Why I quit Spider-Man. A rant in 3 parts. (long!)
Steve Parker
Part 1:
I've been reading Spider-Man for 20+ years. My first issue was a Byrne
story in the early 190s. Spider-Man is one of the two or three books
that lured me away from DC and got me reading Marvel. Over the years,
I've picked up the whole run of Spider-Man (although many are reprints
ala Marvel Tales and Marvel Masterworks) just so I could read them the
complete story. I like the character, I like the cast. I just like
reading about Spider-Man. But recently, with the infamous "Box" issue,
I had all I could stand, I couldn't stand any more. I quit cold turkey
and I miss the title, but I don't miss the monthly aggravation of
thinking "I paid good money for this?"
Part 2:
I put most of the blame for the state of the book on a couple of
writers. Some of the blame goes to John "IT'S ONLY BEEN T*E*N* YEARS,
DAMMIT" Byrne, who is so obsessed with "modernizing" Spider-Man (and
other characters) that he's forgotten how to tell stories. I don't
want a character's history fixed (well, other than Hawkman...but
that's another rant), I want new stories.I like Byrne's stuff, and
I'd love to see Byrne on a book where the editor point-black forbade
him to retcon anything and forced him to tell new stories, set in the
present and that moved the characters forward. Consider Byrne's
wonderful run of Fantastic Four: Invisible Girl became Invisible
Woman, he significantly altered Sue's personality for the better (he
made Sue strong without making her Thundra), Franklin aged a couple of
years, Johnny married Alicia. It was great!. Now look at what he's
doing. Both of Byrne's current Marvel titles are attempts to retcon..
Hint for John: Just do a Crisis if you want a fresh start. "My"
Spider-Man got a microscope from Uncle Ben, not a computer. The
Spider-Man I remember grew up in the '60s. (remember I started reading
in the late '70s). You can't extricate him from that. Flash *was*
drafted and went to Viet-Nam and met Sha-Shan. Mary Jane *was* a go-go
dancer in a mini-skirt in a cage. There *was* a "Crisis on the Campus"
due to racial unrest. I could go on, but won't. Yes, those elements
are minor, but they give the book a subtle flavor, without which, it
just doesn't seem like Spider-Man.
In any case, if you have trouble with the fact that Peter was around
for LBJ and Nixon and Carter and Reagan and Bush and Clinton but is
still only in his late '20s, then ignore it. But wasting your time
trying to "fix" it by vomiting up rewritten stories that'll be
outdated soon is neither entertaining or productive. Tell new stories
and ignore the elements of the old ones you don't like.
Most of the blame, however goes to Mackie. I can't stand his writing.
His storytelling style can be summed up in two words "Ain't tellin'."
A few examples: Peter and MJ's kid was kidnapped. Is she dead, or just
missing? "Ain't tellin'." Mackie replies. Mary Jane was being
stalked. Who *was* the stalker? "Ain't tellin'." Mackie replies. Then
MJ got on a plane and it blew up. Did the stalker do it? "Ain't
tellin'." Mackie replies. Why would the stalker blow up a plane with
the object of his desires on it "Ain't tellin'." Mackie replies. Is
she dead? "Ain't tellin'." Mackie replies. Peter thinks she's dead
because of evidence in a box. What was the evidence? "Ain't tellin'!"
Mackie replies.) This is objectively bad writing. A story *must* have
some kind of resolution. "Ain't tellin'." is not a resolution.
Part 3:
I first heard this phrase in a column by Peter David in CBG. I don't
know if he originated it, but it perfectly sums up what I don't like
about Spider-Man's current status. "The illusion of change."
The thing that made Spider-Man unique was that he grew up and changed.
Peter loses his glasses, graduates High School, comes out of his shell
and learns to make friends, his girlfriend is murdered, he becomes
friends with his high-school rival, he graduates college, one of his
arch-foes reforms, he gets married, his aunt dies, and has a kid. No
other ongoing series has ever had a character change so much.
Basically, there is are some people at Marvel (Mackie, and Byrne among
them) who want Peter to be returned to the Spider-Man of the mid-1970s
and frozen there. They'll write any story, however bad, contrived,
etc. to get him back to the Peter that they grew up with (I assume
they grew up with the 1970s Peter.) The current Spider-books are so
desperate to undo every change to Spidey's life that I wouldn't be at
all surprised by a storyline where Peter drinks a youth-potion and
becomes a teenager again and has to go back to high school.
For most books, I understand the need for the illusion of change. I
don't like it, but see that it may be necessary. For Spider-Man
however, when every storyline is devoted to undoing change (backwards
change is NOT a change in the sense of the word I mean). they've cut
the soul out of the title.
Lee and Ditko took some huge risks with Spider-Man by letting him
change. No one had done it before and if DC had been in charge, Peter
would never have graduated High School and he'd still be dating Betty
Brant. I think it's a disservice to Lee and Ditko's (and all the
other creators since) to simply freeze Peter's life.
The worst part is, I don't see how the book can be fixed. Unless you
simply say everything after Amazing #400 is "...a dream, a hoax, an
imaginary story!".(which wouldn't be satisfying or commercially
feasible, I suspect) there's been too much done to the title to
salvage it from my POV.
Until then, I've got my fingers crossed that the guy doing Ultimate
Spider-Man will have the guts to do new stories with new villains
(rather than regurgitate other writer's stories) and let his
Spider-Man's life move forward. I'm looking forward to the USM,and
have high hopes, but I promise this: the first story (other than the
origin) that's a rehash of a previous writer's work will be my last
issue.
Steve
Mylazycat
>
> This is a rant. If you don't enjoy reading rants, read no further.
I read it and I've snipped it for space purposes, but I do agree.
When Norman came back, followed by Peter & MJ's baby being taken away by
Norman, and, worst of all, Aunt May was suddenly alive again, I gave up
after about 20 years, too.
It was such an obvious effort to return Peter to the way he was in the
1970's that I couldn't stand it. Hey, I loved the '70's, too-loved those
great storylines, Gwen's death, Norman/Goblin vs. Peter/Spidey. You know
why I loved them so? Because they were new & fresh storylines AT THAT
TIME!
Reggie Jackson will never bat for the Yankees in a MLB game again. Jimmy
Carter will never be president of the U.S. again. All In The Family will
never appear in the weekly prime time fall lineup again. Norman Osborn &
Aunt May should have stayed dead. Let it go. Move on.
-----
Gary
Ralph Mathieu
been Spider-Man titles since at least Amazing #200
was right on target all around!
I don't even think Paul Jenkin's recent efforts on Spider-
Man have been entertaining or moves in the right
direction. His Hulk is also not causing any excitement
around here. Both of these characters need to have a
writer that will bring a entirely different perspective to
them without discarding the books' glory years. Jenkin's
had a good run on Hellblazer, his Inhuman's were great,
and Sentry looks to be interesting (albeit there seems to
be some early borrowing from Moore's MarvelMan).
Too bad those that need to read your piece won't.
Ralph Mathieu
Alternate Reality Comics
Las Vegas, NV
www.altrealitycomics.com
Ed Whitmore
any who disagree with you about the "Illusion of Change", let's review:
Peter just lost the love of his life, Gwen...I mean MJ.
Peter's love life is now torn between Gwen...I mean Jill...Stacy and Daily
Bugle
secretary Betty Brant...I mean Glory Grant.
Peter's father figure by the name of Stacy is back...although now with a
goatee.
Flash Thompson's an asshole.
Peter now has serious money problems from, essenitally, having no job (that
Daily Bugle shite doesn't count, it's freelance)
Peter still splits his time worrying about his "poor, sick Aunt"
All of Aunt May's "on-panel" time consists of worrying about "fragile Peter"
and "that horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible Spider-Man". Ungrateful old
bitch.
Sandman's a villain again.
Vulture's old again.
Kraven is back, resurrected as his own clone-of-a-son.
Norman Osborn is once again Pete's numero uno villain.
And according to Mikko Attiola, we should see Pete sporting glasses again
any day now...
SEAN
Dan Harayda
Steve Parker wrote:
> This is a rant. If you don't enjoy reading rants, read no further.
I gave up when i forget the issue, but in the letter columns, they
wouldn't say if issue #200 was in continuity or not, and I felt it was a
personal slap in the face, and I have only been reading Spider-man since
'88.
Mackie just lost touch with Spider-man because when Spidey had 4 books I
thought he was the best writer, but right after Goblin at the Gates his
writing went down hill. Yet his work on Mutant X is pretty decent.
Bryne will go down as the writer I hate the most cause he took things like
that needed no fixing and totally screwd-up the comic.
Now I liked Untold tales of Spider-man, so I am not going to complain
about leaving things in the past but Busiek had the right idea, expand not
change his history.
My friend gave me the 3 issues of Death and Destiny and son of gun it was
the best Spider-man has been in years. So it is not a character problem
just a writing problem. Maybe I'll pick up it after Mackie leaves, maybe I
won't, but I know for me at least this was the worst period of creativity
in Spidey's history. And not even JR's art could save it, sad to say.
Steve Parker
>Steve Parker <spar...@home.com> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>Agree 100% with everything.
>
>> Basically, there is are some people at Marvel (Mackie, and Byrne among
>> them) who want Peter to be returned to the Spider-Man of the mid-1970s
>> and frozen there. They'll write any story, however bad, contrived,
>> etc. to get him back to the Peter that they grew up with
>
>So will you be reading SPIDER-GIRL?
Actually, if that's the "future" character (same world as Darkdevil,
Buzz, etc) that's the only Spider-Book left that I read. It's got
consistently good writing, I like the character and the book is the
only one that...feels...like a Spider-book should feel, if you know
what I mean. Plus, the "cross-over"/time-travel story where May met
young Peter Parker actually achieved that elusive "sense-of-wonder"
for me.
If only the main Spider-titles could do the same. <sigh>
Steve
Dwight Williams
> Steve Parker <spar...@home.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Agree 100% with everything.
>
> > them) who want Peter to be returned to the Spider-Man of the mid-1970s
> > and frozen there. They'll write any story, however bad, contrived,
> > etc. to get him back to the Peter that they grew up with
>
Well, I know I plan to catch up on my reading of that series ASAP...
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Maintainer/Founder - DEOList for _Chase_ Fandom
Personal Web Site: http://www.ncf.ca/~ad696/
*I* own my postings on Usenet, *not* any dot-com site!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mylazycat
> My friend gave me the 3 issues of Death and Destiny and son of gun it >was the best Spider-man has been in years. So it is not a character >problem just a writing problem.
Been away from Spiderman for awhile now, as I noted in another post, so
could you tell me where/how to find this Death and Destiny story?
Much thanks.
-----
Gary
Robert Mcfadden
That expression, "everything old is new again," was taken way too seriously
by some folks at Marvel.
BM
----------
In article <PY0j5.18991$Z6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Ed
Todd VerBeek
>> My friend gave me the 3 issues of Death and Destiny and son of gun it
>was the best Spider-man has been in years. So it is not a character
>problem just a writing problem.
Our friend Mylazycat said:
>Been away from Spiderman for awhile now, as I noted in another post, so
>could you tell me where/how to find this Death and Destiny story?
It was a limited series that came out over the past 3 months. So "where" is
your local comics shop, and "how" is to look for "Spider-Man: Death &
Destiny" in big letters on the covers. {smile}
Cheers, Todd
--
I'm an optimist: the glass is empty, but maybe =someday= it'll be half full.
Augusto
> Kraven is back, resurrected as his own clone-of-a-son.
>
This is probably one of the worst things they've done yet. It's funny how
Kraven's "son" just looks THE SAME AGE AS HIS DAD. And, weren't there 2 Kravens
recently, one that looks like daddy and another slimmer one. Are they both
brothers ?
I'm confused, but who cares when the written is such crap !
sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi
<SNIP>
Agree 100% with everything.
> Basically, there is are some people at Marvel (Mackie, and Byrne among
> them) who want Peter to be returned to the Spider-Man of the mid-1970s
> and frozen there. They'll write any story, however bad, contrived,
> etc. to get him back to the Peter that they grew up with
So will you be reading SPIDER-GIRL?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| -- Samy Merchi | sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi | http://mash.yok.utu.fi |
| Reader & fan of superhero comics; writer of superhero fanfiction |
| Female supremacist; anarchist; personal pacifist; mass darwinist |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mylazycat
------
Gary
Mikko Aittola
Steve Parker <spar...@home.com> writes:
> I put most of the blame for the state of the book on a couple of
> writers. Some of the blame goes to John "IT'S ONLY BEEN T*E*N* YEARS,
> DAMMIT" Byrne, who is so obsessed with "modernizing" Spider-Man (and
> other characters)
Two points:
1. Marvel Time is not Byrne's idea. It's an editorial "policy" that
has been used 20-30 years. (Does anybody know from when exactly?)
2. Byrne was hired by Marvel to retell Spider-Man's early adventures
and he also agreed to pencil Spider-Man for a year. I doubt it's
fair to call it obsession if one does the work he was hired to
do.
> Both of Byrne's current Marvel titles are attempts to retcon..
Attemps to retcon???
Hidden Years and Marvel: The Lost Generation _are_ retroactive
continuity. They're not "attempts".
Spider-Woman is set to the present, though.
> "My" Spider-Man got a microscope from Uncle Ben, not a computer.
I can't believe this bullshit argument against Chapter One
stills keeps popping up. If you'd actually care to READ
Chapter One #1, you'd notice that Peter still has the chemistry
set there. It's not like having a computer and a microscope are
mutually exclusive!
> A few examples: Peter and MJ's kid was kidnapped. Is she dead, or just
> missing? "Ain't tellin'."
Powers that be at Marvel realized it was not a good idea to make
Peter a father. The "ain't telling" comes from editorial.
> Mary Jane was being stalked. Who *was* the stalker? "Ain't tellin'."
> Mackie replies.
It was somebody who was clearly obsessed with MJ. It's possible
that he was previously unknown character. Currently, the story
says the stalker is dead. There's really no point to explore
the identity of the stalker further at this time.
> Then MJ got on a plane and it blew up. Did the stalker do it? "Ain't
> tellin'." Mackie replies.
The story says currently that it was an accident. It has not been
established that the stalker (who's dead according to the story)
had anything to do with it.
> Is she dead? "Ain't tellin'." Mackie replies.
The story says she's dead.
> Peter thinks she's dead because of evidence in a box.
Not just because of that. Read the last three pages of
PPSM #19.
> Lee and Ditko took some huge risks with Spider-Man by letting him
> change. No one had done it before and if DC had been in charge, Peter
> would never have graduated High School and he'd still be dating Betty
> Brant. I think it's a disservice to Lee and Ditko's (and all the
> other creators since) to simply freeze Peter's life.
Having Peter graduate high school and date some other than Betty
were "huge risks"?
> The worst part is, I don't see how the book can be fixed.
Spider-Man is mostly fixed now. It might be a good thing to bring Harry
back, though!
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
"Ed Whitmore" <edmu...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Peter's love life is now torn between Gwen...I mean Jill...Stacy and
> Daily Bugle secretary Betty Brant...I mean Glory Grant.
Bullshit. Peter does't currently have a love life in the books.
His wife just died.
> Peter's father figure by the name of Stacy is back...although now with a
> goatee.
And what's so wrong with that. He was introduced to the series YEARS AGO.
I can't believe you still can't get over that.
> Flash Thompson's an asshole.
Not really.
> Peter now has serious money problems from, essenitally, having no job (that
> Daily Bugle shite doesn't count, it's freelance)
Peter has money problems because MJ's managers took their money
and he has debt.
> Peter still splits his time worrying about his "poor, sick Aunt"
Aunt May hasn't been "poor, sick" in a while. She wasn't well
after Peter rescued her in PPSM #97, but she got better quite
fast.
> All of Aunt May's "on-panel" time consists of worrying about "fragile Peter"
> and "that horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible Spider-Man". Ungrateful old
> bitch.
It's obvious that you haven't really been reading the books.
> Sandman's a villain again.
Ain't that great!
> Vulture's old again.
Being old is an essential part of the character.
> Kraven is back, resurrected as his own clone-of-a-son.
This is not something the current creative team did.
> Norman Osborn is once again Pete's numero uno villain.
Norman Osborn hasn't been Peter's numero uno villain
in two years. I hear he's coming back, tho. The Revenge
of Green Goblin miniseries by Roger Stern and Ron Frenz
starts later this month.
> And according to Mikko Attiola, we should see Pete sporting glasses again
> any day now...
I note that you're still obsessed about my opinions. It's a bit sad,
really.
/Mikko
Patrick MARCEL
> Peter (...) gets married, his aunt dies, and has a kid.
Ulp! Aunt May had a kid while she was dead? How did I miss that? :-))))))
> Lee and Ditko took some huge risks with Spider-Man by letting him
> change. No one had done it before and if DC had been in charge, Peter
> would never have graduated High School and he'd still be dating Betty
> Brant.
Unfair: the current heroes at DC are often new versions of the old ones.
There's a new Flash, a new Green Lantern, a new Spectre (even if he is
an old hero). This has never happened (durably, at least) to any
prominent hero at Marvel.
> I promise this: the first story (other than the
> origin) that's a rehash of a previous writer's work will be my last
> issue.
Well, they will have to reintroduce the rogues' gallery of villains, I suppose...
Patrick
--
"We are all born as molecules in the heart of a billion stars; molecules
that do not understand politics or policies or differences. Over a
billion years, we foolish molecules forget who we are, and where we came
from. In desperate acts of ego we give ourselves names, fight over lines
on maps, and pretend our light is better than everyone else's. The flame
reminds us of the piece of those stars that lives on inside us, the
spark that tells us, 'you know better'." JMS
Peter Likidis
Patrick MARCEL wrote:
> Unfair: the current heroes at DC are often new versions of the old ones.
> There's a new Flash, a new Green Lantern, a new Spectre (even if he is
> an old hero). This has never happened (durably, at least) to any
> prominent hero at Marvel.
I agree with this. I think that Marvel listens to fans TOO much. I would
hate to work at marvel simply because you're constantly doomed if you do
and doomed if you don't. Look at the Spiderman clone saga.
Essentially the entire story was geared to changing Spiderman from Peter
to Ben. Sure the execution sucked. But what if the execution was
perfect? would the Spider X-Patriots (or what ever they were called)
still have called a boycott? probably.
Look at DC and the Green Lantern change. When this occurred the Hal fans
kicked up a stink. DC ignored them. GL has been selling proportionately
better ever since the change. They didn't double back even though the
group of Hal lovers even put in full page ads in Wizard.
Maybe Marvel should permanently change some characters.
Which characters do you think Marvel changed and then changed back
should they have left alone after the initial change?
--
Peter Likidis - Peter of Smeg
centu...@iname.com
"Everyone should believe in something... I believe I'll have another
pint." - Craig Charles
FREEEEEEEE guestbooks at Century City - http://centurycity.hypermart.net
It's Cold Outside - Red Dwarf - http://www.skyboom.com/centurycity
GKR Karate Timetables-a-gogo - http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/5223/
Ed Whitmore
"Mikko Aittola" <mait...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:idnd7jm...@vipunen.hut.fi...
> > A few examples: Peter and MJ's kid was kidnapped. Is she dead, or just
> > missing? "Ain't tellin'."
>
> Peter a father. The "ain't telling" comes from editorial.
No, the Powers That Be ASSUMED it wouldn't be a good idea to make Peter a
father. How could they possible realize it, since he never got the chance?
> > Mary Jane was being stalked. Who *was* the stalker? "Ain't tellin'."
> > Mackie replies.
>
> It was somebody who was clearly obsessed with MJ. It's possible
> that he was previously unknown character. Currently, the story
> says the stalker is dead. There's really no point to explore
> the identity of the stalker further at this time.
No, better they stretch it out for years like the clone saga and just decide
at the end that it was all Norman Osborn's doing. Worked the first time.
> > Then MJ got on a plane and it blew up. Did the stalker do it? "Ain't
> > tellin'." Mackie replies.
>
> The story says currently that it was an accident. It has not been
> established that the stalker (who's dead according to the story)
> had anything to do with it.
Maybe not, but that's a miiighty big coincidence that he was on the
exploding plane.
> > Is she dead? "Ain't tellin'." Mackie replies.
>
> The story says she's dead.
Means less than shit. What about all the stories that say Norman Osborn's
dead?
> Spider-Man is mostly fixed now. It might be a good thing to bring Harry
> back, though!
Owch. That was painful. The only thing that's worse is the fact that you'll
probably get your wish.
SEAN
Ed Whitmore
> Bullshit. Peter does't currently have a love life in the books.
> His wife just died.
Okay, allow me to rephrase...Peter is now being hit on by two shameless
whores by the name of Glory Grant and Jill Stacy. :)
> > Peter's father figure by the name of Stacy is back...although now with a
> > goatee.
>
> And what's so wrong with that.
"What's wrong with it" is that Arthur Stacy died. The last thing we need is
a comparative clone of him in the book. Besides, Peter has been through
enoguh that he doesn't need a 'father figure' anymore...especially not the
brother of his old one. How cornball.
>He was introduced to the series YEARS AGO.
You bet he was. And he sucked THEN, too.
> I can't believe you still can't get over that.
I can't believe you want Harry Osborn back, so we're even.
> > Flash Thompson's an asshole.
>
> Not really.
Yeah, really.
> > Peter now has serious money problems from, essenitally, having no job
(that
> > Daily Bugle shite doesn't count, it's freelance)
>
> Peter has money problems because MJ's managers took their money
> and he has debt.
Buuut...if he had a good job, he could start to deal with that. No?
> > Peter still splits his time worrying about his "poor, sick Aunt"
>
> Aunt May hasn't been "poor, sick" in a while. She wasn't well
> after Peter rescued her in PPSM #97, but she got better quite
> fast.
Hmm...so I guess he doesn't have any excuse not to reveal his identity
anymore...
> > All of Aunt May's "on-panel" time consists of worrying about "fragile
Peter"
> > and "that horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible Spider-Man". Ungrateful
old
> > bitch.
>
> It's obvious that you haven't really been reading the books.
It's obvious you're determined to defend every stupid thing about the books.
> > Sandman's a villain again.
>
> Ain't that great!
No. It's stupid, pointless, and REPETETIVE.
> > Vulture's old again.
>
> Being old is an essential part of the character.
This is true, when he was old and dying of cancer. Then I cared about him.
Now he's exactly the villain he was in the 70's....in a bad suit.
> > Kraven is back, resurrected as his own clone-of-a-son.
>
> This is not something the current creative team did.
Didn't say it was. I just said it was an example of the "illusion of change"
IN the current Spidey books. Believe me, I blame DeMattis, Claremont, and
Priest just as much as I do Mackie.
> > Norman Osborn is once again Pete's numero uno villain.
>
> Norman Osborn hasn't been Peter's numero uno villain
> in two years. I hear he's coming back, tho. The Revenge
> of Green Goblin miniseries by Roger Stern and Ron Frenz
> starts later this month.
Well, Stern and Frenz get a "YAY!" Norman Osborn gets a big "BOO!"
> > And according to Mikko Attiola, we should see Pete sporting glasses
again
> > any day now...
>
> I note that you're still obsessed about my opinions. It's a bit sad,
> really.
Ohhhh, lighten up. I was having a little fun with your opinion...quite
frankly, cuz it was the hands-down goddamn thing I've read on this NG in a
while. Deal with it. ;)
SEAN
Mikko Aittola
"Ed Whitmore" <edmu...@earthlink.net> writes:
> No, better they stretch it out for years like the clone saga and just decide
> at the end that it was all Norman Osborn's doing. Worked the first time.
Sure did.
> Maybe not, but that's a miiighty big coincidence that he was on the
> exploding plane.
It has not been established in the books that the stalker was on the
exploding plane.
> Means less than shit. What about all the stories that say Norman Osborn's
> dead?
If it means less than shit, why are you worried about how Mackie
handles MJ's death? The story says MJ's dead -- what do you want
Mackie to do?
> The only thing that's worse is the fact that you'll probably get
> your wish.
We'll see. It's not like I'm going to do anything stupid
and childish, like bashing the creators online or actively
boycotting the books, if the books are not written to match
with my exact personal preferences.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
"Ed Whitmore" <edmu...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Okay, allow me to rephrase...Peter is now being hit on by two shameless
> whores by the name of Glory Grant and Jill Stacy. :)
In which issue did that happen?
> You bet he was. And he sucked THEN, too.
Because he was the brother of earlier character?
> Buuut...if he had a good job, he could start to deal with that. No?
Peter has tried to find a job. Peter having a normal job is
difficult, because he's Spider-Man.
> Hmm...so I guess he doesn't have any excuse not to reveal his identity
> anymore...
There's no need to make May even more worried about Peter.
Besides, the less people know about the secret identity, the less
chance there is that it's going to get revealed.
> No. It's stupid, pointless, and REPETETIVE.
Is Ultron being a villain also stupid, pointless and repetitive?
Maybe we should make Ultron an Avengers memeber! That would
be something, right?!
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
Peter Likidis <bettert...@powertech.net.au> writes:
> Look at DC and the Green Lantern change. When this occurred the Hal fans
> kicked up a stink. DC ignored them. GL has been selling proportionately
> better ever since the change. They didn't double back even though the
> group of Hal lovers even put in full page ads in Wizard.
And since Spider-Man sells even better than Green Lantern, Marvel's
decisions have been even better, right? I just followed your logic...
did I got it right?
/Mikko
Ed Whitmore
>
> "Ed Whitmore" <edmu...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > Okay, allow me to rephrase...Peter is now being hit on by two shameless
> > whores by the name of Glory Grant and Jill Stacy. :)
>
> In which issue did that happen?
Amazing Spider-Man #19, if my memory isn't failing me.
> > You bet he was. And he sucked THEN, too.
>
> Because he was the brother of earlier character?
No, not that alone. If you want the full answer, go find the earlier post,
cuz I ain't retyping it.
> > Buuut...if he had a good job, he could start to deal with that. No?
>
> Peter has tried to find a job. Peter having a normal job is
> difficult, because he's Spider-Man.
I know, I know. But hope may still win out. If Peter can maybe get his act
together a bit more, maybe we'll see more Tricorps in the future.
> > No. It's stupid, pointless, and REPETETIVE.
>
> Is Ultron being a villain also stupid, pointless and repetitive?
> Maybe we should make Ultron an Avengers memeber! That would
> be something, right?!
Hey yeah...a ROBOT changing his mind and joining his enemies. That'd work!
Not quite as great an idea as Peter Parker wearing glasses again, but it
could work!
Replace the name "Ultron" with "Grim Reaper" in your sarcastic retort and
the answer would be yes.
SEAN
The Peanut Gallery
I havent read S-M in years, but I have picked up enough about what's
going on in it from the posters here. I totally agree with you and I
think a lot of your points don't just apply to S-M, but to MU in
general.
>
> In any case, if you have trouble with the fact that Peter was around
> for LBJ and Nixon and Carter and Reagan and Bush and Clinton but is
> still only in his late '20s, then ignore it.
Absolutely!! I so totally agree with this. Just accepting the fact
that Marvel time passes differently than real time is no big deal. Most
readers do it without a second thought - it's just a given. But fooling
around with the established history - that does real damage to the
credibility of the world they're trying to create and is FAR, FAAAR
harder to swallow. I HATE it.
But wasting your time
> trying to "fix" it by vomiting up rewritten stories that'll be
> outdated soon is neither entertaining or productive.
Absolutely.
Tell new stories
> and ignore the elements of the old ones you don't like.
Amen.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi
> "Ed Whitmore" <edmu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> Sandman's a villain again.
> Ain't that great!
No.
--
sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi
> Unfair: the current heroes at DC are often new versions of the old ones.
> There's a new Flash, a new Green Lantern, a new Spectre (even if he is
> an old hero). This has never happened (durably, at least) to any
> prominent hero at Marvel.
Which is why I think DC has Marvel beaten ten ways to Sunday
quality-wise since 1985 or so.
>> I promise this: the first story (other than the
>> origin) that's a rehash of a previous writer's work will be my last
>> issue.
> Well, they will have to reintroduce the rogues' gallery of villains, I suppose...
Oh, joy. Can't wait for the Lizard to be reintroduced. I think it's
been a couple of years since I read a rehash of 'Curt Connors changes
into Lizard -- Spidey must cure him without hurting him'.
Rami Rautkorpi
> > The only thing that's worse is the fact that you'll probably get
> > your wish.
>
> We'll see. It's not like I'm going to do anything stupid
> and childish, like bashing the creators online or actively
> boycotting the books, if the books are not written to match
> with my exact personal preferences.
>
>
> /Mikko
Mikko, I won't comment on your other opinions, because they are, well, your
opinions, and you are entitled to them (although I would appreciate it if
you stopped behaving like your opinions are the *right* ones).
However, "actively boycotting the books, if the books are not written to
match with my exact personal preferences" is hardly "stupid and childish",
it's every consumer's prerogative. We have the right to stop spending our
money on a product that does not meet our standards, and to convince others
to do the same thing. And just the fact that Steve's arguments aren't
dogmatic and irrational like yours doesn't mean that he's a heretic and
wrong by default!
--
Rami Rautkorpi
http://koti.mbnet.fi/ramir
--
"Writing a poem
In seventeen syllables
Is very diffic" -John Cooper Clarke
Steve Parker
wrote:
>
>> The only thing that's worse is the fact that you'll probably get
>> your wish.
>
>We'll see. It's not like I'm going to do anything stupid
>and childish, like bashing the creators online or actively
>boycotting the books, if the books are not written to match
>with my exact personal preferences.
>
Stupid and childish? At least I haven't had my nose surgically
attached to the creator's anuses. Let's face it. When Mackie or Byrne
come to a sudden stop, Mikko's nose gets broken.
Steve
Andy Sheets
> Essentially the entire story was geared to changing Spiderman from Peter
> to Ben. Sure the execution sucked. But what if the execution was
> perfect? would the Spider X-Patriots (or what ever they were called)
> still have called a boycott? probably.
Oh, I don't know about that. If you say the execution was *perfect* then I
think that fans would dig it. Look at Alan Moore: virtually everytime he's
taken over a preexisting character, he's kicked off his run by retconning the
hell out of things. But not many people mind. Because he's that damn good.
But you say the clone story was geared to making Ben Spider-Man. As someone
who's only read bits of the clone saga, I have to ask: what, fundamentally,
was the point of the change? Why was it deemed necessary to ditch Peter as
Spidey? And why would Ben as Spidey be so much better? Was Peter really that
irredeemable at that point? What was the story actually ABOUT and, when
complete, what RELEVANCE would it hold for the readers? I'm curious because I
think these are some questions that writers of comics in general need to ask
themselves and I don't get a sense that many of them who made big changes to
characters are doing that. They're just kind of stumbling around trying to
shock us and instead they're destroying characters without any real goals in
mind. Only thinking in terms of the next event. Which is why most of them
suck. But like I said, I haven't really read the clone saga. Maybe it really
had good qualities and was just misunderstood :)
> Maybe Marvel should permanently change some characters.
Sure. But only if they really have a plan for something that will actually
broaden their concepts instead of crippling them. Brainlessly tearing shit up
is a bad thing.
> Which characters do you think Marvel changed and then changed back
> should they have left alone after the initial change?
For starters, all the characters with good deaths should have stayed dead :)
Andy
Steve Parker
wrote:
>
>Steve Parker <spar...@home.com> writes:
>> I put most of the blame for the state of the book on a couple of
>> writers. Some of the blame goes to John "IT'S ONLY BEEN T*E*N* YEARS,
>> DAMMIT" Byrne, who is so obsessed with "modernizing" Spider-Man (and
>> other characters)
>
>Two points:
>
>1. Marvel Time is not Byrne's idea. It's an editorial "policy" that
>has been used 20-30 years. (Does anybody know from when exactly?)
First I heard of it was in some interviews (in CBG, maybe?) with Byrne
and Claremont around the end of their X-Men run. Claremont was of the
opinion that 2 years or so Marvel Years passed for every 1 real year
and pointed out how he was having Christmases every two years in X-Men
(#98, 120, 143..issue numbers are approximate). Byrne, in his
interview responded something about how Scott and Jean had only known
each other for about 6 years, since it was only about 10 years since
the FF lauched their rocket. Anyway, that's the first I'd heard the
theory.
>
>2. Byrne was hired by Marvel to retell Spider-Man's early adventures
>and he also agreed to pencil Spider-Man for a year. I doubt it's
>fair to call it obsession if one does the work he was hired to
>do.
If most of the jobs a writer takes focus on one aspect of
storytelling, it's obvious that the writer (especially one of Byrne's
stature) *like* that aspect of storytelling.
>
>> Both of Byrne's current Marvel titles are attempts to retcon..
>
>Attemps to retcon???
>Hidden Years and Marvel: The Lost Generation _are_ retroactive
>continuity. They're not "attempts".
Attempts in the sense that he's trying and, in my opinion, failing (at
least with Lost Gen. Hidden Years isn't bad, actually)
>Spider-Woman is set to the present, though.
Fair enough. I completely forgot Spider-Woman.
>
>> "My" Spider-Man got a microscope from Uncle Ben, not a computer.
>
>I can't believe this bullshit argument against Chapter One
>stills keeps popping up. If you'd actually care to READ
>Chapter One #1, you'd notice that Peter still has the chemistry
>set there. It's not like having a computer and a microscope are
>mutually exclusive!
You seem stressed. Perhaps you should take a pill.
The lame attempt to update Spidey's origin by tying it into "the
internet is HOT" trend, in several years will seem as lame as "Disco"
Dazzler, Rocket-Racer, um...The CB Trucker guy with the bear suit.
etc.
>> A few examples: Peter and MJ's kid was kidnapped. Is she dead, or just
>> missing? "Ain't tellin'."
>
>Powers that be at Marvel realized it was not a good idea to make
>Peter a father. The "ain't telling" comes from editorial.
I don't care. There's better ways to handle it. It's bad writing AND
bad editorial policy.
>
>> Mary Jane was being stalked. Who *was* the stalker? "Ain't tellin'."
>> Mackie replies.
>
>It was somebody who was clearly obsessed with MJ. It's possible
>that he was previously unknown character. Currently, the story
>says the stalker is dead. There's really no point to explore
>the identity of the stalker further at this time.
The point would be good storytelling. If I'm reading a book, a
stranger comes out of nowhere and shoots one of the main characters
then shoots himself, and all the other characters say "Huh. How 'bout
that." and go on with their business, I'd toss the book.
>
>> Then MJ got on a plane and it blew up. Did the stalker do it? "Ain't
>> tellin'." Mackie replies.
>
>The story says currently that it was an accident. It has not been
>established that the stalker (who's dead according to the story)
>had anything to do with it.
"The story" doesn't say anything. The writer is being deliberately coy
about the situation and it's bad storytelling. There's an old saying
about playwriting "If you see a gun in the first act, it must be fired
by the third act". Let's change that to "If you have a stalker
menacing someone in the first act, you must know their identity and
motive by the third act,"
>
>> Is she dead? "Ain't tellin'." Mackie replies.
>
>The story says she's dead.
See above. There's too much coyness going on. If Mackie wanted her
dead, show us the body. Let's see the funeral. He's telegraphing that
he wants her dead but he wants an "out" just in case.
>
>> Peter thinks she's dead because of evidence in a box.
>
>Not just because of that. Read the last three pages of
>PPSM #19.
No. Reading it once was bad enough. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with
rusty spoons than reread it.
Ok, it wasn't *that* bad, but lord, it wasn't good.
>
>> Lee and Ditko took some huge risks with Spider-Man by letting him
>> change. No one had done it before and if DC had been in charge, Peter
>> would never have graduated High School and he'd still be dating Betty
>> Brant. I think it's a disservice to Lee and Ditko's (and all the
>> other creators since) to simply freeze Peter's life.
>
>Having Peter graduate high school and date some other than Betty
>were "huge risks"?
Yes. I said "huge risks" and I'll stand by it. Consider the context of
the time (1965 or so). Clark Kent had been a reporter in a great
metropolitan newspaper and was dating Lois Lane for something like 25
years (for instance). It was simply a fact of comics at the time that
if you have a winning series (by issue 20 or so, it was obvious that
Spider-Man was a winner, I believe it was Marvel's best seller or
second-best after FF) you don't tamper with it. By having him graduate
and ditch several members of his supporting cast (Liz Allen, Betty
Brant) Lee and Ditko had tossed every piece of conventional wisdom
about comics at the time. In terms of breaking rules, Lee and Ditko
went to town on Spider-Man. Lee's talked at length about the rules he
broke in the creation of Spider-Man (A kid can't be the hero, a kid is
a side-kick, you don't allow heros to make mistakes that lead to the
death of a loved one (Uncle Ben), a hero's personal problems must be
resolved in one issue and things returned to the status quo). I'd say
that breaking the "A hero's career, love life, personal life, etc.
must remain static" rule, and succeeding magnificently may be a
seminal moment in comics history by showing that tampering with
success can produce more success.
Steve
Rob Hansen
<bettert...@powertech.net.au> wrote:
>Which characters do you think Marvel changed and then changed back
>should they have left alone after the initial change?
Aunt May being dead. Curse those Aunt May fans for taking out that
full page ad and clamouring for her return. Oh, wait - no-one
clamoured for her return, did they?
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Augusto
> We'll see. It's not like I'm going to do anything stupid
> and childish, like bashing the creators online or actively
> boycotting the books, if the books are not written to match
> with my exact personal preferences.
So I have to buy books that *IN MY* opinion are absolute crap, just because it's
childish to "boycott" them ? You want me to financially support a piece of work I
don't like ???
Hey, man, when I buy comic books, I'm not contributing charity you know. If I
don't like it, I won't buy it. That's my choice as a consumer, and it is in a way
a "boycott" if you want to call it that.
Patrick MARCEL
> > > All of Aunt May's "on-panel" time consists of worrying about "fragile
> > Peter" and "that horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible Spider-Man".
> > It's obvious that you haven't really been reading the books.
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 21, september 2000 (recent enough for you?). Final panel:
Aunt May: "It seems like such a dangerous job for a boy as fragile as
you. All those horrid people... Like Spider-Man"
What a fresh line of dialogue for Aunt May to speak. I wonder how Mackie
can keep up with finding those sparkling gems of wit and new-minted
poetry all the time. It must be so tiring, coming up with them *all* the time...
Patrick
PS: yes, Mikko: I *do* understand, that *technically*, "all of Aunt
May's on-panel time" *doesn't* consist of worrying and so on. We're so
very glad you're such a litteral-minded person...
Jim & Rhonda Lancaster
" > Part 1:
> I've been reading Spider-Man for 20+ years.
I agree with absolutley every point Steve makes here. I have also been a
Spidey fan for over twenty years, and the recent stuff (at least the last
two years worth) has been just utterly horrible.
I don't know whether to blame Byrne and Mackie or Marvel editorial, but the
Spider books are just plain bad. They are full of poor storytelling, bad
dialogue, ridiculous retcons, two-dimensional characters, and ---well, they
are just no fun to read.
It is really a shame that I can't support a character I have loved and
enjoyed for so long. I really wish I could, but I can't spend money on
these books anymore. I would really rather see Spidey cancelled than
continue down this self-destructive path.
None of the work done on these books lately has done anything to bring in
masses of new, young, hip readers (which I assume was Marvel's goal) but
they have managed to lose at least some of us long-time, loyal Spidey fans.
It is a real shame.
As others have said, I just don't know if these books can be saved without
having Peter wake up and say that the last hundred issues have been a
HORRIBLE dream. The Jenkins influence leaves some room for hope, but with
the pile of rubbish he is being handed, how much can he really do?
I really don't like to be so negative, but I just don't have anything good
to say about what Marvel has done to Spidey. (OK, Romita Jr's art is nice.)
Jim Lancaster
Peter Likidis
Andy Sheets wrote:
> Oh, I don't know about that. If you say the execution was *perfect* then I
> think that fans would dig it. Look at Alan Moore: virtually everytime he's
> taken over a preexisting character, he's kicked off his run by retconning the
> hell out of things. But not many people mind. Because he's that damn good.
>
Moore, like Ellis and other writers have this little group of fans. No
matter what Moore does the bulk of his audience are these people. No
matter what he does they love it.
> But you say the clone story was geared to making Ben Spider-Man. As someone
> who's only read bits of the clone saga, I have to ask: what, fundamentally,
> was the point of the change? Why was it deemed necessary to ditch Peter as
> Spidey? And why would Ben as Spidey be so much better? Was Peter really that
> irredeemable at that point? What was the story actually ABOUT and, when
> complete, what RELEVANCE would it hold for the readers? I'm curious because I
> think these are some questions that writers of comics in general need to ask
> themselves and I don't get a sense that many of them who made big changes to
> characters are doing that. They're just kind of stumbling around trying to
> shock us and instead they're destroying characters without any real goals in
> mind. Only thinking in terms of the next event. Which is why most of them
> suck. But like I said, I haven't really read the clone saga. Maybe it really
> had good qualities and was just misunderstood :)
>
No it did sucked. Although I started to enjoy it when Ben was Spiderman.
I think Marvel's basic thinking was that Peter had grown up and they
didn't want him to become single again. So they came up with the clone.
I mean maybe the execution wasn't great but I rathered that then what
they ended up doing which was basically take PP back to basics anyhow.
> Sure. But only if they really have a plan for something that will actually
> broaden their concepts instead of crippling them. Brainlessly tearing shit up
> is a bad thing.
agreed.
Peter Likidis
I did say proportionately better. Meaning GL improved had always been
selling less than Spidey and I doubt he ever will be selling better.
Steve Parker
wrote:
>Steve Parker wrote:
>
>> The lame attempt to update Spidey's origin by tying it into "the
>> internet is HOT" trend, in several years will seem as lame as "Disco"
>> Dazzler, Rocket-Racer, um...The CB Trucker guy with the bear suit.
>> etc.
>
>You mean Razorback, the guy with the wild boar suit?
>
>That wasn't so much of a CB thing as it was an Arkansas thing.
No, I'm fairly certain that there was a trucker-guy in a Grizzly suit
with a "Ten Four good buddy" type of speech pattern. I remember the
boar guy too though.
Steve
Isaac Denney
pre-JLA Morrison, and pre-Hulk David were low-selling, plodding books with no real
focus or unique vision. Spider-Man, on the other hand, has been consistently popular
(well, up until recently) for over thirty-years. Similarly, you don't see huge,
phenomenal changes regarding Batman or Superman, but it's barely acceptable with
characters like Flash or Green Lantern.
Basically, the way I see it, people like Moore and Morrison are applauded for fixing
things that were broken. Spider-Man wasn't broken. It doesn't need some retcon wizard
like Byrne to fix it.
Andy Sheets wrote:
> Peter Likidis wrote:
>
> > Moore, like Ellis and other writers have this little group of fans. No
> > matter what Moore does the bulk of his audience are these people. No
> > matter what he does they love it.
>
> Yes. Because it's so much better than what most other writers do ;) It's not like
> these "little groups of fans" are grown in vats for the purpose of serving their
> masters. These writers earn those fans. I simply can't remember the last time I saw
> someone rant about how fatally disrespectful Swamp Thing 21 was, for example. It's
> widely agreed on as a Classic. Likewise, I can't agree that Moore's fans are blind
> since I haven't seen unconditional love for the likes of Spawn/Wildcats, Tomorrow
> Stories and Tom Strong, or even some of his more artful stuff like Lost Girls.
>
> Andy
Steve Parker
<sherlock...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <elqqos41tfjgfplf8...@4ax.com>,
> spar...@home.com wrote:
>
>> >Two points:
>> >
>> >1. Marvel Time is not Byrne's idea. It's an editorial "policy" that
>> >has been used 20-30 years. (Does anybody know from when exactly?)
Just so we're all clear here, Mikko wrote the above comment, not me.
>------------
<snip>
>> Attempts in the sense that he's trying and, in my opinion, failing (at
>> least with Lost Gen. Hidden Years isn't bad, actually)
...but I did write this comment (above).
>I agree about Hidden Years as well - I really like it. It has that "old
>time" feel about it - I thought he caught that atmosphere really well.
>Completely different in feeling from the current X-books and much more
>in line with the Marvel mainstream. Maybe that's why I like it.
..and I had nothing whatsoever to do with this (above) comment except
agree. ; )
Steve
Danny Sichel
> Spider-Man is mostly fixed now. It might be a good thing to bring Harry
> back, though!
Do you mean like my cats have been fixed?
Danny Sichel
> The lame attempt to update Spidey's origin by tying it into "the
> internet is HOT" trend, in several years will seem as lame as "Disco"
> Dazzler, Rocket-Racer, um...The CB Trucker guy with the bear suit.
> etc.
You mean Razorback, the guy with the wild boar suit?
Andy Sheets
Peter Likidis
Andy Sheets wrote:
>
> Yes. Because it's so much better than what most other writers do ;) It's not like
> these "little groups of fans" are grown in vats for the purpose of serving their
> masters. These writers earn those fans. I simply can't remember the last time I saw
> someone rant about how fatally disrespectful Swamp Thing 21 was, for example. It's
> widely agreed on as a Classic. Likewise, I can't agree that Moore's fans are blind
> since I haven't seen unconditional love for the likes of Spawn/Wildcats, Tomorrow
> Stories and Tom Strong, or even some of his more artful stuff like Lost Girls.
Tom Strong would be a good example. Could you honestly say that if all
the words and pictures were exactly the same but written by someone who
was not known or say Howard Mackie that it would be as popular?
I really couldn't see it.
The Peanut Gallery
> >Two points:
> >
> >1. Marvel Time is not Byrne's idea. It's an editorial "policy" that
> >has been used 20-30 years. (Does anybody know from when exactly?)
------------
Do you mean when it was decided that everything would remain static and
not age at all [as seems to be the case now], or when some informal kind
of ratio between MT and RT was set up [that a lot of writers seem to
have used when writing the characters]?
First, let me say I'm going more by the FF than by S-M, but Stan Lee
certainly let his characters change, age and grow. And to me this is
what first gave Marvel it's great success and popularity. They'd do
well to get back to this concept if they want to regain their market,
IMO. I think after him various writers did allow age and growth in the
charcters, albeit more slowly than he did. I remember definite aging
and personal growth - the sense of people moving forward with their
lives - up through Byrne's FF at least [and also in Simonson's IIRC].
How much time has now passed in the MU is an interesting question. I'd
like to hear what other people think. My own completely subjective
sense is that it should be something like 10-12 years since the FF
gained their powers and that Franklin should actually be somewhere
around 6-8 now. That kind of range. Im thinking that would fit with
S-M as well. Peter was in college about the same time as Johnny Storm
{I think}, he graduated, became a post graduate [did he finish?],
obviously met MJ and got married, must have been married a few years at
least, had a kid from what I hear. Im getting a lot of this more recent
stuff from other posters because I havent kept up with S-M for a long
time.
Does that seem about right to you? To me that would add up to somewhere
between 10 and 12 years depending on if he was still a post-grad student
when he met/married MJ [I wasnt reading it then so I dont know]. I
think it would be interesting to see if there is any kind of consensus
among long time readers as to their sense of just how much time they
think has passed.
> Attempts in the sense that he's trying and, in my opinion, failing (at
> least with Lost Gen. Hidden Years isn't bad, actually)
I agree about Hidden Years as well - I really like it. It has that "old
time" feel about it - I thought he caught that atmosphere really well.
Completely different in feeling from the current X-books and much more
in line with the Marvel mainstream. Maybe that's why I like it.
sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi
> Which characters do you think Marvel changed and then changed back
> should they have left alone after the initial change?
Wolverine with bone claws.
Colossus in the Acolytes.
Sunspot as Reignfire.
Storm powerless.
Jim Rhodes as Iron Man.
Ben Reilly as Spider-Man.
Mirage as a Valkyrie.
Hulk as a merged personality.
Cannonball as an External.
Cable as dead.
Jean Grey as dead.
Off the top of my head. With time, I'm sure I could come up with
dozens more.
The Peanut Gallery
spar...@home.com wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 04:09:06 GMT, The Peanut Gallery
> <sherlock...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >1. Marvel Time is not Byrne's idea. It's an editorial "policy"
that
> >> >has been used 20-30 years. (Does anybody know from when exactly?)
>
> >------------
>
> <snip>
>
(at
> >> least with Lost Gen. Hidden Years isn't bad, actually)
>
"old
> >time" feel about it - I thought he caught that atmosphere really
well.
> >Completely different in feeling from the current X-books and much
more
> >in line with the Marvel mainstream. Maybe that's why I like it.
> agree. ; )
>
> Steve
>
:-)! Sorry my post seems to have gotten so screwed up - I think the
Deja engine just mangled it or something.
Danny Sichel
>> Which characters do you think Marvel changed and then changed back,
>> that they should have left alone after the initial change?
> Hulk as a merged personality.
D'you mean the latest take, as per Jenkins, or....
Mikko Aittola
Augusto <aug...@no.spam.4.me__.cfl.rr.com> writes:
> So I have to buy books that *IN MY* opinion are absolute crap,
I didn't say that.
> just because it's childish to "boycott" them ?
I believe I wrote _actively boycotting_.
Like, say, spending 50% of one's freetime (some seem to do that
for years) weeping at the usenet and the message-boards, repeating
things like "I don't buy Spider-Man because Aunt May is alive" or
"I don't buy Spider-Man until Mary Jane is brought back".
I just wanted to say that I'm not like that. (I'd like to think so,
at least.) I want to discuss about the books that I actually read and
like. I won't spend my time at, say, the Green Lantern board harrassing the
people and the creators who like Green Lantern.
If you haven't noticed, certain individuals spend part of their time
here insulting me on a regular basis -- and for what? They do so because
I happen to like the Mackie/JRJR Spider-Man and have the "guts", if
you will, to say so.
I can't think of what could be more childish and stupid, as far as
discussing comics go. I also have to wonder how empty their life must
be, if they can't find anything better to do.
/Mikko
Isaac Denney
> Peter Likidis <bettert...@powertech.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Which characters do you think Marvel changed and then changed back
> > should they have left alone after the initial change?
>
> Wolverine with bone claws.
>
> Colossus in the Acolytes.
>
> Sunspot as Reignfire.
>
> Storm powerless.
>
> Jim Rhodes as Iron Man.
>
> Ben Reilly as Spider-Man.
>
> Mirage as a Valkyrie.
>
> Hulk as a merged personality.
>
> Cannonball as an External.
>
> Cable as dead.
>
> Jean Grey as dead.
>
> Off the top of my head. With time, I'm sure I could come up with
> dozens more.
Oh sure...pretty much anyone could. The problem is that you've been
suckered by what the ng is calling "the illusion of change."
F'rinstance, Wolverine has his adamantium back, right? Jean came back,
right? Hulk, Ben Reilly, Rhodey, Storm...they're all back (well, maybe not
the Hulk) to status quo.
Ain't nuttin changin'
Augusto
Mikko Aittola <mait...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote:
> I believe I wrote _actively boycotting_.
Actively boycotting, boycotting, what the difference ??? People have a
right to say , I'll boycott title X because it sucks !!! They can do
this, and encourage others to do so, what's wrong with that ?
> Like, say, spending 50% of one's freetime (some seem to do that
> for years) weeping at the usenet and the message-boards, repeating
> things like "I don't buy Spider-Man because Aunt May is alive" or
> "I don't buy Spider-Man until Mary Jane is brought back".
Sorry, but this is a newsgroup, and if that's what people want to
express, their utter frustration with this book, then let it be. Some
could also say , you spend over 50% of your time praising stuff most of
us don't like.
Personally, I don't mind you liking this crap, at least somebody is.
> I just wanted to say that I'm not like that. (I'd like to think so,
> at least.)
I think we all knew that.
> I want to discuss about the books that I actually read and
> like.
I want to discuss books I like, hate, care, don't care. I want to
discuss about marvel comic books, hence rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe.
As for Spider-Man, I like to comment on these books in particular,
because I like the character but not the direction it's been taking
lately (or for some years now).
> I won't spend my time at, say, the Green Lantern board harrassing the
> people and the creators who like Green Lantern.
I could care less about Green Lantern, but what's wrong with the people
who think Hal Jordan was just destroyed as a character. If the current
writers decided Peter Parker went berserk and massacred a bunch of
people, I'd be pretty ticked off too !
> If you haven't noticed, certain individuals spend part of their time
> here insulting me on a regular basis -- and for what? They do so
because
> I happen to like the Mackie/JRJR Spider-Man and have the "guts", if
> you will, to say so.
I don't know if I would call it "guts", but I agree, people shouldn't
get offensive or personal just because of liking a set of creators.
Maybe some people get frustrated at you because of some of your
responses, like :
"It hasn't been established"
When something is just obvious to the reader.
Still, I agree, no need to attack others.
richard
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 02:21:24 GMT, Danny Sichel <eds...@umoncton.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Steve Parker wrote:
> >
> >> The lame attempt to update Spidey's origin by tying it into "the
> >> internet is HOT" trend, in several years will seem as lame as "Disco"
> >> Dazzler, Rocket-Racer, um...The CB Trucker guy with the bear suit.
> >> etc.
> >
> >You mean Razorback, the guy with the wild boar suit?
> >
> >That wasn't so much of a CB thing as it was an Arkansas thing.
> No, I'm fairly certain that there was a trucker-guy in a Grizzly suit
> with a "Ten Four good buddy" type of speech pattern. I remember the
> boar guy too though.
>
> Steve
You are confusing two different characters. There was a villain
called the Grizzly that first appeared in Amazing Spiderman 139 in
1974 (this was before the CB craze really took off). He wasn't a trucker,
but a professional wrestler.
As for Razorback, he was in fact created to cash in on the "CB thing".
I'll never forget the ridiculous image of Razorback's vehicle -
a semi truck with the words "Big-Pig" emblazoned on it in giant
letters. As Razorback would say, "Ten-four, little buddy!" .
Richard
Scott Shupe
>
> Steve, your good-bye post to the nonsense that has
> been Spider-Man titles since at least Amazing #200
> was right on target all around!
Huh? He doesn't mention any problem with ASM in the mid-eighties. ASM
didn't start to go downhill until the out-of-nowhere forced-from-on-high
marriage of Peter & Mary Jane. That was around #290 IIRC. Even then it
was somewhat entertaining under Michilene until he wrote "Lifetheft" and
took off for the hills. Mackie didn't come on board until the clone
saga.
Isaac
>
>If you haven't noticed, certain individuals spend part of their time
>here insulting me on a regular basis -- and for what? They do so because
>I happen to like the Mackie/JRJR Spider-Man and have the "guts", if
>you will, to say so.
>
it seems you didn't wait for an attack. You called people childish
and stupid simply because they were dismissive of the books. You
didn't wait until they were dismissive of you.
>I can't think of what could be more childish and stupid, as far as
>discussing comics go. I also have to wonder how empty their life must
>be, if they can't find anything better to do.
>
opinions are right and that their's are stupid than with any actual
opinion you express. I think that's why discussions with you on the
topic of Spider-Man almost always degenerate into name calling.
I used to debate with you on this topic simply to see if I could get
some acknowledgement that you understood an opposing viewpoint. I
figure you won all of those debates.
Isaac
sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi
> sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi wrote:
> Oh sure...pretty much anyone could. The problem is that you've been
> suckered by what the ng is calling "the illusion of change."
No, I haven't been suckered. I just listed things that would've been
better if the illusion of change hadn't been applied to them.
sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi
> sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi wrote:
>>> Which characters do you think Marvel changed and then changed back,
>>> that they should have left alone after the initial change?
>> Hulk as a merged personality.
> D'you mean the latest take, as per Jenkins, or....
PAD's take. Haven't read the Jenkins one.
Ed Whitmore
"Mikko Aittola" <mait...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote in message
> > just because it's childish to "boycott" them ?
>
As opposed to what? Boycotting in the safety of one's own home?
> Like, say, spending 50% of one's freetime (some seem to do that
> for years) weeping at the usenet and the message-boards, repeating
> things like "I don't buy Spider-Man because Aunt May is alive" or
> "I don't buy Spider-Man until Mary Jane is brought back".
How is this different then spending 50% of YOUR free time defending things
like "it doesn't matter what was in the box" and "Sandman is supposed to be
a villain"?
> I just wanted to say that I'm not like that. (I'd like to think so,
> at least.) I want to discuss about the books that I actually read and
> like.
That's fine. Do that. Nobody's stopping you.
I won't spend my time at, say, the Green Lantern board harrassing the
> people and the creators who like Green Lantern.
That's also fine. Then don't do that. Did I miss the section where
everyone's gotta do what you do?
> If you haven't noticed, certain individuals spend part of their time
> here insulting me on a regular basis --
That is unfortunate. It shouldn't happen, but it does. People should never
insult other people (except those goddamn trolls and spammers) on Usenet.
Disagreeing with ideas...and even outright condemning them...that's
different.
and for what? They do so because
> I happen to like the Mackie/JRJR Spider-Man and have the "guts", if
> you will, to say so.
Not just that...you can also be standoffish to the point of annoyance. IMO,
anyway. :)
> I can't think of what could be more childish and stupid, as far as
> discussing comics go.
How about telling people what they should and shouldn't be discussing? That
ranks pretty high on the "stupid" scale.
I also have to wonder how empty their life must
> be, if they can't find anything better to do.
Well, not all of us can dream about carrying around Mackie's balls in a warm
spoon, but we occupy our time somehow.
(see now, that's what I mean about standoffish...)
SEAN
Perceptor
whole clone saga pretty much killed Spider-Man for me. The second they
tried to replace Peter Parker as Spider-Man, I dropped all titles. I
haven't read any of them since. As far as I am concerned, Spider-Man
died when they did that.
Perceptor
Mikko Aittola wrote:
> If it means less than shit, why are you worried about how Mackie
> handles MJ's death? The story says MJ's dead -- what do you want
> Mackie to do?
--
UCITA is now law in Maryland, and has been passed in Virginia. UCITA
is a major setback for software buyers, erasing 35 years of progress
in consumer protection laws. Software vendors can apply Maryland or
Virginia law to buyers in any state, including yours. You can fight
UCITA by supporting the Pennsylvania Computer Lemon Law (House Bill
1817).
Click here for more info:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/1999/0/HB1817P2226.htm
http://www.computerlemonlaw.com
http://www.4cite.org
hobbyexpert
>This is a rant. If you don't enjoy reading rants, read no
further.
>Most of the blame, however goes to Mackie. I can't stand his
writing.
>His storytelling style can be summed up in two words "Ain't
tellin'."
>A few examples: Peter and MJ's kid was kidnapped. Is she dead,
or just
>missing? "Ain't tellin'." Mackie replies. Mary Jane was being
>stalked. Who *was* the stalker? "Ain't tellin'." Mackie replies.
Then
>MJ got on a plane and it blew up. Did the stalker do it? "Ain't
>tellin'." Mackie replies. Why would the stalker blow up a plane
with
>the object of his desires on it "Ain't tellin'." Mackie replies.
Is
>she dead? "Ain't tellin'." Mackie replies. Peter thinks she's
dead
>because of evidence in a box. What was the evidence? "Ain't
tellin'!"
>Mackie replies.) This is objectively bad writing. A story *must*
have
>some kind of resolution. "Ain't tellin'." is not a resolution.
Damn straight. Mackie is not a good writer, and his weaknesses
led to my dumping the Spider-books fairly quickly. While Byrne is
authoring superior work on X-Men: Hidden Years, his run on
Amazing Spider-Man and the soon-to-be-cancelled Spider-Woman
(last ish is 18, out in October) has been pockmarked by bad
storytelling. Mackie doesn't know how to properly bring closure
to a story and is doing everything in his power to avoid giving
readers a happy ending. MC2 suggests that Peter & MJ eventually
found their daughter, who'd grow up to be Spider-Girl. The
Earth/Universe X version has her as Venom. Either way, it's
better than the drivel Mackie & Macchio forced Byrne to help
spoonfeed to the public for nearly 2 years.
I will forgive Byrne his retconning on Spider-Man: Chapter One,
since he was ordered to modernize the story for today's audience,
who are computer-obsessed.
>
>Part 3:
>I first heard this phrase in a column by Peter David in CBG. I
don't
>know if he originated it, but it perfectly sums up what I don't
like
>about Spider-Man's current status. "The illusion of change."
>
>The thing that made Spider-Man unique was that he grew up and
changed.
>Peter loses his glasses, graduates High School, comes out of his
shell
>and learns to make friends, his girlfriend is murdered, he
becomes
>friends with his high-school rival, he graduates college, one of
his
>arch-foes reforms, he gets married, his aunt dies, and has a
kid. No
>other ongoing series has ever had a character change so much.
>
>Basically, there are some people at Marvel (Mackie
among
>them) who want Peter to be returned to the Spider-Man of the
mid-1970s
>and frozen there. They'll write any story, however bad,
contrived,
>etc. to get him back to the Peter that they grew up with (I
assume
>they grew up with the 1970s Peter.) The current Spider-books are
so
>desperate to undo every change to Spidey's life that I wouldn't
be at
>all surprised by a storyline where Peter drinks a youth-potion
and
>becomes a teenager again and has to go back to high school.
Didn't they do that last part with Iron Man? Seriously, I edited
out your accusation of Byrne being part of some conspiracy to
bring Spidey back to the 70's kicking and screaming. Ultimate
Spider-Man will actually serve that purpose better. Anyway, not
that I'm an apologist for Byrne, and I'm not, but Mackie ran out
of ideas about 2-3 years into writing Ghost Rider. He should be
working for World Championship Wrestling. They're looking for
writers without a clue.
J. C. Gilbert
>
>For most books, I understand the need for the illusion of
change. I
>don't like it, but see that it may be necessary. For Spider-Man
>however, when every storyline is devoted to undoing change
(backwards
>change is NOT a change in the sense of the word I mean). they've
cut
>the soul out of the title.
>
>Lee and Ditko took some huge risks with Spider-Man by letting
him
>change. No one had done it before and if DC had been in charge,
Peter
>would never have graduated High School and he'd still be dating
Betty
>Brant. I think it's a disservice to Lee and Ditko's (and all
the
>other creators since) to simply freeze Peter's life.
>
>The worst part is, I don't see how the book can be fixed. Unless
you
>simply say everything after Amazing #400 is "...a dream, a hoax,
an
>imaginary story!".(which wouldn't be satisfying or commercially
>feasible, I suspect) there's been too much done to the title to
>salvage it from my POV.
>
>Until then, I've got my fingers crossed that the guy doing
Ultimate
>Spider-Man will have the guts to do new stories with new
villains
>(rather than regurgitate other writer's stories) and let his
>Spider-Man's life move forward. I'm looking forward to the
USM,and
>have high hopes, but I promise this: the first story (other than
the
>origin) that's a rehash of a previous writer's work will be my
last
>issue.
>
>Steve
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Justin Bacon
<bettert...@powertech.net.au> writes:
>Essentially the entire story was geared to changing Spiderman from Peter
>to Ben. Sure the execution sucked. But what if the execution was
>perfect? would the Spider X-Patriots (or what ever they were called)
>still have called a boycott? probably.
Any story which involves retconning a story twenty years in the past and
changing the entire history of a character as a result is a *bad* story. It
doesn't really matter how well executed it is in practice, because its core is
rotten through and through.
There is a difference between growing a character and raping a character.
The real truth of the matter is this: Because Marvel is unwilling to let its
universe age its characters are forced onto a perpetual yo-yo ride. There are
only so many original stories you can tell with a character who is stuck at the
age of thirty -- and then you're stuck. And because you can't introduce changes
in a natural way (the way that the Marvel universe grew and changed during the
1960s), you're forced to introduce your changes in catastrophic ways. Hal
Jordan can't just grow old and pass the torch on to Kyle Raynor... Hal Jordan
has to go psychotic and kill people. Peter can't grow up and put the costume
aside, passing it to a son or daughter we've seen grow up over the past 20
years... Peter has to be a clone. No, wait, Peter has to have his wife killed.
No, wait...
And so forth.
DC has avoided this trap, to a certain extent, by artificially blowing their
universe up every five years and bringing it back to life with a slightly
different continuity to it -- the Crisis event, in particular, was crucial
since it provided the DC universe with two generations of heroes... providing
an illusion of growth and change. (These generations have since been
supplemented with a third generation of younger heroes.)
But DC has also avoided the trap by allowing their characters to mature and
grow over the past 10-20 years: Even Superman, who in the 1960s appeared to be
a pedestal of eternal boredom and meaningless stoytelling, has grown as a
character in the past decade. Wally West, as the Flash, has grown up. And so
forth.
And even then, DC is trapped to a certain extent by the artificial constraints
of their timeline: Superman no longer gets to hold a special place of
pre-eminence as the first superhero. Green Lantern can't be made an interesting
book without exterminating everything except a power ring which emits green
forcefields. The Batman books have been stuck in a pertpetual series of
gimmicky, year-long meta-plots for the better part of a decade.
When a character is stuck at age 20 (or 25 or 30 or whatever) a character
inevitably hits a cul-de-sac: Peter gets married, has a wife, and a kid and...
that's it. The kid will always hover around two years old, his wife will always
be his wife, Peter will always be Peter... and that's it. So the only direction
to take the character now is to blow him up -- kidnap the kid, kill the wife,
make Peter a clone.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
<spar...@home.com> writes:
>Until then, I've got my fingers crossed that the guy doing Ultimate
>Spider-Man will have the guts to do new stories with new villains
>(rather than regurgitate other writer's stories) and let his
>Spider-Man's life move forward. I'm looking forward to the USM,and
>have high hopes, but I promise this: the first story (other than the
>origin) that's a rehash of a previous writer's work will be my last
>issue.
I agree with everything you just said. Damn me as an AOL me-tooer if you must.
;)
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
Whitmore" <edmu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>"Mikko Aittola" <mait...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote in message
>> > just because it's childish to "boycott" them ?
>>
>> I believe I wrote _actively boycotting_.
>
>
>As opposed to what? Boycotting in the safety of one's own home?
Does this mean we're cancelling the plans of picketing the local comic book
stores? <g>
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>I can't think of what could be more childish and stupid, as far as
>discussing comics go. I also have to wonder how empty their life must
>be, if they can't find anything better to do.
I think the point is that they pretty much feel the same way about your wasting
your time on Mackie's Spidey.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
<sherlock...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Do you mean when it was decided that everything would remain static and
>not age at all [as seems to be the case now], or when some informal kind
>of ratio between MT and RT was set up [that a lot of writers seem to
>have used when writing the characters]?
In the late 1960s there is a letter in an issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN in which
a reader points out what a terrible idea it would be if Peter Parker continued
to age: If Peter were to say, major in some form of science at college, and
then graduate what would happen to him? Well, he'd become a scientist. But the
Marvel universe already has a bunch of scientist superheroes -- Hank Pym, Tony
Stark, and Reed Richards. So if Spidey continued to age, the Marvel Universe
would, effectively, be devoid of young characters and over-populated with
scientists.
It was shortly after this letter saw print that the Marvel characters came to a
screeching halt in time. Although there has, obviously, been some forward
progress since then, its pace has been generally inconsistent and extremely
slow.
>I remember definite aging
>and personal growth - the sense of people moving forward with their
>lives - up through Byrne's FF at least [and also in Simonson's IIRC].
It's not coincidental, I think, that the really memorable, fan-favorite periods
on any given superhero are the time periods when those heroes are growing and
changing: The duration of the 1960s. Byrne's FF. The new X-Men team (followed
by Claremont's years on the book). Simonson's Thor. Miller's Daredevil.
Generally I see three states for the Marvel and DC characters over their long
histories:
1. Growth.
2. Stagnation.
3. Event Change.
When the characters are growing good stories can be told. They won't *always*
be told, but they *can* be told.
When the characters are stagnant there are a finite number of good stories that
can be told (the stories which can be told with the character in that
particular state)... and then the book will simply be recycling old material to
one degree or another. For example, there are only so many stories you can tell
about 25 year old Peter Parker, Freelance Photographer, married to Mary Jane
with X, Y, and Z in the supporting cast -- and then you'll start seeing
repetition. For example, you can threaten MJ with Venom. Then you can threaten
MJ with some other villain. Then you can threaten her with...
Eventually the creators will realize that the book is stagnant and that
something needs to be done to improve quality (or, if you're a businessman,
"drum up sales"). A good creator will just start developing his characters
again (for example, Byrne on the FF). A bad creator, OTOH, is a bad creator
(or, worse yet, not a creator at all, but a marketing director). And thus is
born the Event. Hal Jordan goes psychotic. Everybody is killed/sent to a pocket
universe. Peter Parker has been a clone for twenty years of continuity.
The "Event" is not actual character growth, it is a desperate attempt to change
the status quo through a cheap trick.
And just as it's not coincidental that the strongest runs on these characters
were during periods when these characters were growing and changing in a
natural, interesting way -- it's also not coincidental that gimmicky "Events"
generally piss people off.
Because people are not, in general, stupid.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Mikko Aittola
Steve Parker <spar...@home.com> writes:
> The lame attempt to update Spidey's origin by tying it into "the
> internet is HOT" trend, in several years will seem as lame as "Disco"
> Dazzler, Rocket-Racer,
It doesn't matter, because the Spider-Man update was published
in 1998-1999. The target audience was not the people who possibly
will read it "several years" later.
> I don't care. There's better ways to handle it. It's bad writing AND
> bad editorial policy.
I think it's a very good policy. Marvel realized that Peter being
a father would be a problem, so they fixed it and moved on.
I really hope they ignore the whole thing completely or if they
bring it up, it's mentioned in some corner of a direct market
miniseries or in some special issue. I can just imagine
a kid buying a new issue of Spider-Man and it's exploring
what happened to Spider-Man's dead baby years ago. Let's
just pretend it never happened and concentrate on the current
stories.
> The point would be good storytelling. If I'm reading a book, a
> stranger comes out of nowhere and shoots one of the main characters
> then shoots himself, and all the other characters say "Huh. How 'bout
> that." and go on with their business, I'd toss the book.
But that's not what happened with Spider-Man. MJ died in a plane
accident. It hasn't been established that a stranger had anything to
do with it.
> "The story" doesn't say anything.
The story says MJ is dead.
> Let's change that to "If you have a stalker menacing someone in the
> first act, you must know their identity and motive by the third act,"
The stalkers motives were strongly implied in the story. At this
point it seems the stalker was an unknown who was obsessed with MJ.
I don't think it adds much if we learn his name.
Also, Spider-Man is not a play. It's an ongoing series and there's
no way of knowing if we've even reached the third act by now.
> See above. There's too much coyness going on. If Mackie wanted her
> dead, show us the body.
What good would that make? She died in an explosion, it's doubtful
there's much left of her body.
> Ok, it wasn't *that* bad, but lord, it wasn't good.
I thought PPSM #19 was very good.
> I'd say that breaking the "A hero's career, love life, personal life,
> etc. must remain static" rule, and succeeding magnificently may be a
> seminal moment in comics history by showing that tampering with
> success can produce more success.
Are you saying that before 1965, no superhero had a change in their
love life or personal life? And I don't think Peter's career changed
much. Before the change he studied, after the change he studied.
BTW, the status quo and Peter's personal life has never been so static as
it was when he was married to MJ. Maybe that's why they offed her?
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
> certainly let his characters change, age and grow. And to me this is
> what first gave Marvel it's great success and popularity.
I doubt this theory.
As I understand it, titles like Spider-Man and FF were successes
pretty much right from the start, before people noticed some
things were changing.
And speaking from my own point of view, I certainly didn't
start to buy and like Marvel titles (early eighties) because of change
or because the characters grew older. I liked them from the
start and there really even wasn't that much change. I never
noticed the characters were getting older.
I'm sure characters changing keep some long-time readers
interested in the titles, but I think such readers are a minority,
or at least were.
> They'd do well to get back to this concept if they want to regain
> their market, IMO.
I doubt that making the characters older or changing them is
going to bring in new readers. Making character older or
changing him might interest only somebody who already knows and
follows the character.
> How much time has now passed in the MU is an interesting question. I'd
> like to hear what other people think. My own completely subjective
> sense is that it should be something like 10-12 years since the FF
> gained their powers and that Franklin should actually be somewhere
> around 6-8 now.
I don't really care if it's been five years or ten years or fifteen
years since FF went to space.
I don't think making the characters older makes them better in
any way. I think it's better to keep them young.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
Patrick MARCEL <mant...@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> PS: yes, Mikko: I *do* understand, that *technically*, "all of Aunt
> May's on-panel time" *doesn't* consist of worrying and so on.
Technically?
/Mikko
Steve Parker
I must, I must!
<crash of lightning, roar of thunder>
A giant hand points down from clouds and says "I damn thee as an AOL
me-tooer!"
; )
Steve
MemberMe
you waste your money on these trash comics, they look like give aways to me.
Defending everything Mackie shits on the page. Spend your money on something
useful or do something that will pay off like weightlifting. Sit on the
fence with the rest of us and jump down when Marvel puts out a book worth
supporting with your paycheck.
Steve Parker wrote in message ...
Patrick MARCEL
> Technically?
If I must spell it out, I was expecting you to quote other bits of
dialogue from Aunt May where she doesn't use cliches, and then you'd
add: "So, this shows that 'all of Aunt May's on-panel time' isn't spent worrying."
Yeah, I know: as if you'd ever use such an literal argument. Silly me. :-)))
Patrick
--
"We are all born as molecules in the heart of a billion stars; molecules
that do not understand politics or policies or differences. Over a
billion years, we foolish molecules forget who we are, and where we came
from. In desperate acts of ego we give ourselves names, fight over lines
on maps, and pretend our light is better than everyone else's. The flame
reminds us of the piece of those stars that lives on inside us, the
spark that tells us, 'you know better'." JMS
no.fun@all
Fingern:
>PAD's take. Haven't read the Jenkins one.
Do it. I was not dissapointed and from what I hear Jenks follows the
threads PAD left behind.
Markus
Visit the Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators at
http://members.tripod.de/maelmill/index.htm or at
http://www.geocities.com/paulo_costa_2000/
sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi
> Am 8 Aug 2000 08:38:40 +0200, sog sich sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi aus den
> Fingern:
>>PAD's take. Haven't read the Jenkins one.
> Do it. I was not dissapointed and from what I hear Jenks follows the
> threads PAD left behind.
Will do whenever I get my budget straightened out enough to get back
into buying comics.
The Peanut Gallery
tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
> It's not coincidental, I think, that the really memorable,
fan-favorite periods
> on any given superhero are the time periods when those heroes are
growing and changing: The duration of the 1960s. Byrne's FF. The new
-------
This has certainly been true for me, when I think back to my favorite
periods in the comics I've read - it's always been the sense of people
gradually changing that keeps it interesting.
> When the characters are stagnant there are a finite number of good
stories that
> can be told (the stories which can be told with the character in that
> particular state)... and then the book will simply be recycling old
material to
> one degree or another.
This is SO true. It's one of the problems the FF have had ever since
DeFalco. And yet, I thought marvel came up with a good solution with
their Ultimate line. I thought the purpose of that was to make the
characters young again and to re-tell their story as if they had started
now. So the basic premise would be the same but eveything else might be
different. What I dont understand is why - given that concept - they
don't let the characters grow and change in their regular books. Then -
it seems to me - they could keep everybody happy.
Justin Bacon
<sherlock...@yahoo.com> writes:
>And yet, I thought marvel came up with a good solution with
>their Ultimate line. I thought the purpose of that was to make the
>characters young again and to re-tell their story as if they had started
>now. So the basic premise would be the same but eveything else might be
>different.
I remain on the fence here, although I agree with you that the Ultimate line
has a lot of potential to it conceptually as far as these heroes are concerned.
OTOH, I think its very likely that the extent of "new" that Marvel is playing
with here is dreadfully cliched -- Peter Parker, for example, being a web
content provider for the eBugle is not clever or creative. It's derivative and
stupid. It has all the weaknesses of changing nothing, with none of the
advantages of having a body of existing continuity.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
<mait...@vipunen.hut.fi> writes:
>As I understand it, titles like Spider-Man and FF were successes
>pretty much right from the start, before people noticed some
>things were changing.
Spider-Man and FF were successes because they were good books. They were good
books because they were telling good stories. They were good stories because
they were character-driven.
You make it sound as if there were a seminal point at which Marvel's characters
"began to change". Not so. From the very beginning both the FF and Spidey were
characters which evolved and grew over time.
And I don't think its entirely coincidental that when the "Great Freeze" on
their development came down, the quality of the books took a nosedive.
>I don't think making the characters older makes them better in
>any way. I think it's better to keep them young.
There are, literally, *thousands* of Spider-Man stories. Why bother telling new
ones if you aren't actually going to tell *new* ones?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
JVV4sm
>There are, literally, *thousands* of Spider-Man stories. Why bother telling
>new
>ones if you aren't actually going to tell *new* ones?
For the same reason Pepsi makes the same kind of cola as they did last week.
Justin Bacon
(JVV4sm) writes:
Pepsi is a commodity -- I use it and it is gone. The same is not true of a
Spider-Man story. If all Marvel wants to do is tell the same story over and
over again they should just reprint the old stories. It's not like there's any
significant fraction of the market out there who has read every Spider-Man
story ever told. Hell, the majority of people wouldn't even know. In the '80s
when MARVEL TALES started reprinting the early issues of ASM there were,
apparently, fans writing in complaining because this "Ditko" guy was drawing
Peter Parker with glasses.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Mikko Aittola
tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) writes:
> Spider-Man and FF were successes because they were good books. They were
> good books because they were telling good stories.
Yes. You could also add that they told the stories well.
> They were good stories because they were character-driven.
Yes, but it's good to remember that good story doesn't necessarily have
to be character-driven.
> You make it sound as if there were a seminal point at which Marvel's
> characters "began to change".
I don't recall saying anything like that. I said that many Marvel
books were successfull right from the start before any major
changes had happened. I also said that when I began to read
Spider-Man in the early 80s, I liked them because they were good
stories, not because the characters were changing. There was no
major changes in Spider-Man during that time. I never thought
-- wow, this is great these characters are changing.
The differences in the setting and status quo of the book were
minimal between the Lee/Romita, Wein(?)/Andru and Stern/JRJR stuff.
I read that stuff pretty much at the same time. The change in
the books was mostly related to where Peter's living and who he's
dating.
> And I don't think its entirely coincidental that when the "Great Freeze" on
> their development came down, the quality of the books took a nosedive.
When I look at the Spidey books published since the 60s and before
the marriage, I think the quality of the stories is depends mainly on
who's writing and drawing the book.
I think the real nosedive became only after Peter and MJ were married.
Marriage caused the personal life of Peter to become too stable and
too static. It wasn't interesting very long. The book used to be
as much about Peter's personal life as it was about Spider-Man.
The problem with the marriage is that there's not much stories to
tell about Peter's personal life when he's married. You have to
recycle the same stuff over and over. With Peter being single it's
possible to change the status quo from time to time and create
illusion of change.
> There are, literally, *thousands* of Spider-Man stories. Why bother
> telling new ones if you aren't actually going to tell *new* ones?
Telling new Spider-Man stories doesn't require making Peter older.
/Mikko
Paul O'Brien
<tria...@aol.com> writes
>
>Pepsi is a commodity -- I use it and it is gone. The same is not true of a
>Spider-Man story.
Depends what market you're aiming for, I suppose. If you're aiming at
a kiddie market, then the turnover is fairly quick and you can get
away with recycling story ideas. Of course, Spider-Man doesn't seem to
be aiming at that market, and even has the nerve to have a stab at
"gosh, we're clever people who recognise the genre conventions" self
parody from time to time, and that's why they can't get away with
the stuff they've been doing (recent Jenkins issues excepted).
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
Rebekah Wade should be shot. (But not by vigilantes, of course.)
JVV4sm
>new
>>>ones if you aren't actually going to tell *new* ones?
>>
>
>over again they should just reprint the old stories.
That's exactly my point. Marvel is so fucked these days, the editors think
it's best for Spider-Man to crank out the same old shit over and over.
JVV4sm
>tell about Peter's personal life when he's married. You have to
>recycle the same stuff over and over.
Only if you're a bad writer.
Justin Bacon
<mait...@alpha.hut.fi> writes:
>I also said that when I began to read
>Spider-Man in the early 80s, I liked them because they were good
>stories, not because the characters were changing.
During the early '80s the best runs on Spidey were, indeed, the stories where
Peter's life were constantly in change. This is the time period when he gave up
college, switched girlfriends a couple time, picked up some new villains (which
brought with them original subplots which ran throughout Peter's life), and
generally was doing stuff and going places.
I don't necessarily agree with all of those changes (Peter giving up science
doesn't ring true) -- but the character was being developed.
>The change in
>the books was mostly related to where Peter's living and who he's dating.
You can pretty much dismiss all of the '60s continuity by saying that it was
"mostly related to who Peter was dating and hanging out with". You can dismiss
Superman's early-'90s continuity by saying it was "mostly who he was married to
and whether he was alive or not".
>I think the real nosedive became only after Peter and MJ were married.
>Marriage caused the personal life of Peter to become too stable and
>too static.
You're young, aren't you? Marriage isn't the end of life. Peter's life in the
comic books became static after marriage because the writer's decided to make
it static. And it didn't help that Peter's supporting cast of characters had
been whittled out of existence over twenty-five years of continuity, with no
new characters coming in to replace those who had moved on.
>Telling new Spider-Man stories doesn't require making Peter older.
Perhaps not. But the only way to tell new Spider-Man stories (I mean stories
that are really *new* and just recycled themes, motifs, and plots) is to take
Peter some place he hasn't been before... and there's only so many places you
can take a 25 year old Peter Parker and have it be believable and acceptable.
All of the Marvel characters are suffering from this to one degree or another.
And they've been suffering from it for a long time.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Mikko Aittola
tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) writes:
> You can pretty much dismiss all of the '60s continuity by saying that it
> was "mostly related to who Peter was dating and hanging out with".
With that you can describe Peter's personal life from 60s
to the point when he married.
After marriage, Peter was married and then he was married.
Peter's personal life freezed right there. It was interesting
for about two or three years.
> You can dismiss Superman's early-'90s continuity by saying it was
> "mostly who he was married to and whether he was alive or not".
You can dismiss Superman's 90s continuity also with "not very good
stories". Or "From the previous event to the next".
> You're young, aren't you? Marriage isn't the end of life. Peter's life
> in the comic books became static after marriage because the writer's
> decided to make it static.
Peter's life became static after the marriage because that's
what marriage kind of is. And there's nothing wrong with that.
It's good to have stability in one's life.
The stability is a problem only if you have to make it seem that it's
an exciting adventure month after month.
Maybe it is different here, but usually the "personal" life of a bachelor
is much less static and stable that the life of a husband. Unless we want
married Peter to "fool around" a bit. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
So, what have we left to make the marriage seem like it's not
static? Writer can make the couple have problems and then have happier
times. Too bad reading about marriage problems is boring.
How would you make the marriage interesting?
> And it didn't help that Peter's supporting cast of characters had
> been whittled out of existence over twenty-five years of continuity, with no
> new characters coming in to replace those who had moved on.
After Mackie (re-)introduced the Stacys, married Peter's personal life
was still static and stable.
> Perhaps not. But the only way to tell new Spider-Man stories (I mean stories
> that are really *new* and just recycled themes, motifs, and plots) is to take
> Peter some place he hasn't been before... and there's only so many places you
> can take a 25 year old Peter Parker and have it be believable and acceptable.
Maybe it would be better to create a new character, instead of making
Peter different?
The recycled themes, motifs and plots (if that's what you want to call them)
worked just fine in the early eighties. It didn't bother me at all that
things were much the same in the pocket size Lee/Romita reprints and in new
stuff by Stern/Romita. Or the Mantlo/Milgrom stuff. Or the DeFalco/Frenz
stuff.
/Mikko
sexe dans la ville de Designers
> tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) writes:
> > You're young, aren't you? Marriage isn't the end of life. Peter's life
> > in the comic books became static after marriage because the writer's
> > decided to make it static.
> bachelor is much less static and stable that the life of a husband.
> Unless we want married Peter to "fool around" a bit. Doesn't sound like
> a good idea to me.
He doesn't have to fool around. He's a young, attractive guy, he can still have
women want him, even if he is married. He doesn't have to initiate anything. All
men should be so lucky. :D And Peter has had to deal with guys going after MJ,
now it can be her turn.
And his case is particular in that he was chased as a single guy too. Maybe most
guys don't go gallivanting with any women that crosses their path, and have
stayed with one woman forever, or maybe they didn't date.
> How would you make the marriage interesting?
You know, married folks still go out to movies, dinners, dances, pretty much
anything a "couple" can do, married folks can too.
--
Any one else protest the move to have a fundraiser at the Playboy mansion,
besides the DNC? Maybe N.O.W? Or some other feminist group? Oh nevermind, I
forgot that it was a Democrat venture. Hey, no problem, we all know that the
White House staffers love that porn and anything they do is cool.
[Jameson Stalanthas Yu, Shade and Sweet Water, mes amis and Edgerunners]
[Link at http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~jamesony -X- ICQ 10208399]
[Mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human]
JVV4sm
becuase it made them boring.
Mikko Aittola
sexe dans la ville de Designers <jame...@usc.edu> writes:
> He doesn't have to fool around. He's a young, attractive guy, he can
> still have women want him, even if he is married. He doesn't have to
> initiate anything.
Does "I'm married to MJ but glad that other women want me" make
a good story?
> You know, married folks still go out to movies, dinners, dances, pretty much
> anything a "couple" can do, married folks can too.
Does going out to movies, dinners and dances make a good Spidey story?
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) writes:
> I guess Mikko is pissed off that Reed and Sue got married and had a kid,
> becuase it made them boring.
You guessed wrong.
/Mikko
JVV4sm
>> He doesn't have to fool around. He's a young, attractive guy, he can
>> still have women want him, even if he is married. He doesn't have to
>> initiate anything.
>
>Does "I'm married to MJ but glad that other women want me" make
>a good story?
But you would have supported him cheating on Gwen when they seeing each
other?
>> You know, married folks still go out to movies, dinners, dances, pretty
>much
>> anything a "couple" can do, married folks can too.
>
>Does going out to movies, dinners and dances make a good Spidey story?
You liked it when he did that with Betty Brant.
JVV4sm
Why is Reed and Sue's marriage okay, and Peter's isn't?
Rami Rautkorpi
"Mikko Aittola" <mait...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:idnya1x...@vipunen.hut.fi...
>
> jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) writes:
> > I guess Mikko is pissed off that Reed and Sue got married and had a kid,
> > becuase it made them boring.
>
> You guessed wrong.
>
>
Man, you were actually starting to make sense in the Erik Larsen thread, and
now I read this...
If getting married in itself isn't the problem, then what is?
--
Rami Rautkorpi
http://koti.mbnet.fi/ramir
--
"Writing a poem
In seventeen syllables
Is very diffic" -John Cooper Clarke
Danny Sichel
>
> >
> >jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) writes:
> >> I guess Mikko is pissed off that Reed and Sue got married and had a kid,
> >> becuase it made them boring.
> >
> >You guessed wrong.
>
Because Reed and Sue were shown as a couple from the beginning, whereas
Peter was originally portrayed as an isolated outcast with no
relationships.
JVV4sm
For a handful of issues.
Yeah, but what about Betty Brant, Gwen Stacy, and Mary Jane (where did
Claremont come up with Cissy Ironwood?)?
If Conway hadn't killed Gwen, it wouldn't have made sense for Peter NOT to
marry her, and the same came to pass when the MJ relation progressed.
It's not my fault most comic writers are frightened by married characters.
I suppose Mikko would prefer that Peter would be more like Charlie Brown and
have 40 years of unrequited love for the little red haired girl.
Robert Moraes
But wasn't Peter, in his very first appearance, trying to ask out a girl?
Obviously, relationships were intended to be a part of the character, and one can
only show Peter being shot down or caught in lousy relationships so many times
before it becomes annoying. Unless you'd rather Spidey be the John Jr. of the
Marvel Universe (no offense to JFK Jr., by the way.)
I personally never particularly cared for MJ...their relationship always seemed
contrived (remember Peter's proposal?) and rushed. But marriage is a natural
progression for any character.
Todd VerBeek
>But wasn't Peter, in his very first appearance, trying to ask out a girl?
>Obviously, relationships were intended to be a part of the character, and one can
>only show Peter being shot down or caught in lousy relationships so many times
>before it becomes annoying. Unless you'd rather Spidey be the John Jr. of the
>Marvel Universe (no offense to JFK Jr., by the way.)
>
>I personally never particularly cared for MJ...their relationship always seemed
>contrived (remember Peter's proposal?) and rushed. But marriage is a natural
>progression for any character.
Not for =any= character, just for some. I'm not saying whether it's right
or wrong for Peter, but just as marriage (or partnering, as the case may be)
isn't "a natural progression" for every person in real life, it isn't the
right one for every character.
Cheers, Todd
--
I'm an optimist: the glass is empty, but maybe =someday= it'll be half full.
Mikko Aittola
jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) writes:
> Why is Reed and Sue's marriage okay, and Peter's isn't?
Because Reed's and Sue's marriage fits well with the characters
and the underlying concept of the book.
Unlike the marriage of Peter and MJ. Peter marrying MJ is
not exactly out of character. It's a logical step actually,
but at the same time it changes the characters and dynamics
in the book so much that I think it makes the book weaker.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) writes:
> I suppose Mikko would prefer that Peter would be more like Charlie Brown
> and have 40 years of unrequited love for the little red haired girl.
It's quite nice that you spend so much of your time trying to
guess how I think.
Unfortunately, you guessed wrong again.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
"Rami Rautkorpi" <rami.ra...@mbnet.fi> writes:
> Man, you were actually starting to make sense in the Erik Larsen thread, and
> now I read this...
> If getting married in itself isn't the problem, then what is?
The problem is that Peter and MJ getting married, while "logical
change" and "natural progression", made the book worse and less
interesting in the long term. IMHO, of course.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) writes:
> But you would have supported him cheating on Gwen when they seeing each
> other?
Nope.
> You liked it when he did that with Betty Brant.
I liked Peter's relationship with Betty because there was no
way of knowing what happens next. Liz added a lot of tension
between the characters etc.
But with Peter married to MJ, it was just Peter married to MJ.
/Mikko
JVV4sm
>> Why is Reed and Sue's marriage okay, and Peter's isn't?
>
>Because Reed's and Sue's marriage fits well with the characters
>and the underlying concept of the book.
Which are...........?
>Unlike the marriage of Peter and MJ. Peter marrying MJ is
>not exactly out of character. It's a logical step actually,
>but at the same time it changes the characters and dynamics
>in the book so much that I think it makes the book weaker.
If Conway didn't kill Gwen, would you be as opposed to Peter marrying Gwen?
JVV4sm
>> Why is Reed and Sue's marriage okay, and Peter's isn't?
>
>Because Reed's and Sue's marriage fits well with the characters
>and the underlying concept of the book.
And this has nothing to do with Reed and Sue being married when you first
discovered FF, and therefore had no changes to feel uncomfortable about?
>Unlike the marriage of Peter and MJ. Peter marrying MJ is
>not exactly out of character. It's a logical step actually,
>but at the same time it changes the characters and dynamics
>in the book so much that I think it makes the book weaker.
>
>
>/Mikko
JVV4sm
Then what would you prefer? Unrequited love for Peter for 40 years?
Girlfriends who die or leave him over and over for 40 years? Dating Gwen or
MJ indefinitely with no marriage?
Should Peter have stayed a high school virigin? Should he have been allowed
into college?
I suspect you prefer characters to change as much as the cast of Archie does.