamental to the book, you change that and you change the book, not the character. So that's not my opinion, and it's not what I've been arguing about. So for you to continue arguing with me about what MY opinion is as you argue the merits of opinion is baffleing to say the least.


Arcs do wrap up. But there are always stories running throughout different arcs. Like how right now Peter is having problems with his room-mate as well as being in a love pentagon right now. When the arcs are over those stories continue.

just cause you say you know something doesn't make it so.

Maning up would be admitting when you're wrong and taking it like a man not arguing (or whining). You might have a history of doing plenty of things, I was just calling you out for ripping into styleshift for having an opinion. If you have a history of defending and allowing people to have their own opinions then all that does is make you a hypocrit as well.

I used what you said in your original post. You're just being difficult.

It's drama, not soap opera, you know you just made a mistake. It's not that big a deal, I admit being wrong all the time, try it people will respect your opinions better if they know you can be rational about yourself.

 

[Styleshift]

Sorry that was long and looked boring, but how do you find the time to comment in between making love to my dead mother and buring crosses in front of gay people's houses? You're a model of efficiency, hard weird creepy efficiency.

Thanks for trying to back me up while Happy Slip here tried to inform me that I was wrong about feeling that the social drama in Spider-man's relationships with women have been reduced to a nearly predictable state...

But you didn't have to resort to a personal attack to TMOB. When that happen's the debate becomes unprofessional and you might as well throw in the towel...

Oh, oh... my PMS must be acting up...

In your infinite wisdom, as underlined in the last paragraph, you state that "that doesn't sound like Spider-Man. "Arcs wrap up".

I want to point to you that the "arc" first appeared around the early 90's... possibly the late 80's,

What's up with this statement? lol. Arcs go back as far as the 70s??
You more than most of us should know that arcs go back as far as 60s. The earliest I can remember being the master planner.

and prior to that, we had sort of what was happening now... as per the definition above... "stories that work with a continuous open narrative. Each comic ends with a promise that the storyline is to be continued in another episode"...

That's never ever stopped....even Mackie's run had developing subplots and he's probably considered the worst writer on Spidey by fans. JMS even wrote developing subplots....love it or hate it, it was very well done. That one ghost dimension spidey story led into the shathra arc which led into the rejoining of Peter and Mary Jane.

Now, for obvious reasons, that's not always the case, but even with clean ended stories currently going on as well as the comics of yesteryear (which would be considered arguably the BEST times in Spider-Man's comic life), we have sub-plots that give the reader of an on-going sensation to make them want to come back and continue reading the never-ending saga. I could go back and re-read ASM #1 to 200 and it feels like one long never ending saga... or even Stern's run from ASM #229 to 251 feels like on big stories comprised of little stories with threads running through them. "Arcs", in my opinion, have been the downfall of comic books because they tend to lack any real character development... they just tell stories with a begining, middle, and end. Boring. But maybe you like that prosaic form of entertainment.

Not only did you just contradict yourself. You misused the term story arc. haha t:
A story arc is an continuing storyline in episodic storytelling media. you JUST said that yourself.

Another fine point that you being up (with the anti-soap opera sentiment) is that "the comic isn't a tv show or radio show".

However, in your own definition that you bring to the table, it states..."A soap opera is an ongoing, episodic work of fiction, usually broadcast on television or radio."

I'm not sure about you, but I would certainly consider a comic book an "episodic work of fiction".

And thirdly, you make the claim that Spider-Man cannot be a soap opera because soap operas are "aimed predominately to a female audience."

Yet again, in your same definition that you brought to the table, it further explains that "These early radio serials were broadcast in weekday daytime slots when mostly housewives would be available to listen; thus the shows were aimed at and consumed by a predominantly female audience." Well, that would be akin to saying that in the early Spider-Man comics (or all comics in general from the 60's), they were mostly targeted towards younger children and teenagers.... so any and all comics produced today must be made for a predominately younger audience.

Well, that's an obvious stupid statement, because times change, as well as the current television soap opera audience. So your points are just plain dumb.

In any event, I can't control your lack of thought process, so if you want to believe that Spider-Man is not soap opera-ish... by all means, go ahead. But anyone reading your post with my counter-points will know that you're wrong (at least, with the arguments that you brought to the table).

Gosh... I really do hate those PMS cramps...

Have a nice day.

its all in the use of terms.
Words can be twisted....as you have done, and they can be taken the wrong way....as Jack-o has....

No one's really wrong here. we just failed to properly communicate to each other, thats all.

 

[Themanofbat]

What's up with this statement? lol. Arcs go back as far as the 70s??
You more than most of us should know that arcs go back as far as 60s. The earliest I can remember being the master planner.

The Master Planner story was never an "arc" like we know them today... werely a 3 part story featuring Spider-Man trying to save Aunt May from the radioactivity in her blood given to her from a tranfusion in ASM #10 (the fact that the story starts from an old plot thread makes it "not an arc" as we know them from today's standards, which is typically a story unto itslef with a begining, middle and end with no character development whatsoever, merely a story to be told so as to sell it again later in tradepaperback format.

In the late 80's/early 90's, we started seeing things on comic book covers called "The Blah Blah Revenge PART 1 of 4"... these, in MY opinion, are the early beginings of what we now call "arcs". And whenever I bought a comic called "WHATEVER" part 5 OF 8, how boring was THAT? I already knew ahead of time that the story was NOT going to conclude...yawn...

That, my good sir, is what I refer to as an "arc". Hence, my initial statement.

 

[Themanofbat]

That's never ever stopped....even Mackie's run had developing subplots and he's probably considered the worst writer on Spidey by fans. JMS even wrote developing subplots....love it or hate it, it was very well done. That one ghost dimension spidey story led into the shathra arc which led into the rejoining of Peter and Mary Jane.

A lot of writers try to implement them, and JMS' run was mediocre at best, but his sub-plots were still fun, in my opinion.

Not only did you just contradict yourself. You misused the term story arc. haha t:
A story arc is an continuing storyline in episodic storytelling media. you JUST said that yourself.

My stupid canadian side must be showing... I fail to see the contradiction...

 

[Themanofbat]

Dear lord I just got tired of semantics with you and Jack, it's not like your shakespeare or anything. But if you think it's cause you're right, well that works you could probably use the boast of confidence right now.

She's dead dude, you're talking about ****ing an old dead chick. That's just gross. I don't mind, I find it flattering but make love, ****, whatever you want to call it you're still dipping TSMOTMOB into necro flesh.

Sure you are, you a gugg, go run some gays out of canada I think you'll feel better.

Final point, although you felt the need to call me and my siblings ******ed and make mother comments (which are the height of popularity now and you're in no way jumping on a horse ten years dead now) I haven't called you anything, just took your own comments to show what you are. Let that sink in, that I took the high road and still made you look like a jackass not that it's a hard job, you really do it to yourself.

You just suggested that I should run gays out of Canada... how is that not calling me anything? Again, in the aforementioned post, you call me a jackass...

Yep... you sure have taken the high road... unfortunately for all of us, you're still walking below sea-level.



In my 8 1/2 + years, I have reacted to people accordingly, so if I have chosen this path in my reactions to you, it's because I am reacting to anything that you probably said to me. However, I'm officially closing the book on my end in any non-civil discussions with you...

Cheers,

Mike

 

[shinlyle]

Man....this thread is still going on?!

 

[Themanofbat]

Man....this thread is still going on?!

Unfortunately... yes...



How's Lil'Gwen?

 

[Jack O Lantern]

just cause you say you know something doesn't make it so.

I know that, saying something that is factual makes it true

Maning up would be admitting when you're wrong and taking it like a man not arguing (or whining). You might have a history of doing plenty of things, I was just calling you out for ripping into styleshift for having an opinion. If you have a history of defending and allowing people to have their own opinions then all that does is make you a hypocrit as well.

What I thought his opinion was, is wrong. I thought he meant he wanted the soap opera taking out of Spider-Man. Now remember what soap opera is, it's not cheesy storylines, it is a format of story telling that Spider-Man has always followed, so instead of calling me names and hiding behind "Everybody is entitled to an opinion" why not tell how it wouldn't change the book? If you can convince me that chaning the format that Spider-Man comic books have followed for forty-five years, since Amazing Spider-Man 1, would not change the book at all then I'll admit I'm wrong. If you can't, then admit you're wrong.

I used what you said in your original post. You're just being difficult.

Again you're telling me what my opnion is and when I question you on what MY opinion is you tell me I'm wrong. How strange. But just for you here is how you are wrong.

My oringinal post:

But you're wrong. I'm all for the belief that everybody is equal and their opinions deserve the same merit. But in this instance you are simply wrong. Spidey is soap opera, that is what his book is about, that's what sets him apart. Saying you like Spidey but not the soap opera is saying I like Star Trek but not the sci-fic in it, I like the West Wing but not the polictics, The Spranos but not the mafia aspect.
If you want a superhero book without the soap oprea, read a different book.

I used bold and italics to help you out even more. Notice how I say BOOK, not CHARACTER.

Now here is you using my post to form your opinion of my opinion.

Is one of for the book? Absolutely, but it's one of many and not the core of the character in the slightest, at least not in my eyes. But now we're going from "THE core of the character" to "A core aspect of the comic book" and there's a world of difference between the two. The soap opera dynamic doesn't make Spider-Man stand out because it's used in a bunch of other books all the time. It isn't what makes Peter Parker stand out in the crowd. Not in the slightest.

Here I used bold and underline. Now in my first post it is clear that I'm talking about the BOOK and not the CHARACTER, I'm saying it twice so i don't have to say it again. You keep arguing about what is the core of the character, I never said what was at the core of the character. You know why because that is an opinion, how the book is formatted isn't. By the way, the bit I underlined is you agreeing with me.

It's drama, not soap opera, you know you just made a mistake. It's not that big a deal, I admit being wrong all the time, try it people will respect your opinions better if they know you can be rational about yourself.

No I have not made a mistake. You don't know what a soap opera is, I provided a defination, you ignored that and provided your own which was right but you interpeted it wrong as MOB has pointed out, you have not been able to counter his arguments. Stories don't get put into genres based on public perception, they get placed in genres based on the structure that they follow, Spidey is a soap opera, pretty much every writer and artist who have worked on the book say that. You didn't know what a soap opera was, admit your mistake.

I do admit mine, in this very thread I admitted I misinterpeted Styleshift opinion. You misinterpeted what i said, came in all high and mighty and continue to argue with me about what I meant in the first place. BTW here is another example of me admitting a mistake.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=14992415&postcount=1975.

This will be my last post on the matter because I don't feel like bing lectured by a guy who speaks of the right to an opinion while constantly telling me what mine is.

 

[Styleshift]

The Master Planner story was never an "arc" like we know them today... werely a 3 part story featuring Spider-Man trying to save Aunt May from the radioactivity in her blood given to her from a tranfusion in ASM #10 (the fact that the story starts from an old plot thread makes it "not an arc" as we know them from today's standards, which is typically a story unto itslef with a begining, middle and end with no character development whatsoever, merely a story to be told so as to sell it again later in tradepaperback format.

In the late 80's/early 90's, we started seeing things on comic book covers called "The Blah Blah Revenge PART 1 of 4"... these, in MY opinion, are the early beginings of what we now call "arcs". And whenever I bought a comic called "WHATEVER" part 5 OF 8, how boring was THAT? I already knew ahead of time that the story was NOT going to conclude...yawn...

That, my good sir, is what I refer to as an "arc". Hence, my initial statement.

Much better. lol

I'm glad we can accept each others opinion without it turning into something ugly.

So I've got you loud and clear now. When your referring to arcs your only talking about something like "The lazurus Project" Part one of three. Got ya.

One thing I do notice about the BND thing thats going on now that wasn't as prevalent during JMS' run. (in the beginning before the crazy Joe Quesada fueled events.) is that every writer on the braintrust has their own 3 issue arc. (with the exception of NWTD) and your right....it does become very boring and predictable. lol. (hope you just noticed I put down the almighty Brand new day within the context of one of your definitions. oh...words are fun.)

My stupid canadian side must be showing... I fail to see the contradiction...

Ah I was just screwin with ya. I wasn't really sure what you meant, so I just used the proper terms while assuming you were using them in another context. although I wasn't really sure.

A lot of writers try to implement them, and JMS' run was mediocre at best, but his sub-plots were still fun, in my opinion.

I liked the idea of toying with the magic totem crap at the beginning of his run. (I didn't like when it officially became the origin.) I think sins past was a good story although it did fall apart when he literally forced the characters out of character to meet the goal of the plot. After that it just went rolling down hill horribly....



I take your opinion of this arc at heart though, I don't blame you for not liking it. You were introduced to the character during his silver age era, so I fully understand why you embrace the new direction.

So I hope you'll understand why I think Brand new day is crap (one word: "drrrruuuugggs") why i think it is mediocre (Jackpot/carlie/lily) and why I think its really good. (New ways to die, which won't last forever....lol.)

 

[carnageehw]

Oh sorry, I guess I'll go with the man in the streets defination of all words and phrases.

I know this is sarcasm, but knowing how people use words in your society does come in useful.

I can't imagine you calling a metally challenged person "******ed" then trying to back out of it with "What? I just mean he's pysically developing later than his peers"