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

[Themanofbat]

Agreed. You can't make Batman light (again)
but you can make spidey single and immature again even if it means destroying continuity to do so.

I think we'll see that the continuity will stick within the next year (or less) and with the writers/editor that they have now, continuity will be more prevalent than ever.

 

[Styleshift]

But I'm not arguing that you have to prefer the soap opera to everything. I think it's the glue that holds everything together, that is my opinion but I'm not arguing that that is right and what you think is wrong. What I'm aruging is that you are wrong if you want the soap opera aspect taking out of Spider-Man. Peter's life should never again be messed up because he is Spider-Man. If you took out the soap opera would it be the same book, would it be the same charcter? No he would be a different character.

Oy...what is your problem dude? I DID NOT mean it that way.
Taking out ALL of the soap opera elements would reduce the book to a costumed slug fest. I was merely stating that they want to retread old grounds. I find that aspect of the reboot very annoying. Because we already know who the definite love interest is, they've lost the drama, any loyal fan won't feel any emotion for a new love interest beyond MJ. (Notice how much attention she got when she returned post OMD? Compare Mj to Carlie.) My whole point is why bother with all this when I can just read back issues where the story telling was much richer?

BND compares to nothing in the past....its still yet to be determined whether this will change but so far its just mediocre and nothing really to rave about.

 

[Styleshift]

I think we'll see that the continuity will stick within the next year (or less) and with the writers/editor that they have now, continuity will be more prevalent than ever.

I agree.
I see them returning it to full circle in 600.

but I don't think they will put everything back together as before (such as Peter being married, and Harry Osborn kicking the bucket.)

 

[moraldeficiency]

I'm guessing 666, myself. That's not a joke either, I really think that's when they'll finally have to give up and make Peter Parker a hero again.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Sorry I don't stalk you, and I can't say you've said anything that's really stood out to me except this nonsense. Defend everything you want, it still doesn't justify calling someone wrong for having an opinion that's different from your own.

Then don't make blanket statements like this:

You're all for that as long as they agree with you, when they don't you go:

He's not the same character right now, forget the soap opera aspect his core motivation of responsibility has been lost. He's a different, stupider and weaker character right now than he's ever been. But as long as there's a love triangle you're cool with it, I; however, am not. That's how differing opinons work.

Actually it's not. You see you start this paragraph with a statement, then you tell me I can only agree or disagree with it. Then you tell me my opinion, which is even what I believe in the first place.

No, I said I used to like star trek because of the excellent morality points. It still has the best explianation on the ridiculousness of racism ever made (the one with the people with split colored faces). I stopped caring when they went too far with the science and away from having a point. The best episodes in my opinion have little or nothing to do with the science other than as a means to get earthlings to interact with other beings.

But I'll go with you on that, star trek without the science. Change the show so instead of earthlings landing on other planets, the team is a group that deals with aliens landing on earth and interacting. Lose the holowhateverthehells and keep the meat of the story with the interactions. Actually I think that sounds better. Maybe then it wouldn't keep getting cancelled.

That is still sci-fi.

What's fundamentally important to you isn't always fundamentally important to others. If you changed an aspect of course the story changes, that's what change means but that doesn't mean the aspect others cared about isn't there. I mean look you're reading ASM right now and to me, it's just sickening to see how far my favorite hero has fallen. Joey Q changed something fundamental to the character in my eyes and now it's unreadable, but you like the new direction. See how that works?

How can you argue that soap opera is not a core aspect of Spider-Man? Because that is what this comes do to? I not talking about popularity, I'm not talking about what you prefer. I am talking about whether it is or isn't a core aspect of the character. Now if it is a core aspect then changing it would change the character [apparently Styleshift wasn't talking about doing, I was wrong about that] and that would be a matter of fact.

You seem to be hung up on this idea that people can like Spidey for different reasons and that certain reasons can have varying importance between readers, I never disputed that, so going back to that is pointless. But none of that changes the fact that the soap opera is one of the cores of the book.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Then don't make blanket statements like this:

You're all for that as long as they agree with you, when they don't you go:

I'm sorry I don't know or care about your message board history, really I am. And I'm sorry the only statement I was refering to was the one you made and defended about how other people's opinions were wrong. I'm sorry you feel this way, I'm sorry you felt the need to bold things. I'm very sorry you still don't know what an opinion is.

Actually it's not. You see you start this paragraph with a statement, then you tell me I can only agree or disagree with it. Then you tell me my opinion, which is even what I believe in the first place.

Do you really not understand how an opinion works? I wasn't saying you have to do anything at all, I was stating my personal opinion on the character now and how he's fundamentally different and no longer a hero. I was agreeing that the element is important and one of the more fundamental ones to Peter Parker, I was disagreeing that it is THE fundamental point in Spider-Man and the one thing that makes him unique.

That is still sci-fi.

Dear god, really with this? Ok you're technically right (the best kind of right) but you're miles away from the point or intent. Any fiction is going to have fictional elements, if it's a story about space it will have a scifi premise to launch the storyline but how much of that storyline is tied to the science fictional element and how much is tied to the actual plot is the difference. Take Firefly, it's technically a scifi show, but in my eyes it's a western because I view plot as key.

How can you argue that soap opera is not a core aspect of Spider-Man?

I'm not arguing at all, I'm stating an opinion that differs from yours. Again we're back to that troublesome word.

Because that is what this comes do to? I not talking about popularity, I'm not talking about what you prefer. I am talking about whether it is or isn't a core aspect of the character. Now if it is a core aspect then changing it would change the character [apparently Styleshift wasn't talking about doing, I was wrong about that] and that would be a matter of fact.

It's a core dynamic to the comic book, not to the character. Peter Parker's sense of responsibility is the core aspect of the character. You think it's the soap opera aspect I think it's motivation. I'm capable of respecting your OPINION on this as long as you don't make silly statements like, "My opinion is right and yours is wrong".

You seem to be hung up on this idea that people can like Spidey for different reasons and that certain reasons can have varying importance between readers, I never disputed that, so going back to that is pointless. But none of that changes the fact that the soap opera is one of the cores of the book.

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.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

I'm sorry I don't know or care about your message board history, really I am. And I'm sorry the only statement I was refering to was the one you made and defended about how other people's opinions were wrong. I'm sorry you feel this way, I'm sorry you felt the need to bold things. I'm very sorry you still don't know what an opinion is.

I don't expect you to know my message board history, however, I do expect not to comment on it if you don't know it

Do you really not understand how an opinion works? I wasn't saying you have to do anything at all, I was stating my personal opinion on the character now and how he's fundamentally different and no longer a hero. I was agreeing that the element is important and one of the more fundamental ones to Peter Parker, I was disagreeing that it is THE fundamental point in Spider-Man and the one thing that makes him unique.

You said that he was a weaker character and that I was cool with it. That's what you wrote. Here it is with a bit of bold.

He's not the same character right now, forget the soap opera aspect his core motivation of responsibility has been lost. He's a different, stupider and weaker character right now than he's ever been. But as long as there's a love triangle you're cool with it, I; however, am not. That's how differing opinons work.

I find it interesting that you're arguing about opinion why also telling me what I think.

It's a core dynamic to the comic book, not to the character. Peter Parker's sense of responsibility is the core aspect of the character. You think it's the soap opera aspect I think it's motivation. I'm capable of respecting your OPINION on this as long as you don't make silly statements like, "My opinion is right and yours is wrong".

I don't think the soap opera aspect is core to his character.

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.

No we're not going from the core of the charcter yo the core of the book. Here' my oringial post, read the bolded bit and then stop arguing because it's got to the point where you're arguing about the value of opinion and then telling me what mine is as well as what my argument is.

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.

You see how I was talking about the book and not the character.

 

[moraldeficiency]

I don't expect you to know mt message board history, however, I do expect not to comment on it if you don't know it





You said that he was a weaker character and that I was cool with it. That's what you wrote









I don't think the soap opera aspect is core to his character.




No we're not going from the core of the charcter yo the core of the book. Here' my oringial post, read the bolded bit and then stop arguing because it's got to the point where you're arguing about the value of opinion and then telling me what mine is as well as what my argument is.

Ok, fast and easy...

your history makes no difference, you made an ignorant statement and got called on it. Man up.

I don't get your second sentence.

You said "Spidey is soap opera, that is what his book is about, that's what sets him apart." I don't agree, I think Spidey is a morality tale about fighting through adversity for something more than yourself. That's what I believe sets him apart and what the book is really about. The soap opera thing is just one of many elements to the storyline.

I read what you said, it just didn't gel with my opinions and I would have left it at that if you didn't decide to explain to shift why his OPINION was wrong and yours was right. The soap opera aspect is just one of many basic aspects to the comic and not the main by any means (at least in my eyes), I don't see it as any more important than other aspects core to the book. It's certianly not what sets Spider-Man apart as these elements are found all over and many times more pronounced. It's in the motivations of Peter Parker that you find a truely unique story and outlook and that's why I used to buy the book. If all I cared about was a soap opera I'd just watch a soap opera and save money (or read X-Men for that matter).

I'll stop arguing (correcting you is actually a better term for it) if you go and look up opinion right now and then try to use the word better.

 

[carnageehw]

Peter Parker is an an everyman because he deals with everyday problems, like money, education, family, friends and women. That's what a soap opera is.

This is patently incorrect.

What you described is drama. Potentially great drama.

The use of "soap opera" describes an element of drama that heavily focuses on corney relationship issues, and shock-for-the-sake-of-shock surprises.

When we say we don't want the soap opera we are not saying we don't want everyday problems. That's the great drama where people can relate to Spidey.

"Soap Opera" problems are cheesy relationship issues. The type that are inevitable, because of the "no marriage" direction. The powers that be WANT drama. And when you want something, you force something that isn't natural. When you force something that isn't natural, you get cheesy, unrealistic, "soap opera" stories.

 

[carnageehw]

Oy...what is your problem dude? I DID NOT mean it that way.
Taking out ALL of the soap opera elements would reduce the book to a costumed slug fest. /quote]
Don't fall into the trap! Jack O lantern is talking about Drama. We all agree there should be drama.

Soap Opera drama is the bad, unrealistic drama that appears when characters are written into a box where they don't have room to breathe.

THAT'S what we all mean when we say we don't want soap opera drama.

So don't let him trick you by saying taking "soap opera" elements away from spidey ruins the book, because it's not true!

 

[farmernudie]

STYLESHIFT:

Has anyone realized Harry has been DIVORCED 3 TIMES??!!!

Wouldn't that age Peter??!

I really find it funny how if you watch really closely, alot of details in the book seem to age Spidey, yet they are trying to force him to act more like his younger self by making very immature decisions.

NWTD seems to be better about that...but I am sure once slott wraps up it'll return to "no...I will not be crushed by U!"

or "drrrrrruuuuuuuggggsss"

I am surprised Joe lets Pete hang out anywhere near HArry..that must age Pete way too much right there.

Yeh...in this new continuity, we've got degressed stuff everywhere, forced regression, altered history, and Pete the man-boy, yet Harry the mature thrice divorced never died cool dude.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Ok, fast and easy...

your history makes no difference, you made an ignorant statement and got called on it. Man up.

And I have debated you on it, but you made a blanket statement that you couldn't back up

I don't get your second sentence.

It's simple you told me what my opinion was, you told me that the character is stupid and irresponsible now and that I'm cool with it, now I've already reposted that paragraph for you so i won't do it again, it's there for all to read. You letcuring me on opinions while telling me what mine is.

You said "Spidey is soap opera, that is what his book is about, that's what sets him apart." I don't agree, I think Spidey is a morality tale about fighting through adversity for something more than yourself. That's what I believe sets him apart and what the book is really about. The soap opera thing is just one of many elements to the storyline.

I read what you said, it just didn't gel with my opinions and I would have left it at that if you didn't decide to explain to shift why his OPINION was wrong and yours was right. The soap opera aspect is just one of many basic aspects to the comic and not the main by any means (at least in my eyes), I don't see it as any more important than other aspects core to the book. It's certianly not what sets Spider-Man apart as these elements are found all over and many times more pronounced. It's in the motivations of Peter Parker that you find a truely unique story and outlook and that's why I used to buy the book. If all I cared about was a soap opera I'd just watch a soap opera and save money (or read X-Men for that matter).

This is for carnageehw as well.

I have to ask, to either of you know what soap opera means? Because right now I think you guys don't. Right now i think, that you think soap opera means crappy tv shows that are on every day, it doesn't. Here's an extract from wikipedia, I know it is not the best source of information but it's as good a defination as any/

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.

Do you see how changing that would change nearly everything about Spidey?

I'll stop arguing (correcting you is actually a better term for it) if you go and look up opinion right now and then try to use the word better.

Do I need to point out the irony of being told that I am wrong to call somebody wrong?

 

[Styleshift]

I am surprised Joe lets Pete hang out anywhere near HArry..that must age Pete way too much right there.

Yeh...in this new continuity, we've got degressed stuff everywhere, forced regression, altered history, and Pete the man-boy, yet Harry the mature thrice divorced never died cool dude.

Harry is now like the white rabbit in the matrix. FOLLOW THE WHITE RABBIT TO RESTORE YOUR CONTINUITY PETER!!! t:t:t:

 

[Styleshift]

Don't fall into the trap! Jack O lantern is talking about Drama. We all agree there should be drama.

Soap Opera drama is the bad, unrealistic drama that appears when characters are written into a box where they don't have room to breathe.

THAT'S what we all mean when we say we don't want soap opera drama.

So don't let him trick you by saying taking "soap opera" elements away from spidey ruins the book, because it's not true!

He never tricked me. lol.
For the most part I agree with him and he is right.

Spidey needs Soap Opera to work. If you take it completely out it will destroy everything that makes the character fun. unless your like 6 or 12 and just want to see a good slugfest. lol.

I was just making the point that destroying the marriage was NOT a fix for it.

We never lost the soap opera, they could tell as many stories with single peter as they could with Married Peter. (although Of course he can't get into bed with any woman.)

MJ accepted the part of Peters life that no other female would. Even Gwen. They've written themselves into a smaller box by wiping the marriage out because no girl will ever compare to Mj and we already know these two are now destined to never be together. (or so marvel says)

So in fact there is hardly any drama for this series since anything can be lazily "fixed" with a magic wand. when they wiped out the marriage they actually wiped out the soap opera. The Spider-man stuff will still work of course, but his relationships will never work again as a factor to create good drama.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

He never tricked me. lol.
For the most part I agree with him and he is right.

Spidey needs Soap Opera to work. If you take it completely out it will destroy everything that makes the character fun. unless your like 6 or 12 and just want to see a good slugfest. lol.

I was just making the point that destroying the marriage was NOT a fix for it.

We never lost the soap opera, they could tell as many stories with single peter as they could with Married Peter. (although Of course he can't get into bed with any woman.)

Which i agree with, my complaint to you was just a misunderstanding on my point.

MJ accepted the part of Peters life that no other female would. Even Gwen. They've written themselves into a smaller box by wiping the marriage out because no girl will ever compare to Mj and we already know these two are now destined to never be together. (or so marvel says)

So in fact there is hardly any drama for this series since anything can be lazily "fixed" with a magic wand. when they wiped out the marriage they actually wiped out the soap opera. The Spider-man stuff will still work of course, but his relationships will never work again as a factor to create good drama.

This I don't agree with. To us nobody may ever compare to MJ but to a new audience someone may.

 

[farmernudie]

Yeh, well, that's the problem, for a new audience to want Pete to marry someone else, besides his wife (MJ) they are going to have to get rid of MJ, because most of the audience IS aware he is still married to her, if not for magical devil deals.

And MJ herself, married or un-married is entrenched in Spidey lore as AUnt MAy is. So,y ou're either going to have her around farting around unaware she is married, dangling here and there while other girls are also dangled. Too much dangling really. It's all very MURKY now.

You see, You can't have the devil come in and say Aunt May was NEVER his aunt. (Well, joe COULD...but...)

And then bring in a bunch of substitute aunts.

Cheesy.

that's what they're doing now.

On top of that, Harry is VERY aged....not only is he not dead all these years, missing all these years, but thrice divorced. Which makes it more awkward next to pete the married newbie dating machine who can't remarry anyone, including his wife, tho he may date his wife possibly here soon depending on whether or not she remembers they're married and they dealt witht he devil who may have changed everything including continutiy and history or may not have if their are secrets deals they're now alluding to despite the devil deal that may get downplayed now.

Dumb.

 

[kguillou]

Plus, wasn't the reason that Norman came back and killed Peter's baby and ochestrated the whole clone saga because he thought Peter was responsible for Harry's death? SO...if Harry never died what's norman gonna say " Oh my bad for killing your baby and making you think you were a clone...we still cool homey?" lol

Then again Norman doesnt remember anything that he's done so i guess it doesnt matter.

 

[Miken Ayers]

Plus, wasn't the reason that Norman came back and killed Peter's baby and ochestrated the whole clone saga because he thought Peter was responsible for Harry's death? SO...if Harry never died what's norman gonna say " Oh my bad for killing your baby and making you think you were a clone...we still cool homey?" lol

Then again Norman doesnt remember anything that he's done so i guess it doesnt matter.

There's also been several times when Norman was alone that he acknowledged Harry's death and even visited his grave. Although bringing him back is stupid no matter how they try to spin it. Norman already came back, and bringing Harry back will make it that much easier to bring back say Jean DeWolfe or Gwen. So the only explaination I'll take is that's not really Harry. His eyes glowing red in NWTD makes me hope that maybe MAYBE I'm right.

 

[kguillou]

Hmmm, i wonder if Harry is still responsible for mary and richard parker clones that invaded peter's life? If so, does harry remember it? Heck does PETER remember it?? If Peter does, what does he think of Harry? I know if my best friend did something like that to me i would never ever forgive him, that was just plain evil what harry did to peter.

 

[Miken Ayers]

Hmmm, i wonder if Harry is still responsible for mary and richard parker clones that invaded peter's life? If so, does harry remember it? Heck does PETER remember it?? If Peter does, what does he think of Harry? I know if my best friend did something like that to me i would never ever forgive him, that was just plain evil what harry did to peter.

Without bringing Harry back I think it would be great if every so often another one of Harry's schemes that he couldn't hault due to dying would pop up. Just think of the beauty in that plot. Harry on the verge of death makes nice nice with Peter, but isn't able to stop the robots from coming in to his life and putting Pete through hell.

It also falls along the lines of Stan's mandate on Gwen dying. Do anything, BUT bring her back.

 

[carnageehw]

A

This is for carnageehw as well.

I have to ask, to either of you know what soap opera means? Because right now I think you guys don't.

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.

 

[Styleshift]

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.

Finally....someone understands me.
Very well put.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Do I need to point out the irony of being told that I am wrong to call somebody wrong?

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 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.

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

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.

 

[Themanofbat]

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.

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, 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"...

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.

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.

 

[moraldeficiency]

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, 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"...

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.

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.

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.