Comics Most annoying recent change?

What recent change in Spider-Man bugs you the most?

  • Costume

  • Organic webbing

  • Stingers/other powers

  • Behavior (Taking orders from Iron Man)

  • Living in Avengers Tower

  • Unmasking

  • Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)


Results are only viewable after voting.
Sloth7d said:
Add to this the fact that wolvy was hittin on spiderman's girl, and continues to. And the fact that Wolverine was shown beating up Atlanteans and how he regenerated from a skeleton.

Infact the ONLY time I saw spiderman get any respect lately is when he kapowed Wolvy out the window. But that was so long ago.

yup, the theory evolves. are you talking secret wars? I'm not sure I know of SM kapowing Wolvy out of any windows. other than when I use Spider-man to fight Wolverine in the marvel nemesis video game:woot:
 
Cyclops said:
His huge mistake there is in misinterpreting the criticism, as usual. We don't criticize his writing of NA Spidey as Ultimate Spider-Man because he's a jokester. Spider-Man is SUPPOSED to be a jokester. He was a jokester long before Ultimate Spider-Man was even conceived.

We criticize NA's Spider-Man because like Ultimate Spider-Man, he's a bumbling fool. He's Dick Van Dyke in Spider-Man's clothes. Where Matt Murdock is whupping up on Mr. Hyde and Carnage, Spider-Man is unmasked and then arm-broken by friggin' JIGSAW. It's that we're supposed to believe that Luke Cage is so much better at this than Spider-Man.

It wasn't supposed to be Jigsaw. Finch accidentally drew Jigsaw in there.

How about this? I'll have 60 bloody thirsty criminals grab you and pull you down to them and see how long it takes before they snap your arm. Just to do a little experiment, you know. And you forgot the part where Spider-Man creates a web sling and continues to fight on because he's tough like that.

But, yeah, I guess if I were constantly complaining about every single little tiny detail that I don't agree with I'd probably continually focus on the negatives of everything.
 
SpideyInATree said:
How about this? I'll have 60 bloody thirsty criminals grab you and pull you down to them and see how long it takes before they snap your arm. Just to do a little experiment, you know. And you forgot the part where Spider-Man creates a web sling and continues to fight on because he's tough like that.

But, yeah, I guess if I were constantly complaining about every single little tiny detail that I don't agree with I'd probably continually focus on the negatives of everything.

lol! :D
 
SpideyInATree said:
It wasn't supposed to be Jigsaw. Finch accidentally drew Jigsaw in there.

How about this? I'll have 60 bloody thirsty criminals grab you and pull you down to them and see how long it takes before they snap your arm. Just to do a little experiment, you know. And you forgot the part where Spider-Man creates a web sling and continues to fight on because he's tough like that.

But, yeah, I guess if I were constantly complaining about every single little tiny detail that I don't agree with I'd probably continually focus on the negatives of everything.

how can ANYONE be so wrong. So off base. miss the point so completely JEEEZUS
I'm tempted to try to explain but you know what, I KNOW it won't make ANY difference at this point.
but man...
 
HoratioRome said:
how can ANYONE be so wrong. So off base. miss the point so completely JEEEZUS
I'm tempted to try to explain but you know what, I KNOW it won't make ANY difference at this point.
but man...

Maybe to YOU I'm wrong. But how can I be wrong? Did you not read the story? Or did you not read the interview with David Finch where he apologized over and over for accidentally putting in Jigsaw because every Avengers fan and Spider-Man fan was *****ing up a storm as if he were the anti-christ? :huh:

Yeah, but I'm wrong.
 
I think the point being made, is that most of the villains that Spidey took on, were not of the metahuman variety. It would take an innumerable number of men, to lift ten tons....but it only takes one Spider-Man. He shouldn't have been so easily brought down by a gang of mostly costumed thugs. There were a few b-listers who could be a threat, but it wasn't like he was fighting electro or doc ock. It as b-listers and no faces. It was only made worst when the Daredevil easily took on Carnage without being slaughtered, where as Venom and Spider-Man teamed up, have a hell of a time taking him down. The two of them are so many times more powerful than Daredevil, that it's absolutely ridiculous. At least I can assume that is the point that Horatio is getting at. Personally, I didn't mind, because New Avengers is actually a really good book. And Spidey's arm healed in a day. So I wasn't riled up about it.
 
Arach Knight said:
I think the point being made, is that most of the villains that Spidey took on, were not of the metahuman variety. It would take an innumerable number of men, to lift ten tons....but it only takes one Spider-Man. He shouldn't have been so easily brought down by a gang of mostly costumed thugs. There were a few b-listers who could be a threat, but it wasn't like he was fighting electro or doc ock. It as b-listers and no faces. It was only made worst when the Daredevil easily took on Carnage without being slaughtered, where as Venom and Spider-Man teamed up, have a hell of a time taking him down. The two of them are so many times more powerful than Daredevil, that it's absolutely ridiculous. At least I can assume that is the point that Horatio is getting at. Personally, I didn't mind, because New Avengers is actually a really good book. And Spidey's arm healed in a day. So I wasn't riled up about it.

Not to mention the fact that as the premier marvel superhero it is a rape to put him in the damsel in distress position, or the fact that Cyclops' point wasn't only about that single instance but rather the general treatment of the character, and ,....................ahh forget it. he won't get it.
 
SpideyInATree said:
It wasn't supposed to be Jigsaw. Finch accidentally drew Jigsaw in there.

How about this? I'll have 60 bloody thirsty criminals grab you and pull you down to them and see how long it takes before they snap your arm. Just to do a little experiment, you know. And you forgot the part where Spider-Man creates a web sling and continues to fight on because he's tough like that.

But, yeah, I guess if I were constantly complaining about every single little tiny detail that I don't agree with I'd probably continually focus on the negatives of everything.

So what? It still turned out being Jigsaw. Intentions regardless, that's who broke his arm. With his bare hands.

And you forgot the part that if I were to be in the situation, I would have to have the powers and experience of Spider-Man. And the powers and experience of Spider-Man say that I likely wouldn't have just dove into a vat of super-criminals in the first place.

Which just supports my argument of Bendis writing Spider-Man like a total rookie.
 
HoratioRome said:
how can ANYONE be so wrong. So off base. miss the point so completely JEEEZUS
I'm tempted to try to explain but you know what, I KNOW it won't make ANY difference at this point.
but man...

HoratioRome said:
Not to mention the fact that as the premier marvel superhero it is a rape to put him in the damsel in distress position, or the fact that Cyclops' point wasn't only about that single instance but rather the general treatment of the character, and ,....................ahh forget it. he won't get it.

Hmmmm...just a tad condescending, don't ya think?

I'm gonna tell an off-topic story so bear with me:

When I graduated from high school (this was like 4 years ago), me and two of my good friends decided to go to the same college. However, within the first week, one of my friends wasn't hanging out with us anymore for no explainable reason (God must've written him "out of character" that year :woot: ). Within the first week, he was very curt to us and tried to fit in with other groups (which didn't end up working out too well for him, it's our senior year and he doesn't have any roommates :yay: ).

The other friend of mine was still entangled with his two month relationship, his first real relationship with a girl, from high school. After our freshman year, he ends up transferring out of our college to go to Long Beach State (his gf's college). He used to brag about his visits to LB when he still went to our school and gush on and on about how the dorm food was better, the buildings were nicer, the city was cooler. Ironically, he broke up with her a few months later. Now he visits us all the time and complains about how the buildings are worse, the city was lamer and WAY more ghetto, and how alone he now is.

Both of these friends were acting differently than from our regular "continuity". These situations never happened before and I learned more about my friends (and myself) when the situations presented themselves.

When I broke up with my first girlfriend, I entered a "slump" in my life and for about a year I wasn't acting the way people were used to or with the confidence I used to have. I had to rediscover the things about myself that I liked while keeping the new things I learned as well before I could "regain form" (someone watch "Swingers" god damnit!).

People change. Sometimes they return to bad habits they used to have.
Sometimes they turn a new leaf. Sometimes they hit a rough patch. And almost ALL of us act "out of character" all the ****ing time. No one is THAT congruent with their own sense of identity all the time except really confident people. Case in Point: I'm gonna ass-u-me that most men who regularly frequent a comic book message board (heck, most MEN) aren't completely congruent. Example: You might be super funny, lewd, and fun around your guy buddies, but when a semi-pretty girl comes around you change your tune. :cwink:

And if there's one thing Marvel wants us to know, it's that Peter Parker isn't an alpha male. He's supposed to be a loser. While I don't agree with this, don't be surprised to see them turn him to a whipped sissy around other heroes. Cause if he was REALLY cool and confident, then half of you would be complaining about how he's changed from the lovable dork we grew up with. He would supposedly lose his relatability or "everyman" status. Why do you think editorship is so insistent on getting rid of MJ? They wanna write Peter having girl troubles (which you can probably relate to) and not having a loving, stable relationship with a girl who's out of his league (which you probably CAN'T relate to, but again ass-u-me).

Either way, I don't think most of the hardcore critics will EVER be happy.

Chris Wallace said:
I really don't think they are looking at it from our point of view. Theirs seems to basically be "Something new-great!" while ours is as you described. In order to effectively debate, one must be receptive to the other side's argument.

I don't think most of "us" are thinking that way (at least I'm not). When my good friends were acting "out of character", I was appalled and a little more than annoyed. But you don't see me now saying anything to the effect of "why aren't X and Y acting the way I expect" or "Things were only good the way they used to be". My situation is better than before and very different.

I think a lot of changes in comics (and *cliche alert!* life) are annoying it's just that I'm willing to rationalize the change and roll with the punches. Cause if you stand really still and hold your ground over relative nothings (Spidey is an Avenger! ewwww I'm never reading Spidey again! I'll make you PAY JOSE QUESADA!)), then those punches are gonna break your face. Sure, I understand standing your ground against RADICALLY bad changes (and honestly, the last time something truly "radical" happened was when Peter was a clone) but it seems like most of the Spidey fans on these boards are "sitting on the edge of their seat" just waiting to drop the titles. DO IT! Don't be masochistic! And if you wanna still see what's going on then that's cool but just don't be so quick to place judgement on something you haven't actually read.

People are complaining and complaining about CW and ASM but they keep subscribing. "I can't turn away from a trainwreck", they say. Whatever man. Deep down, y'all love it. It just seems to be comic board etiquette to say "That's gay" because it's sooo much dorkier to say "Man, that was so awesome when Spidey grabbed Rhino by the horn and...." etc.

ARRRRGGGHHH!!!! I need to stop typing! This coffee isn't helping!!!!

:hyper: :hyper: :hyper:

And that's a rape. Wait....it is a rap. No wait....it is a rape. Ah yes....
 
freemadison said:
Hmmmm...just a tad condescending, don't ya think?
that was kinda the point
I'm gonna tell an off-topic story so bear with me:

When I graduated from high school (this was like 4 years ago), me and two of my good friends decided to go to the same college. However, within the first week, one of my friends wasn't hanging out with us anymore for no explainable reason (God must've written him "out of character" that year :woot: ). Within the first week, he was very curt to us and tried to fit in with other groups (which didn't end up working out too well for him, it's our senior year and he doesn't have any roommates :yay: ).

The other friend of mine was still entangled with his two month relationship, his first real relationship with a girl, from high school. After our freshman year, he ends up transferring out of our college to go to Long Beach State (his gf's college). He used to brag about his visits to LB when he still went to our school and gush on and on about how the dorm food was better, the buildings were nicer, the city was cooler. Ironically, he broke up with her a few months later. Now he visits us all the time and complains about how the buildings are worse, the city was lamer and WAY more ghetto, and how alone he now is.

Both of these friends were acting differently than from our regular "continuity". These situations never happened before and I learned more about my friends (and myself) when the situations presented themselves.

When I broke up with my first girlfriend, I entered a "slump" in my life and for about a year I wasn't acting the way people were used to or with the confidence I used to have. I had to rediscover the things about myself that I liked while keeping the new things I learned as well before I could "regain form" (someone watch "Swingers" god damnit!).

People change. Sometimes they return to bad habits they used to have.
Sometimes they turn a new leaf. Sometimes they hit a rough patch. And almost ALL of us act "out of character" all the ****ing time. No one is THAT congruent with their own sense of identity all the time except really confident people. Case in Point: I'm gonna ass-u-me that most men who regularly frequent a comic book message board (heck, most MEN) aren't completely congruent. Example: You might be super funny, lewd, and fun around your guy buddies, but when a semi-pretty girl comes around you change your tune. :cwink:

And if there's one thing Marvel wants us to know, it's that Peter Parker isn't an alpha male. He's supposed to be a loser. While I don't agree with this, don't be surprised to see them turn him to a whipped sissy around other heroes. Cause if he was REALLY cool and confident, then half of you would be complaining about how he's changed from the lovable dork we grew up with. He would supposedly lose his relatability or "everyman" status. Why do you think editorship is so insistent on getting rid of MJ? They wanna write Peter having girl troubles (which you can probably relate to) and not having a loving, stable relationship with a girl who's out of his league (which you probably CAN'T relate to, but again ass-u-me).

Either way, I don't think most of the hardcore critics will EVER be happy.

that was a very interesting and well written post. nice job. But I think you fail to realize something. You were seeing your friend's change from the outside, and that is why you didn't see, or understand the change in their behavior. Case in point, YOUR behavior change was rooted in things that happened to you. you didn't just go from confident to not confident out of the blue. If you read my thread carefully I stated, "(unless the story incorporates within it the change in personality)"
This means that I am taking into account that events may occur which change our personalities or capabilities from A to B. Remember, a writer isn't on the outside of the character he's writing. Unlike you, he can't say "I don't know why he's acting that way". in fact it is his job to let us in and explain why the character does what he does. We see his inner thoughts and his most private moments. unlike you with your friends.

Look quick example. People sometimes change their legal names right? So a writer can reasonably create another name for a character. Instead Peter Parker he could make it john smith, or bob jones. It would be a significant change, but certainly a realistic change. BUT in order to do so, he must show the reader that Peter Parker changed his name and give us a reasonable explanation why.

If he just decides to change the name with no explanation, we just go from PP, in issue 422 to John smith in issue 423, THAT would make no sense whatsoever. It would be inconsistent and He would be wrong. It would be like if your friend was suddenly a different race.

If you want to write the flagship, premier hero of the MU as a rookie, you MUST provide us with a reasonable explanation as to how that could be.
If you want to have him voluntarily unmask, it is your job to take into account that the discovery of his identity is perhaps the most precious, dangerous, sensitive thing about him for most of his life .

failure to do so is a huge mistake.



I don't think most of "us" are thinking that way (at least I'm not). When my good friends were acting "out of character", I was appalled and a little more than annoyed. But you don't see me now saying anything to the effect of "why aren't X and Y acting the way I expect" or "Things were only good the way they used to be". My situation is better than before and very different.
are you sure you didn't think that,....just a little?
I think a lot of changes in comics (and *cliche alert!* life) are annoying it's just that I'm willing to rationalize the change and roll with the punches. Cause if you stand really still and hold your ground over relative nothings (Spidey is an Avenger! ewwww I'm never reading Spidey again! I'll make you PAY JOSE QUESADA!)), then those punches are gonna break your face. Sure, I understand standing your ground against RADICALLY bad changes (and honestly, the last time something truly "radical" happened was when Peter was a clone) but it seems like most of the Spidey fans on these boards are "sitting on the edge of their seat" just waiting to drop the titles. DO IT! Don't be masochistic! And if you wanna still see what's going on then that's cool but just don't be so quick to place judgement on something you haven't actually read.
the key word here is relative. what you consider nothing may be everything to someone else.
People are complaining and complaining about CW and ASM but they keep subscribing. "I can't turn away from a trainwreck", they say. Whatever man. Deep down, y'all love it. It just seems to be comic board etiquette to say "That's gay" because it's sooo much dorkier to say "Man, that was so awesome when Spidey grabbed Rhino by the horn and...." etc.

ARRRRGGGHHH!!!! I need to stop typing! This coffee isn't helping!!!!

:hyper: :hyper: :hyper:

And that's a rape. Wait....it is a rap. No wait....it is a rape. Ah yes....

for the record i have not bought a new title in 5 years or so. i refuse to, so I'm not one of those you mention. I keep up with my reading so that I know what I'm talking about, but once I'm done seeing their treatment of SM, I put the book back and move on.
 
HoratioRome said:
that was kinda the point

I know, I was simply kindly pointing that out.

HoratioRome said:
that was a very interesting and well written post. nice job.

thank you

HoratioRome said:
But I think you fail to realize something. You were seeing your friend's change from the outside, and that is why you didn't see, or understand the change in their behavior. Case in point, YOUR behavior change was rooted in things that happened to you. you didn't just go from confident to not confident out of the blue. If you read my thread carefully I stated, "(unless the story incorporates within it the change in personality)"
This means that I am taking into account that events may occur which change our personalities or capabilities from A to B. Remember, a writer isn't on the outside of the character he's writing. Unlike you, he can't say "I don't know why he's acting that way". in fact it is his job to let us in and explain why the character does what he does. We see his inner thoughts and his most private moments. unlike you with your friends.

Look quick example. People sometimes change their legal names right? So a writer can reasonably create another name for a character. Instead Peter Parker he could make it john smith, or bob jones. It would be a significant change, but certainly a realistic change. BUT in order to do so, he must show the reader that Peter Parker changed his name and give us a reasonable explanation why.

Of course. In the analogy I used about my own personal problems. When I was in a "slump" it seemed out of the blue to people outside of myself, yet my problems were slowly building up and weren't non sequitur internally. You are correct that it's the writers job because he can create the internal perspective that we can only comment on. However, I feel that in MANY instances, the writers make attempts to do so, especially when you view broader continuity.

For example, when people complain about how Spidey is perceived as a rook in NA (which is very valid) they simply attribute it to bad writing.
But here's a quote from Millar's second issue on MK after he snapped at the pre-Disassembled Avengers.

"Mary Jane says I've got a really bad attitude when I'm around other super heroes, but how can I spill my guts to some guy that built a helmet so he could talk to ants.

The truth is that being around super jocks just makes me feel like I'm back in high school again and looking at everyone through thick glasses lenses.

Why am I only truly comfortable when I'm surrounding myself with Freaks?"

*cut to him beating up some of the Owl's goons*

That seems like proper characterization to me. Explains to a degree, his "newb"-ness. Yet at the same time, his acceptance of NA made perfect sense to me as well. There is very little reason for Peter to say no. Especially when he feels accepted (and wanted) by one of his idol's (Uncle Ben) idols.

HoratioRome said:
If you want to write the flagship, premier hero of the MU as a rookie, you MUST provide us with a reasonable explanation as to how that could be.
If you want to have him voluntarily unmask, it is your job to take into account that the discovery of his identity is perhaps the most precious, dangerous, sensitive thing about him for most of his life .

failure to do so is a huge mistake.

See above. Obviously some reasoning writers provide is faultier than others. But that's the way we are many times as well. Sometimes Peter's (the writer's) logic is very fallible and human but since it was written I can't pretend that Peter didn't make the decisions he did. Unmasking was a lapse of judgement, however, I didn't feel like it was out of character. If the casual fan knows that Peter's secret is important, then certainly the author of the flagship title knows this as well. As much as I think the unmasking is dumb, I can still see how it fits into his character.

Peter's never been in a situation like this before. Being on a team considered the "world's mightiest heroes", having his aunt privvy to his secret, befriending other heroes and living in the Avengers tower. That's new territory. We can't refer back to older stories and say he'd never reveal his identity because the aforementioned points weren't applicable. And whether or not I can accept it as plausible (and I do), I can still sit back and enjoy reading these unmasking stories because I know that I want to see these stories told and that at some point it'll all be reversed at a whim. Nothing is ever permanent in comics and I embrace that.

HoratioRome said:
are you sure you didn't think that,....just a little?

I didn't say that I didn't think about it. I'm saying that now that some time has passed I am easily over it. Sweat off my nuts. Of course, initially I'm gonna react to change but then I embrace the change and use it to my advantage. If there's a small mischaracterization, I'll acknowledge it but most of the time I won't let it deter me from enjoying the story. That would be doing myself a disservice.

HoratioRome said:
the key word here is relative. what you consider nothing may be everything to someone else.

That's true, but clearly the the two moments that lead to an exodus of fans were the Clone Saga and Chapter One. Ever since those events, it's been a constant *****-fest from the fans. I think that many fans (akin to a whiny child with a whipped parent) now feel like they have more power and that Marvel will bend to their will. I also think that's why a lot of people hate JQ. He doesn't bend too often or easily. I don't like him much either but at least the MU has been kinda exciting lately. Although there are many problems with Spider-Man and many of the points made by fans are very valid, IMO I feel like Marvel is at least trying to go in the right direction. Whether you agree or not, Spidey hasn't been this interesting in YEARS.

HoratioRome said:
for the record i have not bought a new title in 5 years or so. i refuse to, so I'm not one of those you mention. I keep up with my reading so that I know what I'm talking about, but once I'm done seeing their treatment of SM, I put the book back and move on.

Well that's good and healthy. But if it's not for you, then why scream, moan, and insult others who disagree?
 
HoratioRome said:
Not to mention the fact that as the premier marvel superhero it is a rape to put him in the damsel in distress position, or the fact that Cyclops' point wasn't only about that single instance but rather the general treatment of the character, and ,....................ahh forget it. he won't get it.

So, because Spider-Man is the "premiere Marvel Superhero" that means that every situation means he HAS to ALWAYS be right? He has to ALWAYS make the CORRECT decisions? No offense, but to me that's never been the point of Spider-Man, OR Peter Parker. He is representing the everyman. Outside of the ficitional world of the Marvel Universe Spider-Man is the big man on campus, his movies outsell everyone elses and EVERYONE knows who Spider-Man is, even non-comic readers.

In the FICTIONAL Marvel Universe Spider-Man is NOT the most powerful. He is NOT the smartest. He's just the everyman with above average intelligence who happened to get bit by a radioactive spider. That's IT! The appeal is that Peter Parker could have been ANYONE OF US!

And some people seem to be confusing the reality with the fantasy.

But, yeah, I won't get it because YOU'RE right about EVERYTHING and I'm wrong about EVERYTHING. :whatever:

So what? It still turned out being Jigsaw. Intentions regardless, that's who broke his arm. With his bare hands.

And you forgot the part that if I were to be in the situation, I would have to have the powers and experience of Spider-Man. And the powers and experience of Spider-Man say that I likely wouldn't have just dove into a vat of super-criminals in the first place.

Which just supports my argument of Bendis writing Spider-Man like a total rookie.

You don't NEED to have superpowers. Many of those villains were more powerful than Spider-Man and many were weaker than Spider-Man. Just like there are men in jail who are stronger than you would be and weaker than you would be.

A bunch of people get a hold of you and you're going to get ripped apart.

And I disagree, he's not writing Spider-Man like a rookie.
 
freemadison said:
Of course. In the analogy I used about my own personal problems. When I was in a "slump" it seemed out of the blue to people outside of myself, yet my problems were slowly building up and weren't non sequitur internally. You are correct that it's the writers job because he can create the internal perspective that we can only comment on. However, I feel that in MANY instances, the writers make attempts to do so, especially when you view broader continuity.

For example, when people complain about how Spidey is perceived as a rook in NA (which is very valid) they simply attribute it to bad writing.
But here's a quote from Millar's second issue on MK after he snapped at the pre-Disassembled Avengers.

"Mary Jane says I've got a really bad attitude when I'm around other super heroes, but how can I spill my guts to some guy that built a helmet so he could talk to ants.

The truth is that being around super jocks just makes me feel like I'm back in high school again and looking at everyone through thick glasses lenses.

Why am I only truly comfortable when I'm surrounding myself with Freaks?"

*cut to him beating up some of the Owl's goons*

That seems like proper characterization to me. Explains to a degree, his "newb"-ness. Yet at the same time, his acceptance of NA made perfect sense to me as well. There is very little reason for Peter to say no. Especially when he feels accepted (and wanted) by one of his idol's (Uncle Ben) idols.

You see that comment IMHO can only be made by a writer who thinks he knows Spider-man but actually doesn't. Or perhaps a writer who chooses to highlight a particular aspect of the character which he likes, regardless of continuity. IOW, the writers are interpreting the character as THEY see him rather than as he is. This statement seems to make sense because once upon a time PP was a geek who was intimidated by jocks. But Please understand that that was over a LONG LONG time ago. Peter stopped being the nerd, a long time ago. In fact he became quite "hot" to girls, and certainly no longer intimidated by any bully. And I'm not just talking about childhood bullies/jocks, I'm talking about the equivalent of that in the super powered world. What do you think most of his enemies were if not bullies and jocks? The true aspect of PP's character is that once he got his powers he enjoyed giving back some of what he got. he liked to put the jocks in their place and kicked their asses to some extent. this was evident in his first meeting with the Avengers, where he basically told them he was unimpressed, said he had no interest in joining their group, and proceeded to get into a fight with all of them. Given THAT, and given the many years of history where SM fought alongside pretty much EVERYONE, Mr. F, Ant man, Thor, the Avengers, etc etc. and fought against most of these same people, heroes AND villains. The comment above simply makes no sense. NOT without some explanation. SM should NEVER feel like a noob next to Luke Cage, or Spider-woman, because he was there when THEY started in the game. when THEY were noobs.
See above. Obviously some reasoning writers provide is faultier than others. But that's the way we are many times as well. Sometimes Peter's (the writer's) logic is very fallible and human but since it was written I can't pretend that Peter didn't make the decisions he did. Unmasking was a lapse of judgement, however, I didn't feel like it was out of character. If the casual fan knows that Peter's secret is important, then certainly the author of the flagship title knows this as well. As much as I think the unmasking is dumb, I can still see how it fits into his character.
well we can agree to disagree here. for me, because of SM's particular history, his particular issues with unmasking (which btw are worst than ANY other Marvel hero, except maybe DD), I needed more, much more. Heck PP should have been the poster boy for no unmasking.
Peter's never been in a situation like this before. Being on a team considered the "world's mightiest heroes", having his aunt privvy to his secret, befriending other heroes and living in the Avengers tower. That's new territory. We can't refer back to older stories and say he'd never reveal his identity because the aforementioned points weren't applicable.
I don't know how long you've been reading comics my friend but you can trust me that PP HAS been in those situations before. many times. befriending other heroes? did you know that SM was an official Avenger prior to NA? No that is NOT new territory, and writing him as such is a) disregard for continuity B) lack of knowledge of the character C) an I don't give a damn I'll do what I want attitude
And whether or not I can accept it as plausible (and I do), I can still sit back and enjoy reading these unmasking stories because I know that I want to see these stories told and that at some point it'll all be reversed at a whim. Nothing is ever permanent in comics and I embrace that.

I'm glad you can enjoy them because I can't. truly, I can't stand to see my hero be made a fool of. I just hope that at some time in the future some writer/editor doesn't decide to do a 180% with a character you come to know and love.
I didn't say that I didn't think about it. I'm saying that now that some time has passed I am easily over it. Sweat off my nuts. Of course, initially I'm gonna react to change but then I embrace the change and use it to my advantage. If there's a small mischaracterization, I'll acknowledge it but most of the time I won't let it deter me from enjoying the story. That would be doing myself a disservice.

one again, the issue isn't whether or not we can accept change. We've accepted all kinds of changes in the past, 6 arm spidey, new costume, marriage, death of love of his life, and so on and so on. The issue is whether or not the change makes sense and is consistent with the character,..just like for you. Because the change in your friend didn't make sense to you you moved on. you dropped him and got over him. you didn't accept the change anymore than we are, you moved on and got over it. Would you have reacted the same if he'd shared with you some personal trauma which explained the change? look, WE are doing the same thing, we're moving on, except that we can't because we love the character. would you have moved on so easily and gotten over it if it was your mom rather than some friend?

That's true, but clearly the the two moments that lead to an exodus of fans were the Clone Saga and Chapter One. Ever since those events, it's been a constant *****-fest from the fans. I think that many fans (akin to a whiny child with a whipped parent) now feel like they have more power and that Marvel will bend to their will. I also think that's why a lot of people hate JQ. He doesn't bend too often or easily. I don't like him much either but at least the MU has been kinda exciting lately. Although there are many problems with Spider-Man and many of the points made by fans are very valid, IMO I feel like Marvel is at least trying to go in the right direction. Whether you agree or not, Spidey hasn't been this interesting in YEARS.
are you sure you are correct with this assessment? Is it not possible that the fans' have been *****ing because the character has been poorly handled since then. Is it possible we hate JQ because as editor in chief he is allowing the MU to be a mess more complicated than old DC? Or that he is raking our favorite hero over the coals? or the fact that there is no continuity and/or respect for the past in the MU? are you sure those are not the reasons?

Well that's good and healthy. But if it's not for you, then why scream, moan, and insult others who disagree?

it never ceases to amaze me when people ask this question. The reason we scream and moan, and disagree and insult others is because we care about the character. We love the character and hate the fact that he is being mistreated. wouldn't YOU moan and complain if someone was mistreating someone or something you loved? if your mom's change in behavior was due to a co-worker's treatment of her? that question makes no sense and makes me angry.
 
HoratioRome said:
it never ceases to amaze me when people ask this question. The reason we scream and moan, and disagree and insult others is because we care about the character. We love the character and hate the fact that he is being mistreated. wouldn't YOU moan and complain if someone was mistreating someone or something you loved? if your mom's change in behavior was due to a co-worker's treatment of her? that question makes no sense and makes me angry.

His main point is that you're insulting and being condescending to others who share a different opinion than you do. He's not questioning why you're screaming and moaning about the state of the character. The main point is that it can all be done without being a condescending jerk off.
 
SpideyInATree said:
His main point is that you're insulting and being condescending to others who share a different opinion than you do. He's not questioning why you're screaming and moaning about the state of the character. The main point is that it can all be done without being a condescending jerk off.

there's all kinds of mistakes in your comment.

first of all, I'm not condescending to those who share a different opinion than I do. If that were the case I would have been condescending to him. I am condescending to those who can't see the obvious, those who can't add 2+2. Those who can't comprehend and analyze the facts in spite of it being told to them over and over again. And finally those who can't seem to comprehend what they are reading.

Second of all, I don't think that is what he meant. Otherwise he would not have said, "Well that's good and healthy. But if it's not for you, then why scream, moan, and insult others who disagree?"

it seems to me that what he's referring to is the comics. if the comics or the writing in the comics, or the stories being told about the character, are not for me, then why scream and moan. keep in mind this came from asking why do we still buy the comics. If I'm wrong I stand corrected.

Third, well your comment is a bit condescending too isn't it? I mean implying I'm a "jerk off" isn't exactly flattering.

but it's all good. we should be civil with each other, and being condescending is wrong. It's just that it's so frustrating at times, I can't help it.
 
HoratioRome said:
there's all kinds of mistakes in your comment.

first of all, I'm not condescending to those who share a different opinion than I do. If that were the case I would have been condescending to him. I am condescending to those who can't see the obvious, those who can't add 2+2. Those who can't comprehend and analyze the facts in spite of it being told to them over and over again. And finally those who can't seem to comprehend what they are reading.

Second of all, I don't think that is what he meant. Otherwise he would not have said, "Well that's good and healthy. But if it's not for you, then why scream, moan, and insult others who disagree?"

it seems to me that what he's referring to is the comics. if the comics or the writing in the comics, or the stories being told about the character, are not for me, then why scream and moan. keep in mind this came from asking why do we still buy the comics. If I'm wrong I stand corrected.

Third, well your comment is a bit condescending too isn't it? I mean implying I'm a "jerk off" isn't exactly flattering.

but it's all good. we should be civil with each other, and being condescending is wrong. It's just that it's so frustrating at times, I can't help it.

Well, try being someone with a differing opinion surrounded by people who do not agree with you. And, yeah, of course I was being condescending back to you considering in all the replies that you've given to me have been absolutely filled with it, I might as well give it right on back, huh?

I'm only giving a different opinion. There's no need to treat someone like a moron because they don't see your view on things. And I do understand most peoples views around here, I just don't agree with them.

But, yeah, I guess I can't put two and two together, huh? :whatever: :oldrazz:
 
Anyone who bolds more than one word in a post is clearly being condescending, in my opinion.
 
SpideyInATree said:
Well, try being someone with a differing opinion surrounded by people who do not agree with you. And, yeah, of course I was being condescending back to you considering in all the replies that you've given to me have been absolutely filled with it, I might as well give it right on back, huh?

I'm only giving a different opinion. There's no need to treat someone like a moron because they don't see your view on things. And I do understand most peoples views around here, I just don't agree with them.

But, yeah, I guess I can't put two and two together, huh? :whatever: :oldrazz:

I am pretty bad aren't I? ok truce. I'll try not to be so condescending ok.:yay: :woot: :oldrazz:
 
CConn said:
Anyone who bolds more than one word in a post is clearly being condescending, in my opinion.

How you and I had previous disagreements in two threads (this one and the Batman and Son thread) when you are that funny, is utterly beyond me. I actually laughed out loud when I read that.

Anyways, more on topic...

1)You guys are quoting each other too much. I dont' know if I am the only one who feels that way, but I think it would be in the better interest of ease of reading, if you guys just responded to that person, rather than responding to entire long segements. It makes a post twice as long as it normally would be.

2)The point isn't that Spidey is changing. It is that some of the changes are irrational. Spidey woudl never leap into a pit of Supervilains by himself. Captain America told Peter to wait, and Peter just runs off on his own like a hot shot? That's utter bulls***. When has Peter ever taken on a serious threat, without doing planning and research first? And for a character that swears how he adores and respects Captain America, don'you think that even if Spidey were truly that impulsive (which he hasn't been since his teenage years) that he would listen to the one super hero he respects and adores the most? Fact of e matter is, Peter Parker isn't anything like Peter Parker used to be. Change is never nearly as bad as unexplained occurences. And that is what we are getting in droves, with the current idea of Peter Parker. Would it be regular change if Batman revealed his identity and became a police officer, so he wouldn't be breaking the law anymore? Change is natural, but some changes are uncalled for and not true to character. One of you said it yourself. Your friend acted one way because of his girlfriend, but as soon as she was out of the picture, he went back to his old self. Do you know why? Because a persons nature is their nature regardless of any pretense. Things that change usually involve rationale and approach, not your character.
 
HoratioRome said:
I am pretty bad aren't I? ok truce. I'll try not to be so condescending ok so long as you try to make more sense.:yay: :woot: :oldrazz:

I added that last bit later,.. come on it's funny. :woot: :woot:
I couldn't resist.

truce
 
HoratioRome said:
You see that comment IMHO can only be made by a writer who thinks he knows Spider-man but actually doesn't. Or perhaps a writer who chooses to highlight a particular aspect of the character which he likes, regardless of continuity. IOW, the writers are interpreting the character as THEY see him rather than as he is.

Every reader is guilty of doing the exact same thing. It's called an opinion.

HoratioRome said:
This statement seems to make sense because once upon a time PP was a geek who was intimidated by jocks. But Please understand that that was over a LONG LONG time ago. Peter stopped being the nerd, a long time ago. In fact he became quite "hot" to girls, and certainly no longer intimidated by any bully. And I'm not just talking about childhood bullies/jocks, I'm talking about the equivalent of that in the super powered world. What do you think most of his enemies were if not bullies and jocks? The true aspect of PP's character is that once he got his powers he enjoyed giving back some of what he got. he liked to put the jocks in their place and kicked their asses to some extent.

Yes, that's correct. The mask and his newfound powers gave him a sense of freedom that he sometimes lacked as "mild-mannered" Peter Parker. He felt free enough to let his natural humor out and could get the satisfaction of standing up to larger-than-life bullies like Electro, Venom, etc. Just cause a nerdy kid learns how to stand up for himself against insecure bullies like Flash Thompson, doesn't mean they know how to act against a "cool kid" (a very well respected, confident hero with a strong moral background, and leader of men) like Captain America.

HoratioRome said:
this was evident in his first meeting with the Avengers, where he basically told them he was unimpressed, said he had no interest in joining their group, and proceeded to get into a fight with all of them. Given THAT, and given the many years of history where SM fought alongside pretty much EVERYONE, Mr. F, Ant man, Thor, the Avengers, etc etc. and fought against most of these same people, heroes AND villains. The comment above simply makes no sense. NOT without some explanation. SM should NEVER feel like a noob next to Luke Cage, or Spider-woman, because he was there when THEY started in the game. when THEY were noobs.

I believe Spider-Man was at a ripe young, insecure 18 years of age when he was first approched by the Avengers about joining. He wanted to join because of the fame and respect (and salary) that he'd get for being part of the "Mightiest Heroes on Earth". It's like rushing at the big frat on campus.

Knowing the context, does telling the most respected super-team on his Earth, that he's unimpressed, followed by telling the team he's trying to join that he's not interested, followed by immediately fighting them sound like the actions of someone with a modicum of confidence? Not really.
That sounds like someone with something to prove. He wants to impress them by beating them. Just like in Amazing #1 when he gets in his first misunderstanding with the FF, he's acting out of insecurity and tries to beat them so that they'll be impressed and give him a job. Classic noob. Only later in continuity does he start to appreciate his individuality and solo freedom more and more.

Those first few issues served as the justification as to why Spidey never joined a team throughout the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

From my understanding, the Spidey we know and love was often very self-depreciating in his humor. Now Bendis doesn't take into account Parker's other qualities (because Bendis is too busy admiring Luke Cage and Spider-Woman) and lets him comfortably sink into the role of class clown, however, I wouldn't go as far as to say that Spider-Man is a "newb" among his fellow heroes. Cap and Tony clearly respect him. Wolverine even respects him (Hudlin, on the other hand, does not). He has a budding friendship of mutual respect with Luke Cage. And Jessica Drew is kind of a *****. Sentry doesn't really talk much either. So there.

HoratioRome said:
I don't know how long you've been reading comics my friend but you can trust me that PP HAS been in those situations before. many times. befriending other heroes? did you know that SM was an official Avenger prior to NA? No that is NOT new territory, and writing him as such is a) disregard for continuity B) lack of knowledge of the character C) an I don't give a damn I'll do what I want attitude

He was a reserve member which translates into:

Cap: Hmmm...Well it's looks like it's time for a cross-over.
Iron Man: Another one? Christ....Is it Kang again?
Cap: Yeah....
Iron Man: Looks like we're gonna need to fill up the cover to the next issue with as many heroes as possible huh?
Cap: Call the reserves.
Iron Man: Niiiice *high fives Cap*

It's like being an understudy. Just cause you know the lines doesn't mean anyone cares. And it seems like Disassembled was the first time any of the "cast members" ever got "sick". So I guess he was due.

HoratioRome said:
one again, the issue isn't whether or not we can accept change. We've accepted all kinds of changes in the past, 6 arm spidey, new costume, marriage, death of love of his life, and so on and so on. The issue is whether or not the change makes sense and is consistent with the character,..just like for you. Because the change in your friend didn't make sense to you you moved on. you dropped him and got over him. you didn't accept the change anymore than we are, you moved on and got over it. Would you have reacted the same if he'd shared with you some personal trauma which explained the change? look, WE are doing the same thing, we're moving on, except that we can't because we love the character. would you have moved on so easily and gotten over it if it was your mom rather than some friend?

Spider-Man is your mom?!?! Luuuuuuckky! :woot:

Besides, if your love of Spidey was that deep then wouldn't you love him unconditionally and stick with him through good times and bad? ;)

HoratioRome said:
are you sure you are correct with this assessment? Is it not possible that the fans' have been *****ing because the character has been poorly handled since then. Is it possible we hate JQ because as editor in chief he is allowing the MU to be a mess more complicated than old DC? Or that he is raking our favorite hero over the coals? or the fact that there is no continuity and/or respect for the past in the MU? are you sure those are not the reasons?

I really don't wanna come to the defense of Quesadillydo but who was any better in the past? Tom DeFalco (Variant Holo Deluxe Covers)? Bob Harras? (Chapter One, The Crappiness that is the second half of the 90's)Jim Shooter? ("I Call it a CROSSOVER!", Half of the writers hated him) All these people were hated at some point or another. Should we bring back Stan Lee? He can barely remember his own name much less years of continuity that most fans ardently cling to. The EIC is all about money. The only difference now is that JQ likes to incite fan anger for fun and profit. That's a smart tactic if I say so myself.

HoratioRome said:
it never ceases to amaze me when people ask this question. The reason we scream and moan, and disagree and insult others is because we care about the character. We love the character and hate the fact that he is being mistreated. wouldn't YOU moan and complain if someone was mistreating someone or something you loved? if your mom's change in behavior was due to a co-worker's treatment of her? that question makes no sense and makes me angry.

I dropped Spider-Man (and all comics for that matter) at Chapter One. They essentially tried to "end" Spider-Man with the god-awful Gathering of Five and reboot everything. Now THAT'S a slap in the face. I didn't touch comics for years until halfway through JMS' run. I understand the anger that people can feel towards certain decisions (Ben's death...grrr...) but I don't think it should stop people from enjoying what they read. If they don't enjoy it, I am of the opinion that they shouldn't read it or laugh and criticize others who do.

I don't like country music (at all) but you don't see me on the Tim McGraw message board telling them that the country they listen to isn't what country "should" be. Now...Hank Williams, that's a REAL country artist. This new stuff sucks.

Just kidding. All of it sucks.
 
HoratioRome said:
what's the nitro storyline?
Long story short, Logan wanted to hunt him down. Tony said no. Logan led the charge w/a squad of SHIELD agents, all of whom got blown up when they found Nitro. Logan recovered & they went to scrappin'. A trio of mystery people were also after him, & turned out to be Atlantean. (As Namorita was the closest person to Nitro when he went up in Stamford, & Namor is apparently none too pleased about it.) More fighting ensued, & now Nitro is in Atlantean custody w/a well-whupped @$$. But it turns out he was working for somebody who gave him a major power boost to do what he did in Connecticut, & now Wolvie's looking for that guy.
 
Cyclops said:
So what? It still turned out being Jigsaw. Intentions regardless, that's who broke his arm. With his bare hands.

And you forgot the part that if I were to be in the situation, I would have to have the powers and experience of Spider-Man. And the powers and experience of Spider-Man say that I likely wouldn't have just dove into a vat of super-criminals in the first place.

Which just supports my argument of Bendis writing Spider-Man like a total rookie.

Preach it.

My thing is, Spider-Man falls into this pit of villians, doesn't try to web them up, deosn't try to keep his mask on, doesn't instinctively start throwing punches or go crazy and get away, but instead, he starts to make a joke...and lets them get the upper hand.

Spider-Man hasn't done one thing the entire time in 20+ issues of New Avengers to make me think he is anything more than a bumbling idiot that can stick to walls and shoot webbing out of his wrists. His super-strength (FAR greater than that of Luke freakin' Cage) has been ignored, his Spider-Sense is pretty much ignored, and his intelligence(which used to be his strongest attribute), has been totally disregarded.

The fact that people, Spider-Man fans included, like New Avengers doesn't bug me, it's that fact that a Spider-man fan can read that book and not even be a little pissed that Marvel BEST hero, their flagship character, is being played upon as the useless comic relief.

Yeah, every team needs a comic relief....I know. The A-Team had Murdock, the X-Men cartoon had Morph (for an episode), and so on and so on.

Murdock could fly a helicoptor.
Morph could shapeshift into anything.

Spider-man can stick to any surface with any pary of his body, lift ten tons, can dodge pretty much anything thrown at him, has an early-warning Spider-sense, has organic webshooters, and has often impresses Reed Richards, Hank Pym and Tony Stark with his scientific Prowess. And yet, he can't hold his own on a team with a 5'3" mutant with claws, a guy with unbreakable skin, a woman with low-rent versions of his powers, a guy with slightly above human powers, a schizophrenic Superman, and a guy in a tin suit.

Pardon me if I don't rush the comic shop to add this to my pull list.:whatever:
 
You know I just realized...we the fans are in a Civil War of our own.
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"