Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Attn JMS: Com-Con panel followup

3 views
Skip to first unread message

kjhi...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 5:40:35 PM8/12/02
to
If you're currently reading this newsgroup...

Someone at the panel you did with JRJR in San Diego on Friday asked a
question about "Baby May". From your response (and John's), neither of
you had any idea who this question was referring to. (The answer is,
Peter and Mary Jane's baby, who was apparently stolen soon after being
born but is believed to be dead.)

This ties back to a question that I was going to ask at the panel but
didn't have time for: I understand that you're not interested in going
back and drawing elements from old continuity (especially the lackluster
continuity from recent years). However, I'd think that certain elements
-- like the death of a child -- should be part of the writer's awareness.
If someone else were writing the future adventures of Sheridan and Delenn,
the writer should at least know that that a son, no?

So my question was: How much of Spider-Man's continuity are you familiar
with? You're a big comics fan -- how much of his history have you read?
And is anyone at Marvel doing anything to get you up to speed on
continuity that you may have missed?

M.O.R

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 6:19:59 PM8/12/02
to
Hi

Not wanting to insult or anything, but that whole baby May thing has been
laid to rest, and was pretty much forgotten about by later writers, and for
years has not been addressed, almost as if it never happened. Most felt it
a bad idea that MJ got pregnant in the first place.

MOR
<kjhi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ulgaqjt...@corp.supernews.com...

coondawg

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 7:23:47 PM8/12/02
to
and i think it's been stated recently that mj and peter being married will
be dropped too, so as not to confuse the movie customer pickups.

"M.O.R" <pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:aj9c8i$i67$1...@dorito.esatclear.ie...

Sean Walsh

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 11:54:01 PM8/12/02
to
coondawg <cp...@nospamattbisux.com> wrote in message
news:7sX59.579$Zl2.109@sccrnsc02...

> and i think it's been stated recently that mj and peter being married will
> be dropped too, so as not to confuse the movie customer pickups.

Yet oddly enough, over in Ultimate Spidey they...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
spoiler space!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...may or may not have just killed MJ in #25.

And to think: *that's* the book aimed more towards the new readers...

--
Sean

Sean-Walsh.com!!! Just guess the URL...
New Gods Library: http://fastbak.tripod.com
Quantum Piett! http://www.geocities.com/quantumpiett/
My latest eBay auctions: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/slwalsh/
¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø


Landru99

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 2:57:14 AM8/13/02
to
<<...may or may not have just killed MJ in #25.>>

And if you think for a second she's really dead, I'd like to sell you the very
same bridge the Goblin thew her off ....

Landru

Ian Boothby

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 3:06:24 AM8/13/02
to

M.O.R <pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:aj9c8i$i67$1...@dorito.esatclear.ie...
> Hi
>
> Not wanting to insult or anything, but that whole baby May thing has been
> laid to rest, and was pretty much forgotten about by later writers, and
for
> years has not been addressed, almost as if it never happened. Most felt
it
> a bad idea that MJ got pregnant in the first place.
>
> MOR

Well there is the Spider-Girl comic that brings it up every issue.
I think it's silly that they don't think you can do a domestic Spidey.
With both May and MJ knowing his identity it'd be Everyone Loves Spider-Man.


Jms at B5

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 4:50:53 PM8/13/02
to
>and i think it's been stated recently that mj and peter being married will
>be dropped too, so as not to confuse the movie customer pickups.

Nope. Marvel never stated it to me, and I've certainly never stated it to
anyone.

Definitely not true.

jms

(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2002 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

kjhi...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 4:50:46 PM8/13/02
to
M.O.R top-posted:
> Hi

> Not wanting to insult or anything, but that whole baby May thing has been
> laid to rest, and was pretty much forgotten about by later writers, and for
> years has not been addressed, almost as if it never happened. Most felt it
> a bad idea that MJ got pregnant in the first place.

> MOR

Well, sure... I don't expect clones to show up or Chapter One to be
referenced, either. I guess the question is, how *much* of a title or
character's history is essential for a writer to know before writing the
series? Suppose JMS decides to do a story some day in which MJ thinks
she's pregnant? Or even a scene where they talk about whether or not to
have kids? Obviously JMS doesn't need to know that Spidey and the Beast
fought Killer Shrike in Marvel Team-Up 90, but some history is more
important to who the characters are.

(Unfortunately at the con panel, the people who yelled out to try to tell
JMS & JRJR who Baby May was were trying to explain it via Spider-Girl,
which just confused matters -- I don't consider knowledge of possible
futures to be important...)


> <kjhi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Jms at B5

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 5:04:04 PM8/13/02
to
>So my question was: How much of Spider-Man's continuity are you familiar
>with? You're a big comics fan -- how much of his history have you read?
>And is anyone at Marvel doing anything to get you up to speed on
>continuity that you may have missed?

I was a huge Spidey fan for many years, starting with his first appearance
right up through about maybe five, six years ago when it wandered away (for my
tastes anyway, ymmv) from what I was interested in following.

What I tend to do is check with Axel to find out what's current to make sure I
don't step on anything significant (though there's so much out there that it's
nigh impossible not to step on *something*). For instance, when I did the Doc
Ock story out now, I asked Axel for the latest on the doc, what he did and
didn't know, what his relation was currently if any with Aunt May, and so on.
He checked it out at his end, and gave me the skinny. Which is what a good
editor does.

The problem with being strict on continuity is that there's so much that has
been done in and around the character, for so many years, that it begins to
wall you in dramatically. So my take on this is that you have to be mindful of
the major themes and major stories and broad strokes of the character's
history. They are there and they work for a *reason*. But in the small
strokes, you need to have some measure of flexibility.

What art is about -- and I'm going to call comics art because I've always
believed that's what they are -- is not regurgitation of facts; it's about
interpretation. In his plays, Shakespeare took liberty with stories and
histories that preceded him, bending them to the story he wanted to tell.

Similarly, in present, you'll often see many of his plays presented in modern
dress, or with a female in the lead role of Hamlet; you look at what's there
and re-interpret things to see how they look when you turn the mirror just a
bit to one side.

Otherwise, if you don't have this freedom, you may as well have one of those
computer programs where you input the names, histories, and powers of the
various Spidey characters, input plot complications, and let it keep
regurgitating elements of the same formula, over and over. Or you turn the
book over to supporting characters, which I think is what happened over the
last few years.

I think you have to be mindful and respectful of continuity; but a writer's
*job* is to reinterpret the world, and the past, in new and interesting ways.
If you ain't doing that, you ain't doing the job.

Marc-Oliver Frisch

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 5:35:40 PM8/13/02
to
Jms at B5 wrote:

> I think you have to be mindful and respectful of continuity; but a
writer's
> *job* is to reinterpret the world, and the past, in new and interesting
ways.
> If you ain't doing that, you ain't doing the job.

While this is certainly true, a lot of the dissatisfaction among fans seems
to stem from writers forgetting the part before the semikolon.

--Marc


coondawg

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 5:59:06 PM8/13/02
to

"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020813165053...@mb-mc.aol.com...

ok, cool. i thought i read that somone at a con or somthing had said that.


Gary Majdanek

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 7:11:40 PM8/13/02
to

> ok, cool. i thought i read that somone at a con or somthing had said that.
>

I seem to remember Kevin Smith hinting at something like this, although how
serious he was, I'm not sure


Chuck420

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 7:10:50 PM8/13/02
to
Hi there,

I thought that here would be a good place to let you know that your recent
work has brought a long time spiderman fan back into the web, so to speak. I
too drifted during the clone saga, however in the last 6 -12 or so months, i
have thoroughly enjoyed once again reading spiderman books. Thanks.

"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20020813170404...@mb-mc.aol.com...

Johanna Draper Carlson

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 8:09:17 PM8/13/02
to
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:

> I was a huge Spidey fan for many years,...

Fascinating reading, Mr. Stracyznski. Thank you for giving us your
thoughts.

--
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Reviews of Anthologies, Archie Comics, upcoming books
including JLA, Panther, Fables, GL, Stormwatch, Ultimates, X-Factor

Eoghann Irving

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 8:30:06 PM8/13/02
to
Hello, Jms at B5!
You wrote:

> >and i think it's been stated recently that mj and peter being
married will
> >be dropped too, so as not to confuse the movie customer
pickups.
>
> Nope. Marvel never stated it to me, and I've certainly never
stated it to
> anyone.

I think what the previous poster MIGHT have been referring to was
a comment made by Kevin Smith in an online interview recently.
I'm going from memory here and may be a little off, but
essentially he said that Joe Quesada had promised him first
crack at putting Peter and MJ back together. He said something
about not being allowed to refer to the fact they're actually
married due to the movie. That isn't quite the same thing as
actually dropping the marriage of course, but still.

However he has previously turned out to be somewhat ill informed
about the current status of Daredevil and seeing that you're the
one actually currently writing Spider-man.

> Definitely not true.

I'd say thats the definitive word. ;)

Eoghann Irving
--
Solar Flare - Everything Fantasy & Science Fiction
News, Reviews and Commentary
http://www.sflare.com

Sean Walsh

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 8:48:23 PM8/13/02
to
Landru99 <land...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020813025714...@mb-fq.aol.com...

You, sir, have a deal!! ;p

Jms at B5

unread,
Aug 14, 2002, 12:41:52 AM8/14/02
to
>I thought that here would be a good place to let you know that your recent
>work has brought a long time spiderman fan back into the web, so to speak. I
>too drifted during the clone saga, however in the last 6 -12 or so months, i
>have thoroughly enjoyed once again reading spiderman books. Thanks.

You're most definitely welcome, and just as definitely not alone. I've been
hearing this from a lot of folks. I wish I could take more credit for it than
this, but it's really just a matter of getting out of the way and letting Peter
be who and what he is...that, and John's art. The character is solid, the
mythos is solid, and all you really have to do is not screw it up.

What's been gratifying also has been the slow but steady rise in the book's
sales figures, so that it just recently broke 100,000 copies for the first time
in a very, very long time. That tells me that the character, and the venue, is
still valid; it's just a matter of being honest with the book.

M.O.R

unread,
Aug 14, 2002, 4:22:29 PM8/14/02
to
Thanks for making Peter human also, and for foregoing a load of unnecessary
back history with him. His revealing his identity came off as being so
natural that I felt like I was there and Pete talking about Uncle Ben to
Aunt May, was what fans had waited years for.

Thanks.

MOR
"Johanna Draper Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in message
news:johanna-0FDF7D...@news.fu-berlin.de...

JVV4sm

unread,
Aug 15, 2002, 6:47:20 AM8/15/02
to
>
>> ok, cool. i thought i read that somone at a con or somthing had said that.
>>
>
>I seem to remember Kevin Smith hinting at something like this, although how
>serious he was, I'm not sure
>
>


Smith wrote on Newsarama:

Can't do anything real about getting Peter and Mary Jane together, cause Joe
told Kevin he would be the one to do that, when and if it happened.

This is true. When Quesada asked me to do Amazing he told me he wanted me to
handle the Peter/Mary Jane stuff. Believe me - I'd rather not. Because if you
think my comments regarding DD/Bullseye smack of continuity ignoring, try
writing a story involving married characters when you're not even allowed to
say they're married anymore - because they're not married in the movie, and
they can't get divorced because Peter Parker
- the charmingly human and fallible character that he's historically been,
would never get divorced. It was much easier to write comics for Marvel when
there were no Marvel movies being made. Now? Everything bows to the studio
mandate - ask Brian Bendis how easy it's been to work on the MTV Spider-Man
cartoon, in which no character is allowed to be more than twenty years old,
villains are supposed to be high school
contemporaries of Peter, and any seniors - like Aunt May - are being shown the
door, because MTV viewers supposedly don't like old people. But since it's
better to have Marvel movies that kind of <TOS> with what's being done in the
comics than comic stories that are unbridled because there are no Marvel movies
to worry about, it's just a sacrifice the writers, and, subsequently, the
readers will have to live with. If you don't like it,
refuse to see the next Spider-Man movie when it comes out so that it makes
twenty bucks it's opening weekend. Then you can have your comics back,
unspoiled. But make sure you convince the other 50 million folks who went to
see Spider-Man to ignore it too, because they're the people <TOS>ing with your
continuity, not me. At the end of the day, the best selling book in the
marketplace does, what? 100,000? Maybe 200,000 copies - not
counting ten and nine cent books? Do the math: 200,000 times the national
average movie ticket price, which is somewhere around seven bucks. Hate to say
it but you - and me - are in the severe minority, kids. We don't dictate <TOS>
when the rest of the world thinks of Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man.

So all this wonderful Mary Jane/Peter storyline stuff in the current book can't
really go anywhere;

I could be wrong, and maybe folks are just lying all over the place to Poor,
Misinformed me, but I was told JMS had no real concrete plans for Peter and
Mary Jane. He cleared the decks of all the supporting characters on his Amazing
run to concentrate on that first storyline with the guy who wants to eat
Spider-Man - whose name escapes me at the moment. I realize his intention was
to slowly work the supporting cast back into the book, but I
was always led to believe that Mary Jane wasn't his primary concern. If she is,
then Good Lord, he's welcome to her.JMS, if you're out there reading, and you
want to handle the Mary Jane/Peter "We're married, but not really" hot potato,
brother: do it with my blessing. Because the <TOS>-storm that's gonna rise out
of that cluster-<TOS> is gonna be big. Like when the word "Kike" showed up in
the pages of Wolverine-uproar big. Like "The Clone
Saga"-uproar big.


StAkAr Karnak

unread,
Aug 15, 2002, 9:18:16 PM8/15/02
to
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002, Jms at B5 spake:

> The problem with being strict on continuity is that there's so much
that has been done in and around the character, for so many years, that
it begins to wall you in dramatically.

Then I'd respectfully (and hypothetically) say the way to go would be to
choose a character that *does* suit your purpose or invent your own.

> What art is about -- and I'm going to call comics art because I've
always believed that's what they are -- is not regurgitation of facts;
it's about interpretation.

I'd disagree that this generalization applies to all art, especially
serial fiction.

> I think you have to be mindful and respectful of continuity; but a
writer's *job* is to reinterpret the world, and the past, in new and
interesting ways.

Again, I disagree. I feel that a writer's job in serial fiction is to
extrapolate interesting new directions for characters based on what has
been established to date. If "A" and "B" are givens, you don't need to
"reinterpret" the next step, but follow the logical progression to "C".

Again, it is not my intention to offend you, JMS, as I've enjoyed every
Spidey you've written to date (with the exception of the 9/11 issue,
which I skipped). These are only my opinions.

- StAkAr Karnak

***
http://www.geocities.com/glakandar/dime.html

Visit the Marvel Chronology Project!
http://www.chronologyproject.com

When all is said and done, more is said than done. - anonymous

Carl Henderson

unread,
Aug 16, 2002, 1:51:55 AM8/16/02
to
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in
news:20020814004152...@mb-mc.aol.com:

> What's been gratifying also has been the slow but steady rise in the
> book's sales figures, so that it just recently broke 100,000 copies for
> the first time in a very, very long time. That tells me that the
> character, and the venue, is still valid; it's just a matter of being
> honest with the book.

I think you are being too modest. I've been reading comics for over twenty-
five years. Your work with JR JR on AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (and Bendis/Bagley's
work on ULTIMATE), are the first time that I've _ever_ found the character
the least bit interesting. I was a fan of work on Babylon 5, but I went
into your first ASM issue thinking, "Even JMS probably can't makethe
mainstream Marvel Spider-Man not suck"; I was pleasantly surprised to be
wrong.

The 100,000+ sales are greatly deserved.

--
Carl Henderson carl.he...@airmail.net
RAC/RACM FAQ http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/miscfaq.htm

Simon Keen

unread,
Aug 16, 2002, 9:35:17 AM8/16/02
to
And, lest we forget, Paul Jenkins has had a large hand in this renaissance.
While JMS is doing some outstanding work now, Mr Jenkins was producing a
quality Spider book amongst a pile of dross. Some of the nicest Peter Parker
stories that have been told for years. So my applause to the staff of ALL of
the books these days.

Cheers,
Simon Keen


Jim Longo

unread,
Aug 16, 2002, 1:37:27 PM8/16/02
to
Sta...@webtv.net (StAkAr Karnak) wrote in message news:<11450-3D5...@storefull-2353.public.lawson.webtv.net>...

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002, Jms at B5 spake:
>
> > The problem with being strict on continuity is that there's so much
> that has been done in and around the character, for so many years, that
> it begins to wall you in dramatically.
>
> Then I'd respectfully (and hypothetically) say the way to go would be to
> choose a character that *does* suit your purpose or invent your own.

Bang-o-la. This is what pisses me off about the Ultimates. You want
the characters' name recognition to make your sales go up, but you
don't want to deal with the history that gave the character hir name
recognition. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it, too?

j.

Jms at B5

unread,
Aug 16, 2002, 4:57:22 PM8/16/02
to
>And, lest we forget, Paul Jenkins has had a large hand in this renaissance.
>While JMS is doing some outstanding work now, Mr Jenkins was producing a
>quality Spider book amongst a pile of dross. Some of the nicest Peter Parker
>stories that have been told for years.

Boy, do I ever agree with that. When I was asked to come onto Spidey, they
sent me a bunch of the ASMs preceding me, and Paul's books, and -- and the
thing is, I don't like to rag on somebody else because I don't like it when it
happens to me, but -- I'd read one of the ASMs and just run to one of Paul's
issues to regain my sanity. He's been doing great work for a long time, and
the only thing I regret about my run on Spidey is that the PR has been so
heavily ASM related (and again now with Kevin coming on board) that his book
hasn't been getting the press or attention it really deserves, in my opinion.

Marc-Oliver Frisch

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 6:57:05 AM8/17/02
to
Jms at B5 wrote:

> Boy, do I ever agree with that. When I was asked to come onto Spidey,
they
> sent me a bunch of the ASMs preceding me, and Paul's books, and -- and the
> thing is, I don't like to rag on somebody else because I don't like it
when it
> happens to me, but -- I'd read one of the ASMs and just run to one of
Paul's
> issues to regain my sanity.

You're doing a pretty good job of ragging on Mackie, though.

--Marc


Paul O'Brien

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 7:54:36 AM8/17/02
to
In message <11450-3D5...@storefull-2353.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
StAkAr Karnak <Sta...@webtv.net> writes

>
>Then I'd respectfully (and hypothetically) say the way to go would be
>to choose a character that *does* suit your purpose or invent your own.

I think he's saying, though, that it's better to gloss over minor
historical problems with an otherwise suitable character than to let
those bar you from using him.

I don't think he's advocating the sort of wholesale remodelling of
characters for story convenience that seems to have happened with, for
example, Kraven - or the outright contradicting of story elements which
the majority of readers are actually likely to remember.

Spider-Man's history doesn't make sense anyway - there's way too much of
it to be credible for a man of his age. I think it's fair enough for
writers today to aim to achieve consistency with those elements of the
history which the readers are likely to recognise as relevant to the
story, and not worry too much about whether it contradicts something
that happened twenty years ago in Marvel Team-Up.

--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com

NTL - even worse than I'd heard.

Alan Travis

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 7:06:16 PM8/17/02
to
As much as I get pegged for being the big continuity proponent around here,
I actually don't worry about it much. To me, continuity is not about
knowing that the Beast and Wonder Man like Burger King over McDonalds
because it says so in Avengers #203 or that Le Peregrine and She-Hulk have
met before because they were both in the Contest of Champions.

To me, continuity is about respecting the stories (and thus, the
storytellers) that have come before you. I don't much care for it when a
new writer comes to Amazing Spider-Man (to pick a title at random) and
writes a story that changes how we view the events within Amazing Fantasy
#15. That's Stan's story. He wrote it. He got it right. Don't tread on
it.

The secret to enjoying continuity in Marvel or DC comics is the notion that
continuity from bad stories falls away. No one need ever reference that Cap
turned into a werewolf or all that nasty clone business. Sometimes, the
stories fall out of continuity because they aren't remarkable enough to
recall (and while someone will be able to recall it, it's not worth paying
attention to that one person). Other times, the continuity is specifically
ignored - i.e. the clone saga.

Continuity is not a rigid set of facts and figures. It's a tapestry of good
stories that work with each other and with the good stories of the other
books to make up the Marvel Universe - the best superhero playground ever
invented.

As long as writers keep the broadstrokes intact, I don't sweat the little
details. Unfortunately, like John Byrne re-working Sandman into a villain
without any explanation, today's writers seem to be using the characters as
templates without bothering to know where years of character evolution has
led them.

Alan

Aaron Malchow

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 9:33:30 PM8/17/02
to
JMS wrote:
"Boy, do I ever agree with that. When I was asked to come onto Spidey,
they sent me a bunch of the ASMs preceding me, and Paul's books, and -- and the
thing is, I don't like to rag on somebody else because I don't like it when it
happens to me, but -- I'd read one of the ASMs and just run to one of Paul's
issues to regain my sanity."

And Marc-Oliver Frisch trolled:


"You're doing a pretty good job of ragging on Mackie, though."

Yeah, isn't it amazing how JMS specifically mentioned Mackie by name, went into
excruciating detail about what he disliked about Mackie's writing - Hey, wait a
minute! JMS didn't do any of that! In fact, he pretty much minimizes discussing
his dislike for the *single* issue he referred to while emphasizing how much he
likes Paul Jenkins' work overall.

On the other hand, it seems like every recent thread that JMS has participated
in, Marc-Oliver takes the time to insult him without provocation.

Of course, maybe Marc-Oliver was just being affectionate and playful, or
perhaps acting as a Devil's Advocate, in this last post. Yeah, and maybe pigs
test fly jet planes for the air force, too.

Aaron Malchow

Paul O'Brien

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 4:55:11 AM8/18/02
to
In message <20020817213330...@mb-mf.aol.com>, Aaron Malchow
<aaronm...@aol.com> writes

>
>Yeah, isn't it amazing how JMS specifically mentioned Mackie by name,
>went into excruciating detail about what he disliked about Mackie's
>writing - Hey, wait a minute! JMS didn't do any of that!

Well, yes, but it's hardly a major intellectual exercise to work out
which writer's stories he's referring to, is it?

Brett Todd

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 4:09:05 AM8/18/02
to
"Alan Travis" <alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D5ED49E...@earthlink.net...

> The secret to enjoying continuity in Marvel or DC comics is the notion
that
> continuity from bad stories falls away. No one need ever reference that
Cap
> turned into a werewolf or all that nasty clone business. Sometimes, the
> stories fall out of continuity because they aren't remarkable enough to
> recall (and while someone will be able to recall it, it's not worth paying
> attention to that one person). Other times, the continuity is
specifically
> ignored - i.e. the clone saga.

But if the events are big enough, you can't just ignore it. At least I
can't. The Clone Saga and the ridiculous return of Norman Osborn were huge,
stupid mistakes that you can't simply forget about. The Spidey books today
have yet to recover from what happened there. What had become part of the
character's core mythos was shattered. For example, look at the current duel
between Spider-Man and the Green Goblin in Spectacular. In one panel,
there's a comment like "One of these days, one of us is going to have to
die." Yeah, and it happened in 1973, so why the hell are we back to this
almost 30 years later?

Certain screw-ups are almost impossible to walk away from. Pretending that
big plot points never happened is insulting to the reader--Hmmm, these
stories were good enough to charge money for at the time, but now we should
just forget that they ever happened? Sure thing--where's my refund? I'd
rather that the writers make the best they can of the history they've got to
work with, good and bad. That doesn't mean referencing every issue, but it
does mean not abandoning big stories. Doing that undermines the whole
credibility of the comic. It also doesn't do much for my suspension of
disbelief when I'm constantly reminded of editorial influences behind the
scenes.

As much as I love the built-up continuity of the Marvel Universe, the
writers have made such a hash of things over the past decade that there's
almost no choice but to do some kind of reboot. It's interesting that Marvel
is approaching this point of no return at about the same time in its
corporate history that DC did. Seems like about 35-40 years is the lifespan
of a comics universe. I just hope and pray that if a reboot happens, it
doesn't involve this Ultimates stuff. I'm not interested in a new MU where
Giant Man beats the hell out of his wife and then summons ants to eat her.

Brett


Samy Merchi

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 12:04:05 PM8/18/02
to
"Brett Todd" <btodd...@recorder.ca> wrote on 18 elo 2002:
> Giant Man beats the hell out of his wife and then summons ants to
> eat her.

I've never before wanted so badly to be an ant...

--
Samy Merchi | sa...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/samy | #152235689
Reader of superhero comic books, writer of superhero fanfiction
"*Astrolabe*...whirls...*twirls*!"

Aaron Malchow

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 3:17:36 AM8/19/02
to
I wrote:
"Yeah, isn't it amazing how JMS specifically mentioned Mackie by name, went
into excruciating detail about what he disliked about Mackie's writing - Hey,
wait a minute! JMS didn't do any of that!"


Paul O'Brien responded:


"Well, yes, but it's hardly a major intellectual exercise to work out which
writer's stories he's referring to, is it?"


First, slight correction: writer's story, not writer's stories (see my last
paragraph below).

Only if you already know that Mackie was the previous writer on Amazing
Spider-Man, and that there was no fill-in writer on the issues in question.
While I knew that Mackie wrote the series before JMS, I don't know whether
there was a fill-in issue with a different writer on the issue in question. As
it is, I didn't really care, as JMS was emphasizing his appreciation for
Jenkins' writing, which I thought was quite nice.

Also, there is a distinction between going out of one's way to actually name an
individual to criticize his work and making a vague passing reference about how
a single story was poorly written. For instance, for me to say that I disliked
Harley Quinn 20 is not the same as me saying I dislike the entire series or
that I dislike Karl Kesel's writing. Now, the first statement might well imply
the other two statements, but it isn't always a certainty, as I did indeed
dislike Harley Quinn 20, but I've enjoyed the majority of that series, and I'm
an extremely big fan of Karl Kesel's writing.

Now unless JMS says that he truly despises Mackie's writing, I'm not willing to
ascribe more to his previous statement than is there: "I'd read *one* of the
ASMs and just run to one of Paul's issues to regain my sanity" [Emphasis mine].
The sort of inane accusation that Marc-Oliver made is the sort of thing that
snowballs out of control online, spreading rumors across the Internet, changing
from "JMS said he disliked an issue of ASM" to "JMS says he dislikes Mackie's
entire run" to "JMS says he personally hates Mackie."

Take care,
Aaron Malchow

0 new messages