Spider-Man: Pre-Brand New Day or Post-Brand New Day?

[Themanofbat]

MOB, was that even English?

Heh... I forgot a word or two...

 

[Themanofbat]

DeLorean is THE gold standard. A Hot Tub? C'mon, that doesn't even make sense.

Yep... you cannot travel through time without a Delorean...

 

[CantThinkOfAName]

Ugh, George Carlin's phone booth anyone?

 

[mre]

Back on topic, I think Post-Brand New Day is fine.
It's Spider-Man being on the Avengers that bothers me. Him being on two Avengers teams is pretty annoying to me.

 

[Spider-Gnome]

I don't think so, because less than 6 weeks went by between issues and the explanation, and if you take into account a week or two for the "uproar", then there really would be no time to get the issue "fixed" and sent to the printers, and then sent to the distributors, etc...

I'm not sure what kind of time frame is involved when an issue comes out and when it was sent to the printer, but I don't think personally that they had enough time...

Not sure of the timeline, but that was just the impression I got. I think making it cider makes the situation worse, because you've lost alcohol as an excuse.

Under normal circumstances, I would agree.

Even under not so normal circumstances, I would still agree.

However, in this case, his aunt has just gotten married and then his long time lover shows up unexpectedly and he doesn't know how to even approach her.

Anybody in this room who has experienced seeing an ex-lover unexpectedly knows how unnerving that can be... especially to someone who is already somewhat socially awkward, like Peter Parker.

I get that. It makes sense. That's why I would give him a pass on it. It was the hook-up with Michele that was the problem. And no, he's not Mother Theresa. But he is Pete Parker.

DeLorean is THE gold standard. A Hot Tub? C'mon, that doesn't even make sense.


Besides, doesn't a bunch of middle aged guys sitting around in a hot tub make you uncomfortable?

I'm with you, 'clones!

 

[SpideyInATree]

We're our own worst enemy as Spidey-fans sometimes. When did Pete become Mother Theresa anyway?

Yeah, man.

Isn't Peter supposed to be an everyman? What single everyman wouldn't want to be tapping his hot roommate and Black Cat?

But, yeah, seriously...what heterosexual everyman wouldn't want to be tapping those asses?

 

[runawayboulder]

Just because Pete has a few drinks at his aunts wedding where his former wife/fiancee shows up out of the blue, it doesn't make him Tony Stark.

 

[JewishHobbit]

Back on topic, I think Post-Brand New Day is fine.
It's Spider-Man being on the Avengers that bothers me. Him being on two Avengers teams is pretty annoying to me.

I actually love him as an Avenger. The reason for this is that he was a solo act for so long, despite how heroic he was, that he was a bit of an "other guy". But with his morals and skill was Avengers material long before being approached. And even better, he idolized Captain America. Him finally joining the big leagues, asked by Cap himself, and finally accepting the help and stepping from the solo status was an evolution of character, so him being a core Avenger now is a great thing. Not to mention Bendis does squat with the Peter Parker persona so all the BND issues are ignored and I get a semi-enjoyable Spider-Man every month.

However, him being on two teams... that is annoying.

 

[GyLocke]

I only read Spidey occasionally, but how many girls did he have sex with since OMD? The roommate and Black Cat? If that's all, that's a pretty conservative everyman number for a young adult in the city (especially with a superhero body)
That doesn't make him a "Tony Stark". What's that, two women in a year, for a 25 year old single man?
I live in Budapest, and here that may get him teased like a dork, and I'm pretty sure there's some more serious fornication going on in New York City.

It doesn't make him a man ****e or a pig. It makes him a relatable everyman. Young people have sex. If he was "saving himself for the one" he wasn't a relatable everyman anymore, he would be an oddity.

 

[JewishHobbit]

I waited until I was married, so I'd relate just fine

 

[GyLocke]

That's cool man, congrats on the self control.

 

[runawayboulder]

I was referring more to comparing Pete to Tony the drunk.....

 

[JewishHobbit]

That's cool man, congrats on the self control.

You know it wasn't as hard as people make it out to be. Then again I got married at 21 so it's not like I had to wait long.

 

[SpideyInATree]

I was referring more to comparing Pete to Tony the drunk.....

HA! Well, by the skin tone of that action figure it looks more like Jim Rhodes than Tony Stark.

 

[Artistsean]

Its not that a young man can't have sex, its that I don't see Peter having sex unless he was in a committed relationship, or have one night stands.
He never struck me as someone who would do that.

Similar to the drinking, he doesn't strike me as a person who would let himself get drunk out of his sense of responsibility (although I can somewhat forgive that one because of the situation).
I haven't read those issues, but isn't Peter sleeping with Black Cat in the dark or with masks on so they keep their identities secret? And then they go their separate ways?

 

[venom892]

Yea Black Cat's character regression is another reason I'm not a fan of BND.

 

[GyLocke]

Its not that a young man can't have sex, its that I don't see Peter having sex unless he was in a committed relationship, or have one night stands.
He never struck me as someone who would do that.

Similar to the drinking, he doesn't strike me as a person who would let himself get drunk out of his sense of responsibility (although I can somewhat forgive that one because of the situation).
I haven't read those issues, but isn't Peter sleeping with Black Cat in the dark or with masks on so they keep their identities secret? And then they go their separate ways?

Yeah, but

Anyway I seem to remember Peter getting around in the seventies and eighties (those were the Spidey comics we read here in nineties when I was a kid. Hell, I remember him feeling guilty for keeping that girl Debbie Whitman around while chasing all kinds of different tail around New York.).

Or the translation made him out to be a more laid back guy than he was?

 

[Spider-Gnome]

*shrug* (The Hype needs a shrug smiley...immediately!)

Yeah, you make a good argument.

Don't take me wrong. It's not that I'm not a fan of the Mary Jane character it's that in MY readings of her character she has been written poorly. Write her well and she's not going to bother me so much.

SpideyInATree, my apologies on missing your post earlier (I swear, sometimes this site hides posts that later appear).

OK, the MJ character thing is true, sometimes she is written poorly. This was true particularly during the marriage when some writers did not know what to do with the character and she came off whiney & *****y. But, I thought she was written well in the 70's & 80's, as well as under JMS's run.

In my statement I was merely busting chops too. I know that MJ and Peter had many, many years of feelings developing. That's something I was not denying. And, yes, Marvel really, really, really dropped the ball back in the day. They just married Peter when there was potential of years and years of stories with them engaged. Then do they marry or does the Spectre of Spider-Man rear it's ugly head into it?

I was responding to "out of the blue," and whereas you have been busting chops, others have brought that up -coughThemanofbatcough -.

But, yes, an engagement period could have had potential, which I was disappointed was not explored.

My big gripe with many upset fans is the fact that they act like One More Day is the ONLY mistake that writers and editors of the book have ever made on the title. That everything that has happened in the Spider-Man books previous to One More Day is like gold and suddenly because of Joe Quesada it's all ruined.

Yes, there were many mistakes, I Am The Spider, the switch they tried to make in the Clone Saga, blowing up MJ, Sins Past, the Other.

It's just that One More Day went out and really topped all that.

And again, my post was addressing the specific "out of the blue" marriage comment, not anything about OMD.

 

[SpideyInATree]

Yes, there were many mistakes, I Am The Spider, the switch they tried to make in the Clone Saga, blowing up MJ, Sins Past, the Other.

See, I liked that Ben Reilly was the one true Spider-Man.

The others I agree with were horrible mistakes. Not so much the I Am the Spider. It's just that they really drug that one along a bit too long. Plus that was a time where they were trying to make Peter Parker and Spider-Man "dark".

However, you forgot one mistake that, quite honestly, I think is much more offensive than One More Day, Sins past, and The Other combined. It's when they brought Aunt May back and were like, "Oh, that was just an actress who died in Amazing Spider-man # 400 and the real Aunt May was really being held captive by Norman Osborn. Just thought you'd like to know that and we'd like to make the super emotional and awesome Amazing Spider-Man # 400 mean absolutely nothing!!"

So, I understand where the anger comes from with many One More Day fans, and fans who were outraged by the end of the marriage, but I'm sorry...it just will not top them bringing back Aunt May and taking the biggest dump of all time on Amazing # 400.

 

[iloveclones]

See, I liked that Ben Reilly was the one true Spider-Man.

I'm with ya brother! I thought that was one of the coolest, boldest things Marvel ever did..... Until they didn't

 

[JewishHobbit]

I loved Ben Reilly... but not as a replacement for Peter AS Peter. His replacing Spider-Man is fine, but keep him the Clone. Nonetheless, I still to this day love the Clone Saga.

And despite how much I LOVED Amazing 400 and was ticked off when May came back (yes, it kept me off the book for a few years) in my opinion OMD is leaps and bounds over that. Aunt May's return killed one amazing issue. OMD killed 20 amazing years. Now, if they eventually undo OMD then yes, Aunt May's return will top it because that was perminant, but if OMD isn't competely undone, then it doesn't even compare.

 

[Themanofbat]

OMD did not kill 20 mediocre years... those issues still happened more or less as they did...

You can read them and make little "marriage" comments, but that's the same as reading a 60's book where the Thing meets the Beatles... you can ignore that stuff without affecting the overall scheme of the story.

 

[JewishHobbit]

OMD did not kill 20 mediocre years... those issues still happened more or less as they did...

You can read them and make little "marriage" comments, but that's the same as reading a 60's book where the Thing meets the Beatles... you can ignore that stuff without affecting the overall scheme of the story.

That's in your opinion. First off, for me, at least 15 of those 20 years were great, on par or better than any of the 80's stuff I read and most of the 70's that I've read. And saying those issues still happened as they did is in word only. Just because to appease fans Marvel said "Oh, it still happened" means squat to me. Fact remains, Peter and MJ were not married, therefor, that screws up 20 years of continuity. I don't care if they were engaged or lived together or were butt buddies. 20 years of great continuity were screwed up and nothing shy of putting it back will fix that.

And it's not the same as your Beetles example because that was just something that you have to disregard due to the passing of time. It's nothing anyone did wrong, it's just due to how long the franchise has ran. That's to be expected. Marvel blatantly went in and edited 20 GREAT years of Spider-Man history needlessly just because they wanted to. It wasn't due to the passing of time, as a married Spider-Man could have just continued on forever unchanged as long as there wasn't a kid... whereas if you have the Beetles in a comic it ages it. So no, your example is nothing like BND.

 

[Themanofbat]

That's in your opinion. First off, for me, at least 15 of those 20 years were great, on par or better than any of the 80's stuff I read and most of the 70's that I've read. And saying those issues still happened as they did is in word only. Just because to appease fans Marvel said "Oh, it still happened" means squat to me. Fact remains, Peter and MJ were not married, therefor, that screws up 20 years of continuity. I don't care if they were engaged or lived together or were butt buddies. 20 years of great continuity were screwed up and nothing shy of putting it back will fix that.

And it's not the same as your Beetles example because that was just something that you have to disregard due to the passing of time. It's nothing anyone did wrong, it's just due to how long the franchise has ran. That's to be expected. Marvel blatantly went in and edited 20 GREAT years of Spider-Man history needlessly just because they wanted to. It wasn't due to the passing of time, as a married Spider-Man could have just continued on forever unchanged as long as there wasn't a kid... whereas if you have the Beetles in a comic it ages it. So no, your example is nothing like BND.

Man... your panties are in a bunch today...

We obviously disagree on how the Spider-Books are... though I am not going to have the colossal balls and say that you are wrong (unlike yourself) whether I think that or not... it's opinion, and everyone has a right to have one... so please refrain yourself from telling me that I'm "wrong" when I don't believe that I am... because I give you that courtsey.

I'm not a fan of reboots, though I like the idea that Marvel is AT LEAST trying to tie up their continuity so as to not say that issues #293 to #541 did not happen. And I appreciate their efforts... the EASY thing to do would have been an obvious "crisis"... but they're at least trying to connect the continuity dots.... you can be such a big "drama queen" with dumb-ass comments like "Marvel blatantly went in and edited 20 GREAT years of Spider-Man history needlessly just because they wanted to.", but GUESS WHAT? It's THEIR character and they can do what they want with him. And this is what they want from their character... and your internet crybaby tears do NOT matter.

And please.... don't throw the "Waah, waah ,waaah... I grew up on a married Spider-Man so therefore, he must remain married forever and I hate that Marvel raped my favorite character blah, blah, blah ad nauseum".... GUESS WHAT? I grew up on a single Spider-Man. I'm so glad that I was mature enough to not have the same hissy fit that you're having about BND when ASM Annual #21 came out... sheesh....

And it's the "Beatles"... not the "Beetles"... and it was not 20 great years... 20 mediocre years with very few exceptional gems... but guess what? That's opinion as well (the latter is... the former is factual), and there is no "right" nor "wrong".

But you'll see it differently... because you're always right.

Drama Queen.

 

[runawayboulder]

Ben Reilly wasn't the problem. He was actually okay. It was Marvel insulting our intelligence by saying he was the original. They could have left him as the clone and just replace Peter while he was off having babies. Mocking your readers is not the smart move there.