Comics Spidey Comics- Jan 09

[Jack O Lantern]

You know for a year all you complained about was that everything was filler and they didn't explain anything. Now that they're doing something big and explaining somethings, you're complaining about. In fact in this very thread you're complaing that one story is just repeat and that another is new.

 

[shinlyle]

You know for a year all you complained about was that everything was filler and they didn't explain anything. Now that they're doing something big and explaining somethings, you're complaining about. In fact in this very thread you're complaing that one story is just repeat and that another is new.

You know, in another thread, you said almost the same thing.

Anyways, you don't even find it a tad bit lame that they are doing a "Molten Man is going to die and take Spidey with him" story, when they've already done it? I know they want to be like the 70's comics, but that's a little sad.

Also, I'm not complaining about them not explaining anything, so much as I'm complaining because it shouldn't have to be explained. I have the issues that took place in the time period they reference, and thay should be sufficient explanation. Now, those issues don't really matter....or they do, but they aren't the exact same as they were before....depending on which member of Marvel answers the question.

Also, their "new" stories all feel like rehashes, due to the fact that Peter Parker feels like he's being written as an inept college student.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

You know, in another thread, you said almost the same thing.

Anyways, you don't even find it a tad bit lame that they are doing a "Molten Man is going to die and take Spidey with him" story, when they've already done it? I know they want to be like the 70's comics, but that's a little sad.

Hands up who was alive in the 1970s. I would guess most Spider-fans have their hands down right now. Plus a one line description of a story doesn't explain anything about the actual story. I could say that Back to the Future II was lame because they went back to 1955 again. But it would be unfair because the actual story was different.

Also, I'm not complaining about them not explaining anything, so much as I'm complaining because it shouldn't have to be explained. I have the issues that took place in the time period they reference, and thay should be sufficient explanation. Now, those issues don't really matter....or they do, but they aren't the exact same as they were before....depending on which member of Marvel answers the question.

The only difference was that they weren't married. I don't see how that changes anything other than Peter having a ring on his finger. And if you need a cheap piece of gold on your finger to really love somebody then there is something seriously wrong with you. As for things being different in those stories, why does that bother you so much now? Does it bother you when you read stories with Flash in Vietnam? Or the Chamelon being a Soviet Spy. Or Kravens mother and father fleeing the Boslvik revolution? Because the stories that deal with that stuff is now wrong because it couldn't have happened. Amazing Spider-Man 1 could not have happened the way it did.

Also, their "new" stories all feel like rehashes, due to the fact that Peter Parker feels like he's being written as an inept college student.

Wow, Peter Parker wrote like a young character? Stop the presses.

 

[kguillou]

Jack O Lantern, the problem is we the readers have are used to seeing a more mature grown up Peter Parker, he's been written like an adult for like the last 20 years. Now all of a sudden, he's acting like he's a young college student and its a bit jarring compared to say JMS' Peter or even J.M. Dematteis' Peter Parker. I dont mind Peter being humorous a character, thats part of who he is, but some of the BND writers like Guggenheim and Gale write him like he's a ******ed bugs bunny.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Yeah and wouldn't that mean that the people who read as the young college student had the same complaints when he started to be written diferent. It seems continuity is sacred only if you like that status quo.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Jack O Lantern, the problem is we the readers have are used to seeing a more mature grown up Peter Parker, he's been written like an adult for like the last 20 years. Now all of a sudden, he's acting like he's a young college student and its a bit jarring compared to say JMS' Peter or even J.M. Dematteis' Peter Parker. I dont mind Peter being humorous a character, thats part of who he is, but some of the BND writers like Guggenheim and Gale write him like he's a ******ed bugs bunny.

Don't forget bendis.

 

[Doc_OCK_4MUGEN]

Hands up who was alive in the 1970s. I would guess most Spider-fans have their hands down right now. Plus a one line description of a story doesn't explain anything about the actual story. I could say that Back to the Future II was lame because they went back to 1955 again. But it would be unfair because the actual story was different.

I'd have to say that BttF 3 was lame with the Western stuff, but we're talking Spidey here... not Marty McFly...

Just look at the amount of similarities that BND has to previous storylines... It feels like they're re-hashing stuff...

The only difference was that they weren't married. I don't see how that changes anything other than Peter having a ring on his finger. And if you need a cheap piece of gold on your finger to really love somebody then there is something seriously wrong with you. As for things being different in those stories, why does that bother you so much now? Does it bother you when you read stories with Flash in Vietnam? Or the Chamelon being a Soviet Spy. Or Kravens mother and father fleeing the Boslvik revolution? Because the stories that deal with that stuff is now wrong because it couldn't have happened. Amazing Spider-Man 1 could not have happened the way it did.

Harry's death? Norman's motivations for the Clone Saga (even the exsistance of the Saga itself is in danger... not asking if this is good or bad here...) The lame-o Robot Parker Parents thingie??
Are you married? Because being married isn't about the rings... I thought that it was about commitment to the other person... Sure one can argue that moving in with the other person is commitment enough... But the piece of paper has a little more meaning than just moving in... It makes moving out a bigger hassle...

Wow, Peter Parker wrote like a young character? Stop the presses.

Peter's 24-27 (or something like that) years old... Why is he acting like the 16-19 year old that he's not?

 

[stillanerd]

With regards to this upcoming "Character Assassination" arc in January, just when even BND people were beginning to think Marvel was dragging their butts with regards to pacing on this title, Marvel finally decides to start providing--hopefully--some genuine answers after a frigging year and what will be 36 issues, not counting a couple of one shots and an annual. I'll give them some credit for finally addressing these subplots, but seriously, did it have to take this many issues, especially when you consider when what little clues had been provided were spread so thin to begin with?

 

[Jack O Lantern]

^^^^^ Like I've said before, too keep up with the thrice monthly scheldule these guys had to plan months in advance, they didn't know the questions, so they could not answer them.

 

[stillanerd]

^^^^^ Like I've said before, too keep up with the thrice monthly scheldule these guys had to plan months in advance, they didn't know the questions, so they could not answer them.

If they planned in advance, then that means they already knew who the identity of Menace, the identity of the Spider-Tracer killer, etc. well before they even wrote the story. Which means, they did know the questions since they themselves were the ones providing them for fans and readers to ask.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

I thought you were referring too how OMD effected the past and such.

 

[moraldeficiency]

With regards to this upcoming "Character Assassination" arc in January, just when even BND people were beginning to think Marvel was dragging their butts with regards to pacing on this title, Marvel finally decides to start providing--hopefully--some genuine answers after a frigging year and what will be 36 issues, not counting a couple of one shots and an annual. I'll give them some credit for finally addressing these subplots, but seriously, did it have to take this many issues, especially when you consider when what little clues had been provided were spread so thin to begin with?

The ones in this are the ones the writers made, so it's not OMD tainted and are actual mysteries, so I don't mind. It's the problems (mysteries are not problems, though marvel doesn't acknowledge the difference) that have been present and teased at (god that's laughable) but never addressed that suck and bring everything possibly good to a screeching hault whenever mentioned. They should realize it's a bandaid and just get it over with. These problems aren't cool or writer/story friendly and to try to make it so by mixing them in with actual conceptual mysteries to add suspense is just a massive fail in so many ways. Even the current supporters/scabs (I joke, well I joke to some) can't be too thrilled of having OMD shoved back in their face consistantly with nothing more than a reminder that it happened. Got to pull you right out of the story.

 

[kguillou]

^^Exactly man, i mean i dont understand why Quesada and everybody else keeps telling us to forget OMD and move when we obviously cant move on without having these "OMD mysteries" shoved in our face. I think i speak for the majority of the fans when i say I would much rather find out what happened to about Peter's identity, Pete/MJ's marriage, and other inconsistencies rather than who Jackpot's identity is or who Menace is. Why don't they give us those answers that way we can care more about the new mysteries like the spider-tracer killings, Menace's identity, the mayoral election, mr. negative etc?

 

[stillanerd]

The ones in this are the ones the writers made, so it's not OMD tainted and are actual mysteries, so I don't mind. It's the problems (mysteries are not problems, though marvel doesn't acknowledge the difference) that have been present and teased at (god that's laughable) but never addressed that suck and bring everything possibly good to a screeching hault whenever mentioned. They should realize it's a bandaid and just get it over with. These problems aren't cool or writer/story friendly and to try to make it so by mixing them in with actual conceptual mysteries to add suspense is just a massive fail in so many ways. Even the current supporters/scabs (I joke, well I joke to some) can't be too thrilled of having OMD shoved back in their face consistantly with nothing more than a reminder that it happened. Got to pull you right out of the story.

Good point and good distinction between mysteries and problems. And you're correct that Marvel has indeed lumped the two together. Not only that, but it's become quite apparent that, due to the amount of well deserved criticism they have gotten with regards to One More Day that they've gone back and are now saying that Mephisto wasn't responsible for restoring Peter secret identity despite the story explictly saying as much, or that Harry being brought back wasn't the result of Mephisto, even though Joe Q implied as much in an interview earlier this year (not to mention that, since Gwen Stacy was also supposed to come back along with Harry there was no other explanation).

And consider what Tom Breevort himself described it:

"So Peter knows exactly what transpired to eliminate knowledge of his identity, and that this action wasn’t caused by Mephisto but by something else. (Which makes perfect sense when you think about it, in that, in a world in which Peter was never married, there wouldn’t have been a deal with Mephisto in the first place—there would have been nothing to bargain for.)"

So this means that they've already retconned the retcon but have kept all the effects of the retcon--mainly that Peter and MJ were a couple living together rather than a married one. Which means that we are indeed reading about a Spider-Man, and by token a Marvel Universe, that takes place in a parallel universe where much of the history remained the same except for a few changes, sort of like how DC seperated the Golden Age and the Silver Age with their Earth 1 and Earth 2 concept prior to Crisis on Infinite Earths. Sounds to me as though Marvel is already leaping through hoops to avoid being branded cop-outs.

 

[shinlyle]

Hands up who was alive in the 1970s. I would guess most Spider-fans have their hands down right now. Plus a one line description of a story doesn't explain anything about the actual story. I could say that Back to the Future II was lame because they went back to 1955 again. But it would be unfair because the actual story was different.

Alot of Spider-fans were not alive in the 70s, true. It's a good thing that only people alive in the seventies read those stories, huh? I mean, no comci fan would go back and read back issues or collections to see what happened then, would they?

The only difference was that they weren't married. I don't see how that changes anything other than Peter having a ring on his finger. And if you need a cheap piece of gold on your finger to really love somebody then there is something seriously wrong with you. As for things being different in those stories, why does that bother you so much now? Does it bother you when you read stories with Flash in Vietnam? Or the Chamelon being a Soviet Spy. Or Kravens mother and father fleeing the Boslvik revolution? Because the stories that deal with that stuff is now wrong because it couldn't have happened. Amazing Spider-Man 1 could not have happened the way it did.

You have clearly never been married. Yes, there is a difference. Most of the people who say there isn't are the people who are running from a commitment, or they are trying to convince themselves that there is no difference because the person they love doesn't want to marry them. Yeah, I said it. Also, the other stories have not been changed. They haven't been referenced due to the dated examples, but that doesn't change the fact that they happened in the story. You are really reaching for a point, here.

Wow, Peter Parker wrote like a young character? Stop the presses.

Peter written as a young character doesn't bother anyone, but Peter written as an inexperienced child when he's been doing the superhero thing for years, and been out on his own since way back in the early issues of ASM is downright stupid and inexcuseable.

 

[Styleshift]

What a sad book ASM has become.
Marvel does not know what to do with the character.

Like I've said before, its like they've broken an expensive vase in their parents house and are frantically trying to put it back together the way it was.

Instead of making all these "shocking, life altering events that will rock the very core of the spider-verse!" how about just putting a good writer on the book (like ed brubaker, Brian Michael Bendis, Jeph Loeb, Dan Slott, and Zeb wells.) and give them free reign to tell good stories.

 

[Styleshift]

You have clearly never been married. Yes, there is a difference. Most of the people who say there isn't are the people who are running from a commitment, or they are trying to convince themselves that there is no difference because the person they love doesn't want to marry them. Yeah, I said it. Also, the other stories have not been changed. They haven't been referenced due to the dated examples, but that doesn't change the fact that they happened in the story. You are really reaching for a point, here.

If he responds to this, don't reply. because he'll be wasting everyones time. your 100 percent right.
Some people tend to forget that

1. peter lives a DANGEROUS life style.
2. They did not simply just decide to "move in together".
3. Them not being married gives her more reason to walk out on peter.

I simply don't understand why some fans think nothing has changed. There just isn't as much commitment in a relationship compared to a marriage.

and for the record the ring DOES mean something. its like being branded....lol.

Peter written as a young character doesn't bother anyone, but Peter written as an inexperienced child when he's been doing the superhero thing for years, and been out on his own since way back in the early issues of ASM is downright stupid and inexcuseable.

He tripped over a hot dog cart, that caused him to lose an amateur super villain Nuff said.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Alot of Spider-fans were not alive in the 70s, true. It's a good thing that only people alive in the seventies read those stories, huh? I mean, no comci fan would go back and read back issues or collections to see what happened then, would they?

Not as many as you would think. I haven't, so this is a new story for me.

You have clearly never been married. Yes, there is a difference. Most of the people who say there isn't are the people who are running from a commitment, or they are trying to convince themselves that there is no difference because the person they love doesn't want to marry them. Yeah, I said it. Also, the other stories have not been changed. They haven't been referenced due to the dated examples, but that doesn't change the fact that they happened in the story. You are really reaching for a point, here.

No I haven't be married. Oh and thanks for telling me why I think what I think. So I'll tell you why you and the rest of the OMD haters don't like BND. You're pathetic, whinging little people. You cannot accept that a character, FOR CHILDREN, is no longer relatable. So you all ***** and moan and ***** and moan and can't get past your own prefences. "OH I like him married so everything that they do now is a rehash and I'll complain that they never do anything new, when they do something new, I'll complain about them not doing classic stories." Do you know what you should do when and if a children's comic book character because unrelateable, put it down.

According to STAN LEE, these character have o be changed drastically every once and a while to keep them fresh and modern. But what would STAN LEE know about Spider-Man, afterall he only created and defined him. I'm sure fanboys know more than the most influencial figure in the mediums history.

Peter written as a young character doesn't bother anyone, but Peter written as an inexperienced child when he's been doing the superhero thing for years, and been out on his own since way back in the early issues of ASM is downright stupid and inexcuseable.

See this crap here really gets to me. How is he acting inexperienced? Give me some examples.

 

[Ion Kenshin]

i dont see spider-man as a character solely for children and the same goes for many comic characters. yes they are childlike in essence in the sense that we look up to these heroes and the things they stand up for and the kid inside is running around jumping of couches yelling thwip or pretending to be flying around with a blanket tied to our necks. comics are for all ages and walks of life be it young old geek jock man woman etc etc

 

[Styleshift]

Not as many as you would think. I haven't, so this is a new story for me.






No I haven't be married. Oh and thanks for telling me why I think what I think. So I'll tell you why you and the rest of the OMD haters don't like BND. You're pathetic, whinging little people. You cannot accept that a character, FOR CHILDREN, is no longer relatable.

um, are you trying to insult us? Kind of like a kamikaze insult huh? I love it!

but i must ask....what 9 year old holds a job and struggles to maintain a social life?

plus i love all the adult language bleeped out in the very first issue of BND. VERY KID FRIENDLY INDEED!

So you all ***** and moan and ***** and moan and can't get past your own prefences. "OH I like him married so everything that they do now is a rehash and I'll complain that they never do anything new, when they do something new, I'll complain about them not doing classic stories." Do you know what you should do when and if a children's comic book character because unrelateable, put it down.

most kids don't even read comics actively these days....its all about video games son, get with the times.

According to STAN LEE, these character have o be changed drastically every once and a while to keep them fresh and modern. But what would STAN LEE know about Spider-Man, afterall he only created and defined him. I'm sure fanboys know more than the most influencial figure in the mediums history.





See this crap here really gets to me. How is he acting inexperienced? Give me some examples.

Stan Lee couldn't do anything regardless...he's pretty much the face of marvel now, besides if i were getting payed like him. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even care if they made Peter Parker a cross dresser named sue.

 

[kguillou]

I agree with Styleshift, Jack o Lantern i really don' t know why your fighting us so hard. Kids dont read comics anymore. Its all video games and television. I guarantee the general demographic of people who read comics nowadays are people who've been reading them since at least the 90's like myself. I'm 21 and i love comics because i grew up with them, i've been reading them ever since they put the Batman cartoon on Fox. My little brother is 12 and he could care less about comics. I tried getting him into them but he's all about video games and get this: he LOVES spiderman. He loves the new cartoon and he even loves the old Fox cartoon, but he could care less about actually picking up a spiderman comic and reading it.The new generation of kids just aren't into them, its us veterans that are keeping comics alive.

With that said, i think marvel should've showed us a little respect when handling spiderman. Sure, i completely understand that maybe marvel was a little nervous that Peter was getting a tad bit too old. Fine. But they did not have to separate MJ and Pete by the devil and have Peter actin like its the 70's again. They still could've kept the same mature, witty, and experienced spiderman that JMS handled so well. They didnt have to regress him that much. Marvel can keep saying that "everything still happened" as much as they want, but whats the point of saying everything happened when those events have no relevance in today's stories? There's a ton of inconsistencies that just don't make sense. What DO the avengers remember about Spiderman joining the team and moving in with them with aunt may and MJ? Does Kingpin remember getting his ass handed to him by Peter Parker. If not wouldnt he have the bruises to prove it? There are certain events that have happened in the past that shaped the way things are today, if no one "remembers" them then how are they not questioning why things are the way they are in the present? It's like saying ( and this is a really random example): I obtained a job because a very close friend of mine worked there and got me the job. Then all of a sudden all my memories of my friend are erased. Um, wait a minute how did I get this job again?

 

[imdaly]

Peter's 24-27 (or something like that) years old... Why is he acting like the 16-19 year old that he's not?

I don't really get this logic here. What is it that Peter does now that makes him act like a 16-to-19-year-old?

And out of curiosity, how old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Doc_OCK_4MUGEN]

um... I don't see what my age has to do with the fact that Peter's been acting like he just got his powers when he's had them for almost 10 years... also some writers seem to write him like a Teenager when he's on his 20s... not gonna say any names but one of them sounds like Bend This...

 

[shinlyle]

Not as many as you would think. I haven't, so this is a new story for me.

Well, you will enjoy it...the rest of us....not so much.

No I haven't be married. Oh and thanks for telling me why I think what I think. So I'll tell you why you and the rest of the OMD haters don't like BND. You're pathetic, whinging little people. You cannot accept that a character, FOR CHILDREN, is no longer relatable. So you all ***** and moan and ***** and moan and can't get past your own prefences. "OH I like him married so everything that they do now is a rehash and I'll complain that they never do anything new, when they do something new, I'll complain about them not doing classic stories." Do you know what you should do when and if a children's comic book character because unrelateable, put it down.

Wow...I really touched a nerve with you. That really sheds some light on things. Fine, why don't you tell me why there should be any reason to get engrossed in any relationship of Peter's, when we know that the most we'll ever get is POSSIBLY an engagement that will inevitably end with a break-up or a death? We've been told that a married Spider-Man is not relateable, so he will never be married. They have limited themselves int hat aspect, and now, any realtionship he enters into will have a fixed ceiling upon it.

As for the rehashing, when they show you a cover and tell you that Molten man is overheating and dying, and someone posts up a cover from close to 30 years ago of the EXACT SAME THING, I don't see how you can deny it. Oh yeah, because you fall a teensy weensy bit into the "dumb" category.

As for complaining about everything that's new, if they write about a fire-breathing pony that eats police officers, but cannot be taken down because it is just too darn cute, is that a good story? No. It's new, but that doesn't make it good. Do you get that? If not, I'm sure there ar esome more articulate posters than myself who would be happy to explain it to you. New does not equal good. The "Other" was a new idea, but it wasn't good.

Oh, and the "character for children" thing was hilarious! Next, tell me that "The Dark Knight" was aimed at preschoolers!

According to STAN LEE, these character have o be changed drastically every once and a while to keep them fresh and modern. But what would STAN LEE know about Spider-Man, afterall he only created and defined him. I'm sure fanboys know more than the most influencial figure in the mediums history.

And Stan Lee wouldn't support whatever Marvel does....after all, it's not like he has some financial stake in the profits or anything. It's like a movie studio saying that a movie they've produced is spinning off a sequel. They will never say, "Man, we shouldn't do spin-offs because they always suck."

See this crap here really gets to me. How is he acting inexperienced? Give me some examples.

Him getting slapped around by someone whose only skills are "a gymnast". That's a pretty good example. When a gymnast can best someone who has roughly 30 times her skills, speed, and strength, that is either bad writing, or the character that should have won is being written as inexperienced.

Of course, I'm sure you're prepared to post a response that will beguile me with its witicisms, so go ahead.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Well, you will enjoy it...the rest of us....not so much.

Then how do you account for Spider-Man sales going up?

Wow...I really touched a nerve with you. That really sheds some light on things. Fine, why don't you tell me why there should be any reason to get engrossed in any relationship of Peter's, when we know that the most we'll ever get is POSSIBLY an engagement that will inevitably end with a break-up or a death? We've been told that a married Spider-Man is not relateable, so he will never be married. They have limited themselves int hat aspect, and now, any realtionship he enters into will have a fixed ceiling upon it.

Neither will most superhero's and it worked OK for them. The fact that most of the problems with the Spider-Man books started after the marriage should tell you somethng. The fact that the best and most exicting Spider-Man franchises of the last ten years, the movie,Ultimate and the cartoon have all featured an unmarried Peter should tell you something.

As for the rehashing, when they show you a cover and tell you that Molten man is overheating and dying, and someone posts up a cover from close to 30 years ago of the EXACT SAME THING, I don't see how you can deny it. Oh yeah, because you fall a teensy weensy bit into the "dumb" category.

A one line descrpition doesn't mean anything. The actual story could be different.Like I said with Back to the Future II Marty McFly goes back to 1955 but it's a different story. In Ghostbusters II a ancient spirit is threatening New York but it is still a different story.

As for complaining about everything that's new, if they write about a fire-breathing pony that eats police officers, but cannot be taken down because it is just too darn cute, is that a good story? No. It's new, but that doesn't make it good. Do you get that? If not, I'm sure there ar esome more articulate posters than myself who would be happy to explain it to you. New does not equal good. The "Other" was a new idea, but it wasn't good.

No new does not equal good. But it could and maybe you should reserve your opinion on the quality of a story until you have, you know, read it.

Oh, and the "character for children" thing was hilarious! Next, tell me that "The Dark Knight" was aimed at preschoolers!

It was PG 13. And since when are all children preschoolers.

And Stan Lee wouldn't support whatever Marvel does....after all, it's not like he has some financial stake in the profits or anything. It's like a movie studio saying that a movie they've produced is spinning off a sequel. They will never say, "Man, we shouldn't do spin-offs because they always suck."

Yeah, he was talking about the comic industry as whole in an interview about BATMAN.

Him getting slapped around by someone whose only skills are "a gymnast". That's a pretty good example. When a gymnast can best someone who has roughly 30 times her skills, speed, and strength, that is either bad writing, or the character that should have won is being written as inexperienced.

Kind of like the black cat, or the kingpin.