Comics The SUPERIOR Spider-Man - Part 2

Ah, I like Norah (like the only character that came out of BND I did like) and the attitude. And yeah, Spidey's dialogue is melodramatic, but, hey, it's Ock. But, I think Ramos did a great job. I like the detail, particularly the shot of the entire Daily Bugle news staff. And I think he's curbing the anatomy breaking stuff.
 
I like Norah too and I understand her personality, it just seemed too much concerning the context of the scene. *shrug* I guess it wasn't a bad issue. Like I said I just think dialogue isn't Slott's strongest suit. I guess I really noticed the difference when Yost was scripting the recent raft arc.

Ramos has improved, but I probably will never completely warm to him. His Spidey is good, but his faces.... oye. Him and Steve Skroce from the 90's have to be my least favorite Spidey artists of all time.
 
I was at Half Priced Books the other day and found one of those "The Best of Spider-Man" oversized hardcovers that collected Straczynski's run plus extras. I looked through it and got to the Green Goblin arc from Jenkins and Ramos. Wow, I forgot how ugly his work used to be. The story was terrific, but that art... *shudder*
 
He really ruined Jenkins' best written Spider-Man arc. If Buckingham or another competent artist had been given that arc, it would have been a classic we'd talk about today. Instead all we remember is just how terrible and incomprehensible the art was. Shame.
 
I think Norah's beer comment was more of a reflection (or relief) that "concerns" she had in regards to Phil had been revealed rather than she shockingly finds out that her boyfriend is a murderous villain.

Solid issue.

:yay:
 
He really ruined Jenkins' best written Spider-Man arc. If Buckingham or another competent artist had been given that arc, it would have been a classic we'd talk about today. Instead all we remember is just how terrible and incomprehensible the art was. Shame.

Sorry, strongly disagree. I think Ramos' art style ADDED to Jenkins' story.

Ramos ruined Venom :cmad:

Venom was ruined looong before Ramos. :cwink:
 
Sorry, strongly disagree. I think Ramos' art style ADDED to Jenkins' story.


I'm not nor have I ever been a Ramos fan, but I always thought that I was the only one now who thinks that Ramos' work back THEN was a whole lot better than it is NOW...

and what's even funnier is that I didn't even like it back THEN...

I just think his work on his first run, despite the flaws, was more palatable than his current run of glaring and obvious flaws in his work...

to ME anyway...
 
I don't buy it myself. While I think that scene was ok in setting up the basic premise on why they might lay off him for a bit and give him the benefit of the doubt. I think the characterisation was off. To me it's like they were acting as though they had only just met the guy the other week.

We've had years worth of stories with Spider-man not only as an Avenger but with many other hero team ups as well. The 'ah ok then' and 'not much I can do about it' attitude of the other heroes comes off as a bit hokey considering the amount of time they're meant to have known one another for. I'm not saying Spider-man is the best of friends with them, but they've been around one another too long for me to buy that scene.

That's because writers today aren't concerned with what has been established, continuity, etc. ALL they care about is the story they want to tell. Anyone read superior foes with the 'cowardly' shocker? Where the hell'd that characterization come from?
 
Spider‑Man;26698453 said:
That's because writers today aren't concerned with what has been established, continuity, etc. ALL they care about is the story they want to tell. Anyone read superior foes with the 'cowardly' shocker? Where the hell'd that characterization come from?

:whatever: Maybe it came from years of getting the **** kicked out of him by Spider-Man and constantly being a second-rate villain?

People always complain about new "out of nowhere" characterizations when they just don't understand character progression. You can't write characters the exact same way for 50 years.
 
Spider‑Man;26698453 said:
That's because writers today aren't concerned with what has been established, continuity, etc. ALL they care about is the story they want to tell. Anyone read superior foes with the 'cowardly' shocker? Where the hell'd that characterization come from?



Aloha,
I asked that same question when the book first came out. I can deal with progression of a character but I was looking for a specific issue where Shocker kind of gets PTSD.I'm still looking.
Spidey rules
 
Didn't he even run with the Thunderbolts in a mind breaking time travel snafu that could have doomed the world as we know it?
 
We've seen it happen with a few Spidey villains over the years... Doc Ock and the Scorpion come to mind...

:csad:
 
Shocker was shaky back in the early 90s following the Scourge stuff but overcame it by the mid-90s/early-00s. Superior Foes of Spider-Man was a fun read, but the Shocker depiction turned me off.

:whatever: Maybe it came from years of getting the **** kicked out of him by Spider-Man and constantly being a second-rate villain?

People always complain about new "out of nowhere" characterizations when they just don't understand character progression. You can't write characters the exact same way for 50 years.

The thing about character progression is that you have to SHOW the character progression. Jumping from point B to point D skips the very important point C. With Shocker, yes, he's been beat up up a lot and could likely become cowardly, but we aren't shown that progression. They skipped a step, and that's A) sloppy storytelling, and B) out of character.
 
Wasn't it Norah who helped get the name The Daily Bugle back?
Wasn't Norah a Part-Owner or something of the New Bugle?
How did she get fired if she's part owner?
Or am I mistaken and it's not her and was someone else...

Also, not sure if this was talked about or if it was even mentioned in the comics yet, but are Norah and Billy related...?
 
Wasn't it Norah who helped get the name The Daily Bugle back?
Wasn't Norah a Part-Owner or something of the New Bugle?
How did she get fired if she's part owner?
Or am I mistaken and it's not her and was someone else...

That was Marla Jameson... :up:

:yay:
 
:whatever: Maybe it came from years of getting the **** kicked out of him by Spider-Man and constantly being a second-rate villain?

People always complain about new "out of nowhere" characterizations when they just don't understand character progression. You can't write characters the exact same way for 50 years.

'Progression' indicates smaller steps along a continuum from point A to point B, each step logically leading to the next that makes it understandable how one got from A to B where just going from A to B in one step makes no sense. This is essentially what they did with shocker. This apparently appeals to and is perfectly acceptable to the new generation of short-attention-span readers but it is absolutely NOT progression.
 
Spider‑Man;26714969 said:
'Progression' indicates smaller steps along a continuum from point A to point B, each step logically leading to the next that makes it understandable how one got from A to B where just going from A to B in one step makes no sense. This is essentially what they did with shocker. This apparently appeals to and is perfectly acceptable to the new generation of short-attention-span readers but it is absolutely NOT progression.

I actually think it's more a case of short-attention span (or indifferent) writers than it is readers. Let's just pretend it was someone else in the Shocker costume and move on.
 
I actually think it's more a case of short-attention span (or indifferent) writers than it is readers. Let's just pretend it was someone else in the Shocker costume and move on.

Well that's essentially what I said in my first post but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - I think it takes the latter not to mind the former.

Oddly enough, my first thought after seeing the shocker's Mis-characterization was 'did someone replace Herman Schultz? When did that happen?!'
 
Has Slott ever talked about how many issues he plans to go with Superior?
 
Until it's been run so far into the ground that it's regarded as the new Clone Saga? :huh:
 
Spider‑Man;26698453 said:
That's because writers today aren't concerned with what has been established, continuity, etc. ALL they care about is the story they want to tell. Anyone read superior foes with the 'cowardly' shocker? Where the hell'd that characterization come from?

I've no idea. It seems some can easily change the characterisation of some characters to suit their story I guess.

:whatever: Maybe it came from years of getting the **** kicked out of him by Spider-Man and constantly being a second-rate villain?

People always complain about new "out of nowhere" characterizations when they just don't understand character progression. You can't write characters the exact same way for 50 years.

People understand character progression. You're just making excuses for a sudden change of character.
 
Until it's been run so far into the ground that it's regarded as the new Clone Saga? :huh:

Nope... unlike the Clone Saga, which felt like no one knew what direction they wanted in the books with all the back'n forths, this story is reading very much like it has a beginning, middle and end. So even if this goes beyond 2 years, so far, it's reading very well... unlike all the frustrations and obvious indecisions brought forth by Marvel during the Clone Saga.

:yay:
 
FYI... in the Shocker's early appearances, he had shown some insecurities that he managed to overcome later in his career... so mid-life crisis maybe? In recent events, he had been poisoned and survived a bombing by the Punisher & turned into a Spider during Spider-Island... I can see how that might get into someone's head...

:yay:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"