CAPSULES: CAP:SOL,FF,SPIDEY YEAR ONE: Snap Judgments
Randy Lander
I bought Captain America, but read the other two as a result of the
First-Look program. Which is a good thing, because if I'd bought
Spidey: Year One, I'd probably be foaming at the mouth in anger.
Reviewed:
CAPTAIN AMERICA: SENTINEL OF LIBERTY #4
FANTASTIC FOUR #12
SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
CAPTAIN AMERICA: SENTINEL OF LIBERTY #4
"Descent Into Madness Chapter Three: Heat Wave"
Mark Waid, Ron Garney, Dan Green & Klaus Janson
I think this Invaders tale suffers in comparison to Stern's excellent
story in Marvel Universe, which is part of what has drained my
enthusiasm for this title. It's not that this is a bad story...quite
the opposite, it's a neat idea for a story and it's been done really
well. This issue answers my complaint about last issue, wondering why
the Nazis could so easily duplicate the Human Torch. Short answer is,
they can't. These robots are instead just zombies, basically,
flame-covered robots with no soul. Longer answer about why they could
even duplicate the flaming android even without sentience is that they
were using Atlantean technology. At any rate, it seems I owe Waid &
Garney an apology for doubting the likelihood of an army of torches.
Cap has a really great confrontation with General Phillips in the
middle of this conflict, and I loved his "It will mean you taught me
something" which he ended the argument with. Even better was the
Torch's insistence on trying to talk to the mindless automatons,
trying to bring about their "humanity" just as his own had been
brought about, and I liked the tragic realization he made at the end
of that. I also really liked the ending sequence, with these three
friends from different worlds having a nice solidarity moment.
However, though I enjoyed this Invaders tale, I'm much more looking
forward to the "Tales of Suspense" stories teaming Iron Man and Cap.
Recommended (7)
FANTASTIC FOUR #12
"Once More, O Green & Pleasant Land"
Chris Claremont, Salvador Larroca & Anthony Williams
I can't deny that this is a pretty good story. Problem is, like the
other Fantastic Four issues Claremont has written, it's a pretty good
X-Men story. Dragging the Fantastic Four into this plot seems
unbelievably contrived, making the X-Men and Avengers unavailable so
the FF could be dragged into this plot. I also found the revelation of
Crucible's identity and the waste of the Enclave as a result stupid,
and I won't even start on how mind-bogglingly stupid it is to turn Her
aka Kismet into Ayesha, a character with a stupid name and look, and
motivations completely at odds with her past personality. I also
really hate the retcons of the FF origin that Claremont has inserted
regarding the flight last issue and Johnny's Nova Flame this issue.
But, putting aside all that bad characterization, the plot here isn't
bad. Genosha has been increasingly destabilized since the X-Men first
visited, and it makes sense that some others would try to take
advantage of it. And, though I hate to admit it, *if* the X-Men and
Avengers couldn't be reached, I can see the Genoshans going after Reed
for his help, although presenting it as a kidnapping "because there
wasn't enough time" is manipulative plotting to get the "fight, then
team up" cliche going. But seeing the FF take on the people who had
stolen their bodies, and the final battle to save Genosha, was heroism
at its finest, even if I don't buy the heroes that were chosen for
this situation. Mildly Recommended (5)
SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
"Bitter Lesson"
John Byrne
I tried really, really hard to come into this with an un-biased view.
Even though I'd heard all the ugly rumors about what Byrne was going
to do to this origin, even though I've watched as he made the
situation worse, not better, with his contributions to the main Spidey
titles. I wanted to give this a chance. Now I see that I was wrong to
do so. Believe all the people who have been trashing this
sight-unseen, because it is exactly that bad.
First mistake I made was reading Byrne's column at the end of the
issue, where he details how he got the job. This is the most
unbelievable piece of ego-ridden, lying spin-control tripe I've read
since Jim Shooter was presenting himself as a "defender of creator's
rights." Byrne says that the reason he gets called for these revamps
is probably "the respect he has for the history and continuity of the
characters" and that he approaches the projects with one question in
mind, "How much of the old stuff can I keep?" Yeah...right. Worse
still, he opens by saying that this origin revamp was needed because
it was dated, having references to Kruschev and a radiation experiment
that seems ludicrously unsafe by modern standards. Both of which are
true, but given that comic origins also include men given mongoose
blood infusions or struck by lightning and splashed in chemicals, you
can't tell me anyone believes realism is an important part of
superhero origins.
Worse still, Byrne "corrects" this 1960s dated origins by dating it in
the 80s instead. It's JLA: Year One syndrome, where they substitute a
good story with some outdated references with an uninspired lame story
with references that will be outdated again in 20 years. Byrne has
written a story here that reads a lot like the original Stan Lee/Steve
Ditko tale. Problem is, all the good parts read *exactly* like the
Lee/Ditko because they're stolen, and the bits Byrne adds to the tale
are the stupid parts. Doc Ock and Spidey having a common origin isn't
a bad idea on the face of it, but it's hardly necessary, and having
the experiment explode and kill numerous people, putting Pete in the
hospital for a long time, is completely unnecessary.
But that's not the worst of it. Those are minor annoyances at best.
Even worse is that Byrne has the burglar robbing Ben not because he
randomly chose the house, but because he ran into Ben buying a
computer for Pete (computers instead of a chemistry set, another
example of stupid updating...we still have chemistry sets in this day
and age, and it's still the kind of thing young Pete should be
interested in if he's to have made his own webbing) and then went to
case the house. While casing the house, he sees Spidey come out the
window, assumes that he is a second-story man, and when Spidey
confronts him in the warehouse, he tells him the reason he was in the
house was because he wanted to hook up with Spidey again. It's
overkill. Peter was responsible for Ben's death because he didn't stop
someone from escaping, not because he became Spider-Man in the first
place.
In the end, this was every bit as disgusting and insulting to
Spider-Man as I expected. Marvel is doing permanent damage to
Spider-Man with every issue they publish these days, and whoever comes
in to finally clean it up is going to have another few months of
reparations to make before the character will ever be usable again.
Not Recommended (1)
Comments from the peanut gallery?
Snap Judgments are available as a weekly e-mail digest
by request to rwla...@snapjudgments.com and are archived
at www.snapjudgments.com
-------------------------------------------------------
This review is copyrighted 1998 Randy Lander, although
permission is granted to reprint it in whole or in part
for letter columns.
Josh Newhouse
: "Bitter Lesson"
: John Byrne
s
s
s
s
ss
s
One brief note which was not mentioned... I really noticed the poor state of
Byrne's inks with this issue... they are so poor that the artwork is really
detracted from... give him a decent inker and I think this will shine.. I hope
he is not going to keep inking himself!
: I tried really, really hard to come into this with an un-biased view.
Me too.
: Even though I'd heard all the ugly rumors about what Byrne was going
: to do to this origin, even though I've watched as he made the
: situation worse, not better, with his contributions to the main Spidey
: titles. I wanted to give this a chance. Now I see that I was wrong to
: do so. Believe all the people who have been trashing this
: sight-unseen, because it is exactly that bad.
I think this was actually a decent piece of writing if not taken as full
continuity... I even found it enjoyable... this may be because of not having
read the original issues in their entirety... I do not know.
: First mistake I made was reading Byrne's column at the end of the
: issue, where he details how he got the job. This is the most
: unbelievable piece of ego-ridden, lying spin-control tripe I've read
: since Jim Shooter was presenting himself as a "defender of creator's
: rights." Byrne says that the reason he gets called for these revamps
: is probably "the respect he has for the history and continuity of the
: characters" and that he approaches the projects with one question in
: mind, "How much of the old stuff can I keep?" Yeah...right. Worse
Well, do we know exactly whose vision this is? But I do see your point here.
: still, he opens by saying that this origin revamp was needed because
: it was dated, having references to Kruschev and a radiation experiment
: that seems ludicrously unsafe by modern standards. Both of which are
: true, but given that comic origins also include men given mongoose
: blood infusions or struck by lightning and splashed in chemicals, you
: can't tell me anyone believes realism is an important part of
: superhero origins.
Well I can see making small changes like those... but yes. At least he kept
the spider...
: Worse still, Byrne "corrects" this 1960s dated origins by dating it in
: the 80s instead. It's JLA: Year One syndrome, where they substitute a
: good story with some outdated references with an uninspired lame story
: with references that will be outdated again in 20 years. Byrne has
: written a story here that reads a lot like the original Stan Lee/Steve
: Ditko tale. Problem is, all the good parts read *exactly* like the
: Lee/Ditko because they're stolen, and the bits Byrne adds to the tale
: are the stupid parts. Doc Ock and Spidey having a common origin isn't
: a bad idea on the face of it, but it's hardly necessary, and having
: the experiment explode and kill numerous people, putting Pete in the
: hospital for a long time, is completely unnecessary.
I agree... but once again as a book which introduces new readers to Spiderman
it may just work as well as it should.
: But that's not the worst of it. Those are minor annoyances at best.
: Even worse is that Byrne has the burglar robbing Ben not because he
: randomly chose the house, but because he ran into Ben buying a
: computer for Pete (computers instead of a chemistry set, another
: example of stupid updating...we still have chemistry sets in this day
: and age, and it's still the kind of thing young Pete should be
: interested in if he's to have made his own webbing) and then went to
: case the house. While casing the house, he sees Spidey come out the
: window, assumes that he is a second-story man, and when Spidey
: confronts him in the warehouse, he tells him the reason he was in the
: house was because he wanted to hook up with Spidey again. It's
: overkill. Peter was responsible for Ben's death because he didn't stop
: someone from escaping, not because he became Spider-Man in the first
: place.
This was a bit of overkill, I agree... but once again could have been
worse... at least the memory of Uncle ben was kept intact (no gangster ties as
of yet).
: In the end, this was every bit as disgusting and insulting to
: Spider-Man as I expected. Marvel is doing permanent damage to
: Spider-Man with every issue they publish these days, and whoever comes
The Final Chapter made this much less bad in comparison!
: in to finally clean it up is going to have another few months of
: reparations to make before the character will ever be usable again.
: Not Recommended (1)
For old school readers: 3
For those who have been around since the Clone Saga or so: 5
For new readers: 7-8
: Comments from the peanut gallery?
: Snap Judgments are available as a weekly e-mail digest
: by request to rwla...@snapjudgments.com and are archived
: at www.snapjudgments.com
: -------------------------------------------------------
: This review is copyrighted 1998 Randy Lander, although
: permission is granted to reprint it in whole or in part
: for letter columns.
--
Mikko Aittola
I must really wonder. Maybe Randy should actually spend
some time with them comics he's reviewing. . .
My advice: Read the book. Sleep. Read it again. Write
a review.
rwla...@snapjudgments.com (Randy Lander) writes:
> SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
> "Bitter Lesson"
> John Byrne
> Worse still, he opens by saying that this origin revamp was needed
> because it was dated, having references to Kruschev and a radiation
> experiment that seems ludicrously unsafe by modern standards. Both of
> which are true, but given that comic origins also include men given
> mongoose blood infusions or struck by lightning and splashed in
> chemicals, you can't tell me anyone believes realism is an important
> part of superhero origins.
I think you have it backwards. The question is: Why not to make
it a bit more realistic if you can and if it's your job to update
the origin. Byrne's job *is* trying to update that kind of stuff as
much as he can.
> Problem is, all the good parts read *exactly* like the
> Lee/Ditko because they're stolen,
Stolen?
> and the bits Byrne adds to the tale are the stupid parts. Doc Ock
> and Spidey having a common origin isn't a bad idea on the face of it,
> but it's hardly necessary, and having the experiment explode and
> kill numerous people, putting Pete in the hospital for a long time,
> is completely unnecessary.
I heard from Alvaro's SMB that that was "stolen" from a
story written by Stan Lee and Peter David. . .
> But that's not the worst of it. Those are minor annoyances at best.
> Even worse is that Byrne has the burglar robbing Ben not because he
> randomly chose the house, but because he ran into Ben buying a
> computer for Pete (computers instead of a chemistry set, another
> example of stupid updating...we still have chemistry sets in this day
> and age, and it's still the kind of thing young Pete should be
> interested in if he's to have made his own webbing)
Where does the story say he didn't get a chemistry set?
Look at page 11, panel 5. See a chemistry set there maybe???
And, ahem, in Amazing Fantasy #15 Peter got a MICROSCOPE!
> Peter was responsible for Ben's death because he didn't stop someone
> from escaping, not because he became Spider-Man in the first place.
Peter was still responsible for Ben's death because he
didn't stop the burglar. Check out page 17, panels 1&2.
It's very clearly established there!
The burglar went in Ben's house because he wanted
to rob it. He wanted to rob that house also before he saw
Spidey there, check out page 14, panel 4. It's very
clearly established there!
/Mikko
don...@brunnet.net
rwla...@snapjudgments.com (Randy Lander) wrote:
> SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
>
> POSSIBLE SPOILERS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Bitter Lesson"
> John Byrne
>
> I tried really, really hard to come into this with an un-biased view.
I don't think you succeeded, Randy. :)
> Believe all the people who have been trashing this
> sight-unseen, because it is exactly that bad.
It's not that bad. In fact, it's not bad at all. I'm sure there were plenty
of people leery of what Byrne would do with Superman when he rebooted him in
1986, but that turned out just fine.
> First mistake I made was reading Byrne's column at the end of the
> issue, where he details how he got the job. This is the most
> unbelievable piece of ego-ridden, lying spin-control tripe I've read
> since Jim Shooter was presenting himself as a "defender of creator's
> rights."
It's self-serving, sure. But it does provide some context for the series. I
have no doubt that the Powers that Be at Marvel turned to Byrne for this book
because he does have a reputation for this kind of project. THE MAN OF STEEL
garnered him that reputation (not FANTASTIC FOUR as he claims), and he kept it
up in later books (AVENGERS WEST COAST, WONDER WOMAN).
> Byrne says that the reason he gets called for these revamps
> is probably "the respect he has for the history and continuity of the
> characters" and that he approaches the projects with one question in
> mind, "How much of the old stuff can I keep?" Yeah...right.
Maybe he doesn't have a full respect for history and continuity, but he does
have a love of the characters and creators.
> Problem is, all the good parts read *exactly* like the
> Lee/Ditko because they're stolen, and the bits Byrne adds to the tale
> are the stupid parts.
"Stolen" is too strong a term. With the definition you seem to be using, one
could argue that most Elseworlds books feature "stolen" elements, as would any
revamp/reboot, from Superman to the Legion of Super-Heroes.
> In the end, this was every bit as disgusting and insulting to
> Spider-Man as I expected.
"Disgusting"? "Insulting"? Aren't you overreactig a bit? If Spidey killed
the thief, that would be an insult to the spirit of the character. I just
see Byrne making the origin a shade more intricate.
> Marvel is doing permanent damage to
> Spider-Man with every issue they publish these days, and whoever comes
> in to finally clean it up is going to have another few months of
> reparations to make before the character will ever be usable again.
Marvel certainly has had some problems with Spidey ever since they lost the
Image creators in 1992. The Clone saga was a terrible attempt to rejuvenate
the character's appeal; this one strikes me as a more honest one, less
gimmicky. So far, I like it.
Don MacPherson
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark F. Hudson
>Here are some capsule reviews of some Marvel titles I read this week.
>I bought Captain America, but read the other two as a result of the
>First-Look program. Which is a good thing, because if I'd bought
>Spidey: Year One, I'd probably be foaming at the mouth in anger.
>Reviewed:
>
>CAPTAIN AMERICA: SENTINEL OF LIBERTY #4
>FANTASTIC FOUR #12
>SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
>
>POSSIBLE SPOILERS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
>"Bitter Lesson"
>John Byrne
>
> ...
>
>In the end, this was every bit as disgusting and insulting to
>Spider-Man as I expected. Marvel is doing permanent damage to
>Spider-Man with every issue they publish these days, and whoever comes
>in to finally clean it up is going to have another few months of
>reparations to make before the character will ever be usable again.
>Not Recommended (1)
>
>Comments from the peanut gallery?
I realized today what Byrne has gone and done with Chapter One. He went and
made the Hollywood version of the Spiderman story before James Cameron
could. A simple morality tale with some b-grade special effects just isn't
enough these days; you gotta include a big explosion, a prior relationship
between the hero and the main villain, and a brutal, whoops, I mean
"cathartic" beating of the bad guy at the end.
In all honestly, I've got no problems with remakes. Usually I just shrug
and say "Why bother?" I'm fairly certain they got it right the first time
around, but if someone thinks they can tell the story in an new and
interesting way, more power to them I guess. I've still got my box full of
Marvel Tales and a copy of the Essentials book. The thing I am
uncomfortable with is the remake supplanting the original as the
diffinitive telling. It's already happened in the new issue of Daredevil. I
mean if I were writing a story referring to Spidey's origin, I'd rather
draw on the Lee/Ditko version for inspiration than Byrne's.
No offense to John Byrne, but Stan Lee's a better writer and Steve Ditko's
a better artist.
Mark H
mfhu...@world.std.com
--
Check out the fully illustrated, wildly unofficial
Marvel Comics Star Wars Roleplaying Game Page at:
Peter Meilinger
: Here are some capsule reviews of some Marvel titles I read this week.
: I bought Captain America, but read the other two as a result of the
: First-Look program. Which is a good thing, because if I'd bought
: Spidey: Year One, I'd probably be foaming at the mouth in anger.
: Reviewed:
: SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
: POSSIBLE SPOILERS
: SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
: "Bitter Lesson"
: John Byrne
: Doc Ock and Spidey having a common origin isn't
: a bad idea on the face of it, but it's hardly necessary, and having
: the experiment explode and kill numerous people, putting Pete in the
: hospital for a long time, is completely unnecessary.
I flipped through this in the store and didn't care for it at all,
ESPECIALLY the idiocy with the burglar, but this is what caught my
eye. I have a book of Spider-Man short stories around here somewhere,
The Ultimate Spider-Man I think it's called, in which Peter David
wrote a new origin story for Spidey. Said story had Doc Ock conducting
the radiation experiment Peter got his powers from (which I actually
think is a cool touch, though hardly necessary) and a big explosion.
Now it doesn't read exactly like Byrne's version did - noone but
Ock was hurt if I recall correctly - but the two are similar enough
to make me wonder, you know?
Pete
Mikko Aittola
don...@brunnet.net has taken over my job dammit:
> Maybe he doesn't have a full respect for history and continuity, but he does
> have a love of the characters and creators.
I think Byrne respects history and continuity, but maybe
not the same way as others.
I think he gives more weight to the creators of the
characters as opposed to every story published - and I guess
it might be said that he respects the history so much that
if there is something wrong with it he "fixes" it. :)
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
> I flipped through this in the store and didn't care for it at all,
> ESPECIALLY the idiocy with the burglar, but this is what caught my
> eye.
What idiocy?
/Mikko
David Walker
back. That was flat out annoying.
Do "second story man" burglars routinely blow away their "victims"?
Seemed awfully excessive for a small time hood.
don...@brunnet.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
In article <idn4ste...@beta.hut.fi>,
Obviously, he's referring to the greater contact the burglar had with the
Parker family, and his assumption that Spidey is a thief like himself. It
worked for me, but I must admit that Byrne was stretching things just a shade
too far. Casing the house after seeing Ben buy a computer makes enough sense,
but his assumption that Spidey was a kindred spirit in crime started to push
34e...@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu
Mikko Aittola <mait...@jade.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> I must really wonder. Maybe Randy should actually spend
> some time with them comics he's reviewing. . .
>
> My advice: Read the book. Sleep. Read it again. Write
> a review.
>
I don't think it's a matter of actually reading it or something not clearly
established or whatever else one wants to put forth. It comes down to a
clear impression that people who will, do, and can hate what Byrne has
started in _CHAPTER ONE_ were not going to be happy with it to begin with.
Their vision of Spider-man is that which they grew up with or was first
exposed too. It's almost blasphemy to alter or change that. It's this
almost lock-step codefication of What Has Come Before that frankly a) scares
off a lot of new and potential readers and b) causes the sort of screaming
and bellowing here on Usenet that oftentimes makes me wonder why many here
even read new comics. Just go back and read the old ones or read different,
new comics (Independants, _TRANSMETROPOLITAN_, anything but what's going to
make one bellow like a mule).
I guess my mystification at why there is some real virtrol hatred of _CHAPTER
ONE_ is my mindset to approaching comics. I generally don't approach a comic
I'm about to read with loads and loads of previous impressions or continuity
in my head. I have a general idea of what came before, don't get me wrong,
but unless there is some massive alteration to approach or some really wacked
out characterization I don't really care if the writer has accurately
portrayed what Wolverine did and said in UXM 205. I'm trying to reference
what's happening NOW, and how I feel about that. For example, I've read
_UNCANNY X-MEN_ since issue 185 (that's 1984 for you youngin's) and have
every issue since 120 to the present. I for the longest time, never ever
really noticed that Chris Claremont left that book until about a year and a
half afterward. Everything at first seemed relatively seemless to me. Now,
have I dropped books because of a glaring change in styles and
characterization? Yes, _INCREDIBLE HULK_ comes to mind, but generally
speaking I judge the books based on their own context. I try not to carry
preconceived notions around. It's a comic for Christ's sake!
Considering that, I thought _CHAPTER ONE_ worked fine. It made no
substantial changes that would seriously alter the character, the art was
fine to me, and frankly I could give a shit about Byrne's ego. Would
something like this in the hands of someone with little or no experience with
Spidey maybe make them be intrigued to pick up the books? I think so. And
damn it, that's what's ultimately going to save this industry in the long
run--new readers.
Sorry for the mini-rant, but I'm still frankly amazed that Randy Lander and I
read the same comic, but then I don't read his weekly reviews to hear what I
think. ;-)
---drew
ma...@ventana.com
mfhu...@world.std.com (Mark F. Hudson) wrote:
> In article <361acbb6...@news.io.com>, rwla...@snapjudgments.com
> (Randy Lander) wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bitter Lesson"
> >John Byrne
> >
> >
> >In the end, this was every bit as disgusting and insulting to
> >Spider-Man as I expected. Marvel is doing permanent damage to
> >Spider-Man with every issue they publish these days, and whoever comes
> >in to finally clean it up is going to have another few months of
> >reparations to make before the character will ever be usable again.
> >Not Recommended (1)
> >
> >Comments from the peanut gallery?
>
> made the Hollywood version of the Spiderman story before James Cameron
> could. A simple morality tale with some b-grade special effects just isn't
> enough these days; you gotta include a big explosion, a prior relationship
> between the hero and the main villain, and a brutal, whoops, I mean
> "cathartic" beating of the bad guy at the end.
>
Yeah, but I think we'd like it more on a big screen with a DTS soundtrack.
*Grin* Seriously, I think what has everybody ticked right now is bad
feelings from past months that may be spilling over. That and the changed
origin is occuring in a *comic book* which is assumed to automatically change
continuity (the Batman movies and Spidey cartoon series do not follow comic
continuity but it's a different medium so it's like an elseworlds or
something). Personally, I don't think all that much is different. Mikko's
explanation of the Burglur's misconception of Spidey seems dead on and as for
the brutal beating...yeah it wasn't pretty, but Spidey also didn't have his
sense of justice and fair play-- not yet. So if he thought that guy had
murdered his uncle for no reason and he had the power to beat the stuffing
out of him he probably would. Even after PP gained his sense of honor and
justice (by ASM#1 those things come quick) it's been tested sorely a few
times. Doc Ock in ASM #32, Green Goblin in ASM#122, The Burgler in ASM#200
and the Chameleon in ASM#389 so this doesn't really suprise me but it leads
into your next point...
> In all honestly, I've got no problems with remakes. Usually I just shrug
> and say "Why bother?" I'm fairly certain they got it right the first time
> around, but if someone thinks they can tell the story in an new and
> interesting way, more power to them I guess. I've still got my box full of
> Marvel Tales and a copy of the Essentials book. The thing I am
> uncomfortable with is the remake supplanting the original as the
> diffinitive telling. It's already happened in the new issue of Daredevil.
I agree--what *is* the point? Maybe things will be altered more in the coming
issues but for an update, this series seems pretty useless. Unlike the Man of
Steel update,
1)Spidey's early issues have been readily (and recently) reprinted in
acceislbe and affordable volumes. Good luck finding reprints of early
supermans that an 11 year old can afford.
2)Spidey has not been around as long as Superman (although his continuity is
getting to be about as bad as Supes' was in 1985)
3)Spidey is not a Tabula Rasa like Supes was prior to Man of Steel.
Continuity is not getting rebooted. Why an update then? Which is correct?
ASM #15 or SM:CH1 #1? Are they both still in continuity?
So why bother with Chapter One? Even the "year one" phenomenon doesn't draw
the readers in like it used to. If you're going to re-tell Spidey's first
year why not do it in a way that we *haven't* seen before.
One thing that may have gotten me to purchase the issue was to do a "Marvels"
approach to the series except do it from the point of the villain. Let's get
their viewpoint on events and on Spidey (the only one who's ever successfully
been portrayed in this manner is Kraven). Done well this could be a wildly
innovative and groundbreaking series--not to mention FITTING into continuity.
Younger readers are happy because they get to see the early days of Spidey and
older readers are happy because we get to revisit the early days without
violating them.
The trick is getting someone to pull it off because it's difficult to do.
Easier to just re-tweak the original stories. Which is what Ch. 1 is.
Too bad, a lost opportunity.
Peter Meilinger
: don...@brunnet.net has taken over my job dammit:
You do know that neither Doc Ock or a huge explosion played any
part in the original origin of Spidey, right? Was this a case
of Byrne "fixing" the work of the creators he supposedly reveres?
Pete
Alleigh
wrote:
>
>don...@brunnet.net has taken over my job dammit:
>> Maybe he doesn't have a full respect for history and continuity, but he does
>> have a love of the characters and creators.
>
> I think Byrne respects history and continuity, but maybe
> not the same way as others.
>
> I think he gives more weight to the creators of the
> characters as opposed to every story published - and I guess
> it might be said that he respects the history so much that
> if there is something wrong with it he "fixes" it. :)
>
So how does changing how the creators wrote the origin story fit into
respecting the creators -
Are you sure you aren't John Byrne - or a relative - since you don't
think he can do anything wrong ever
Randy Lander
wrote:
>
>I must really wonder. Maybe Randy should actually spend
>some time with them comics he's reviewing. . .
>
>My advice: Read the book. Sleep. Read it again. Write
>a review.
My advice: Knock off the kneejerk Byrne defense regardless of the
relative quality of the work and acknowledge that your opinions aren't
the only ones.
I already took your advice, and the review was the result.
--
The above are the opinions of one Randy W. Lander. Had they
been the Biblical Truth, your bushes would be on fire.
---------------------------------------------------------
rwla...@snapjudgments.com <*> http://www.snapjudgments.com
Randy Lander
>In article <361acbb6...@news.io.com>,
> rwla...@snapjudgments.com (Randy Lander) wrote:
>> SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
>>
>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
>> "Bitter Lesson"
>> John Byrne
>>
>> I tried really, really hard to come into this with an un-biased view.
>
>I don't think you succeeded, Randy. :)
Maybe not. But I tried really, really hard. ;)
>It's not that bad. In fact, it's not bad at all. I'm sure there were plenty
>of people leery of what Byrne would do with Superman when he rebooted him in
> 1986, but that turned out just fine.
I'd disagree here, Don. The story turned out fine, but the
long-reaching consequences have turned Superman into an incredibly
dull character. (Okay, the creative teams at the moment have a lot to
do with that too, but Byrne's changes took away a lot of what made
Superman cool.) That's what I'm concerned about with Spidey...he's
already had enough long-term damage with the clone saga.
>> Byrne says that the reason he gets called for these revamps
>> is probably "the respect he has for the history and continuity of the
>> characters" and that he approaches the projects with one question in
>> mind, "How much of the old stuff can I keep?" Yeah...right.
>
>Maybe he doesn't have a full respect for history and continuity, but he does
>have a love of the characters and creators.
I have no problem with his supposed reasons for why Marvel came to
him, as that's probably right on the nose. I *do* have a problem with
him presenting himself as some kind of "defender of history and
continuity" when he has in fact ignored continuity in a lot of his
recent (since WCA, actually) work.
>> Problem is, all the good parts read *exactly* like the
>> Lee/Ditko because they're stolen, and the bits Byrne adds to the tale
>> are the stupid parts.
>
>"Stolen" is too strong a term. With the definition you seem to be using, one
>could argue that most Elseworlds books feature "stolen" elements, as would any
>revamp/reboot, from Superman to the Legion of Super-Heroes.
Hmm...fair enough. On this one, I'll have to admit bias. But I do
think that with the little new information Byrne added to the story,
there was no need for the story to be told.
>> In the end, this was every bit as disgusting and insulting to
>> Spider-Man as I expected.
>
>"Disgusting"? "Insulting"? Aren't you overreactig a bit? If Spidey killed
>the thief, that would be an insult to the spirit of the character. I just
>see Byrne making the origin a shade more intricate.
Yeah, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there, wasn't I? :) I do
think it's insulting to the character of Spidey, as much as the
majority of stories told for the last five or six years have been, but
disgusting may have been over the top. Maybe I should have downgraded
to "annoying."
>Marvel certainly has had some problems with Spidey ever since they lost the
>Image creators in 1992. The Clone saga was a terrible attempt to rejuvenate
>the character's appeal; this one strikes me as a more honest one, less
>gimmicky. So far, I like it.
Nah, it's still gimmicky...the gimmick isn't a story this time,
though, it's a creator. Which is at least a step in the right
direction, only IMO they got the wrong creator for it. I liken this to
my disappointment with Claremont on FF. Good creator in the past,
absolutely wrong-headed choice for current comics.
(This should not be construed as ageism. I'd have been thrilled if
Spidey: Chapter One was written by Stan Lee and drawn by Steve Ditko
or John Romita Sr.)
Mikko Aittola
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
> You do know that neither Doc Ock or a huge explosion played any
> part in the original origin of Spidey, right? Was this a case
> of Byrne "fixing" the work of the creators he supposedly reveres?
I thought he gave his reason for inserting that part in the
back of the book. I don't know his motives beyond that.
BTW, some people have posted on Alvaro's SMB that Stan Lee and
PAD cooked up something similar in "Ultimate Spider-Man"
or somesuch.
/Mikko
Peter Meilinger
: mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
: > You do know that neither Doc Ock or a huge explosion played any
: > part in the original origin of Spidey, right? Was this a case
: > of Byrne "fixing" the work of the creators he supposedly reveres?
: I thought he gave his reason for inserting that part in the
: back of the book. I don't know his motives beyond that.
I didn't read the whole issue and have no plans to do so. But
no matter how he justifies it, it's not a case of "back to the
basics" like so many Byrne fans have said about a lot of his
work. The fact is that you and others have said Byrne respects
the work of the creator of a character over all other interpretations,
or words to that effect. But when you think about it, Byrne changed
the VERY FIRST story every written about Spider-Man. How the hell
is that respecting the creators take on the character?
: BTW, some people have posted on Alvaro's SMB that Stan Lee and
: PAD cooked up something similar in "Ultimate Spider-Man"
: or somesuch.
I mentioned it here too. I don't think he stole it from PAD and
The Man, I just see it as evidence that it's not a very original idea.
To tell the truth, I don't mind Doc Ock being a part of the origin as
much as the explosion. I think both are unnecessary, but tying Doc
Ock to Spidey's origin can at least make for good stories. The
explosion just seems like change for the sake of change, and I really
don't see the point.
Pete
Mikko Aittola
ma...@ventana.com writes:
> 1)Spidey's early issues have been readily (and recently) reprinted in
> acceislbe and affordable volumes. Good luck finding reprints of early
> supermans that an 11 year old can afford.
Trying to attract younger audience might be what they're trying
to do, but I don't know if kids read comics anymore in the US.
I hope Marvel distributes it to newstands where somebody might pick it
up.
The Essential reprints are very affordable, about $13, and
Masterworks HC is about $30 I think. Now, when I have more
money the Essential makes far more sense, but a kid who
usually doesn't spare cash for special purchases might buy
a $2.50 book rather than $13. (Even if the whole series
is more expensive.) I know I couldn't afford the collections
when I was younger.
Anyway, I think we don't need to worry that much. If people
continue to buy it, they must think it's worth the price.
If they don't, Marvel doesn't publish it.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
> So how does changing how the creators wrote the origin story fit into
> respecting the creators -
Do you think that Byrne won't respect Stan Lee or Steve Ditko?
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
rwla...@snapjudgments.com (Randy Lander) writes:
> My advice: Knock off the kneejerk Byrne defense regardles
Huh?
I'm not defensing anybody here. If you find it necessary for
you to get through your day to think I must me defensing
something - then think I'm defensing my opinions. And my
opinions alone.
Anyway, my post wasn't about the quality of Byrne's work
at all, I was merely pointing out the various mistakes
(or misinformation) in your review. Since some of your
critique seemed to be based on false assumptions or not
understanding what happened in the book (the Burglar's
connection to Ben), I thought to point those out.
/Mikko
Peter Meilinger
Well, let's see. He took the origin story of their most famous creation
and decided it wasn't good enough the way it was. How exactly is
that respecting them?
Pete
Mikko Aittola
rwla...@snapjudgments.com (Randy Lander) writes:
> (Okay, the creative teams at the moment have a lot to
> do with that too, but Byrne's changes took away a lot of what made
> Superman cool.)
Whatever Byrne "took away" the later writers could have
added it later, if they thought it was necessary for the
character. If they didn't, it isn't Byrne's fault.
I really don't understand how Byrne's responsible for
what's going on in the books today. My opinion is that
most of the reason behind Superman's problems are editorial
nature: making the book "weekly", marriage - which is even more
dead end for Superman than it is for Spider-Man etc.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
> The fact is that you and others have said Byrne respects
> the work of the creator of a character over all other interpretations,
> or words to that effect.
I think I said something like he gives more weight to the creators
of the character.
I mainly meant the kind of stuff he did with DC's The Demon and
Forever People. For example, there were two different
versions of Demon's origin and Byrne made the creator's origin
the "correct" one. Whether that was really necessary, is
debatable of course. :)
> But when you think about it, Byrne changed the VERY FIRST story
> every written about Spider-Man. How the hell
> is that respecting the creators take on the character?
Byrne noted the irony of it in the "afterword". He respects
the original stuff yet he's hired to update and change it.
> To tell the truth, I don't mind Doc Ock being a part of the origin as
> much as the explosion. I think both are unnecessary, but tying Doc
> Ock to Spidey's origin can at least make for good stories. The
> explosion just seems like change for the sake of change, and I really
> don't see the point.
The explosion wasn't anything great, but it doesn't
bother me either. I guess Byrne put it in there because he
combined or merged Spidey's and Ock's origin and there was a
explosion in Ock's original origin (ASM #3, page 4, I think).
/Mikko
ma...@ventana.com
Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> ma...@ventana.com writes:
> > 1)Spidey's early issues have been readily (and recently) reprinted in
> > acceislbe and affordable volumes. Good luck finding reprints of early
> > supermans that an 11 year old can afford.
>
> Trying to attract younger audience might be what they're trying
> to do, but I don't know if kids read comics anymore in the US.
> I hope Marvel distributes it to newstands where somebody might pick it
> up.
>
> The Essential reprints are very affordable, about $13, and
> Masterworks HC is about $30 I think. Now, when I have more
> money the Essential makes far more sense, but a kid who
> usually doesn't spare cash for special purchases might buy
> a $2.50 book rather than $13. (Even if the whole series
> is more expensive.) I know I couldn't afford the collections
> when I was younger.
>
had a $20 bill from my parents to spend and I didn't use even half of it and
got quite a few new comics. Kids today have it rough!
> Anyway, I think we don't need to worry that much. If people
> continue to buy it, they must think it's worth the price.
> If they don't, Marvel doesn't publish it.
>
Uhhhh...no. Well at least we're not arguing about Aunt May anymore.
Currently there are clear cut cases of titles being cancelled that are paying
for themselves, however holding an MBA title myself I can udnerstand that is
not all the titles must pay for--overhead is a big thing too. I hope the
restructuring helps, but the big money that will allow marvel to support
itself is not in the publishing--it will be in the licensing. By all means I
think marvel should continue to publish comics, but it's bread and butter
that will provide the means to produce titles that may not sell 35,000 copies
a month lie in the licensing rights for books, movies, action figures, and
various other paraphanlia and establishments (go Marvel Mania!).
At any rate, the point is that a comic can pay for itself and still cause the
company to be in the red because a business needs its products to cover more
than the cost of production. That's why the 35,000 rule is there because at
that level overhead AND production costs can be covered adequately.
DC doesn't have to worry about that because, as part of the WB conglomorate,
they are not self supportive. Until last month, Marvel was.
Hope that helps,
Cheers,
> /Mikko
ma...@ventana.com
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) wrote:> :>Maybe he doesn't have a full respect for history and continuity, but he does
> : > have a love of the characters and creators.
>
> : not the same way as others.
>
> : characters as opposed to every story published - and I guess
> : it might be said that he respects the history so much that
> : if there is something wrong with it he "fixes" it. :)
>
> part in the original origin of Spidey, right? Was this a case
> of Byrne "fixing" the work of the creators he supposedly reveres?
>
>
>
Actually Pete, Byrne didn't originally write that sequence. It was lifted
from the revised Spider-Man origin written by Stan Lee in the Ultimate
Spider-Man anthology from a few years back. Peter David recieved co-author
credit and the 40 page story reads like a movie because the whole 2nd half is
a big battle between Spidey and Doc Ock at the UN building. However the
first part does tell Spidey's origin and Dock Ock is running the experiment
that causes peter to get his powers. However, Peter is not there when the
explosion happens. He is a feww blocks away taking pictures for the Daily
Bugle (this too was a change as PP didn't do that Until ASM#2 when he was
fighting the vulture
Cheers,
Mikko Aittola
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
> Well, let's see. He took the origin story of their most famous creation
> and decided it wasn't good enough the way it was.
When he decided that?
/Mikko
Sean Walsh aka slw67
>
> mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
> > The fact is that you and others have said Byrne respects
> > the work of the creator of a character over all other interpretations,
> > or words to that effect.
>
> I think I said something like he gives more weight to the creators
> of the character.
>
> I mainly meant the kind of stuff he did with DC's The Demon and
> Forever People. For example, there were two different
> versions of Demon's origin and Byrne made the creator's origin
> the "correct" one. Whether that was really necessary, is
> debatable of course. :)
Oh, so that's what he did to the Demon... I have that whole run, and for
the love of me, I cannot find out what exactly he did to piss readers
off about his changes to the Demon/Jason Blood.
But if he made Kirby's origin the correct one, then good for him.
--
Help out in my Marvel & DC writer/artist database at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/7637/comic.html
Please!
And check out the other stuff too:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/7637/index.html
Nana Yaw Ofori
<mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> > To tell the truth, I don't mind Doc Ock being a part of the origin as
> > much as the explosion. I think both are unnecessary, but tying Doc
> > Ock to Spidey's origin can at least make for good stories. The
> > explosion just seems like change for the sake of change, and I really
> > don't see the point.
>
> The explosion wasn't anything great, but it doesn't
> bother me either. I guess Byrne put it in there because he
> combined or merged Spidey's and Ock's origin and there was a
> explosion in Ock's original origin (ASM #3, page 4, I think).
Well, there is the matter that, in the editorial, he says :
"Even Spider-Man's origin depends on a radiation experiment which...seems
dangerous and absurd to an audience raised in the age of eco-awareness and
SuperFund."
But in his "correction" he has Doc Ock performing an experiment /far/ more
dangerous than the one that initially gave Spider-Man his powers. One in
which "a single particle of dust could unbalance the calibrations and
cause disaster." an experiment which, by the visual cues, appears to take
place in the middle of Manhattan.
Dangerous and absurd, indeed.
--
==================== nof...@pop3.utoledo.edu ========================
Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori,Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving
><{{"> Legion, Party of six thousand. Smoking or Non? <"}}><
Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh
In Nomine: Triad 317 http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317
=== ><{{"> ======= "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======== <"}}>< ===
Leviathan
>
>Mikko Aittola (mait...@beta.hut.fi) wrote:
>
>: don...@brunnet.net has taken over my job dammit:
>:>Maybe he doesn't have a full respect for history and continuity,
>:>but he does have a love of the characters and creators.
>
>: I think Byrne respects history and continuity, but maybe
>: not the same way as others.
>
>: I think he gives more weight to the creators of the
>: characters as opposed to every story published - and I guess
>: it might be said that he respects the history so much that
>: if there is something wrong with it he "fixes" it. :)
>
>You do know that neither Doc Ock or a huge explosion played any
>part in the original origin of Spidey, right? Was this a case
>of Byrne "fixing" the work of the creators he supposedly reveres?
How credible is it that there would be _two_ radiation-related,
super-being-creating accidents in a couple of months time in the same part of
New York, intimately effecting some of the same people?
I'm not at all sure I like the changes Byrne has wrought on Spidey's origin,
this one included (although the one I really hate is the extra junk about the
Burglar -- that was perfect as it was, and has only been diluted and weakened
by Byrne's changes.) but I can certainly understand the p;lausibility concerns
that led to it, and I think it helps join Web-Head and Doc Ock thematically in
a way that has cool possibilities.
--
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
http://www.leviathanstudios.com
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsh...@leviathanstudios.com
"Pineapple Juice... Some things are just WRONG!"
-William Jefferson Clinton,
President, United States of America
Alan Travis
>
> You do know that neither Doc Ock or a huge explosion played any
> part in the original origin of Spidey, right? Was this a case
> of Byrne "fixing" the work of the creators he supposedly reveres?
Yes, it was. Besides Byrne, Stan Lee and Peter David also thought it a
nice addition to the Spidey origin. As Stan is one of those creators
whose work is being fixed, I guess he wouldn't really have a problem
with it.
---Alan
Alan Travis
> SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
> John Byrne
>
> I tried really, really hard to come into this with an un-biased view.
Doesn't sound like you were too successful.
> First mistake I made was reading Byrne's column at the end of the
> issue, where he details how he got the job. This is the most
> unbelievable piece of ego-ridden, lying spin-control tripe I've read
> since Jim Shooter was presenting himself as a "defender of creator's
> rights."
And it has nothing to do with the story.
> Byrne says that the reason he gets called for these revamps
> is probably "the respect he has for the history and continuity of the
> characters" and that he approaches the projects with one question in
> mind, "How much of the old stuff can I keep?" Yeah...right.
Still concerned with Byrne and not the comic, eh?
> Worse
> still, he opens by saying that this origin revamp was needed because
> it was dated, having references to Kruschev and a radiation experiment
> that seems ludicrously unsafe by modern standards. Both of which are
> true, but given that comic origins also include men given mongoose
> blood infusions or struck by lightning and splashed in chemicals, you
> can't tell me anyone believes realism is an important part of
> superhero origins.
Uh, I've seen more than a few posts from people on this newsgroup having
a hobby heart attack about just these kind of time-specific references.
> Worse still, Byrne "corrects" this 1960s dated origins by dating it in
> the 80s instead. It's JLA: Year One syndrome, where they substitute a
> good story with some outdated references with an uninspired lame story
> with references that will be outdated again in 20 years.
This is hardly Byrne's doing. It's policy at Marvel that ALL writers
have to adhere to. The ten year time frame. Like it or not, don't pin
it on Byrne.
> Byrne has
> written a story here that reads a lot like the original Stan Lee/Steve
> Ditko tale. Problem is, all the good parts read *exactly* like the
> Lee/Ditko because they're stolen, and the bits Byrne adds to the tale
> are the stupid parts.
Hmmm... Stolen. Do you really think that word is appropriate? It's a
re-telling. You don't like the changes he's made, but you also accuse
him of stealing the parts he left intact. Why did you even buy this
comic? Solely to provide you with more anti-Byrne ammunition?
> Doc Ock and Spidey having a common origin isn't
> a bad idea on the face of it, but it's hardly necessary
Well, comics are hardly necessary. If it's not a bad idea, then it's
not. Period. Also, it's not his idea. It was first put out there by
Stan Lee and Peter David. I think that it's now official Marvel canon
that he had to include.
> and having
> the experiment explode and kill numerous people, putting Pete in the
> hospital for a long time, is completely unnecessary.
Just trying to jazz it up a little. I don't see that it changes things
enough to get bent out of shape over.
> But that's not the worst of it. Those are minor annoyances at best.
I agree.
> Even worse is that Byrne has the burglar robbing Ben not because he
> randomly chose the house, but because he ran into Ben buying a
> computer for Pete (computers instead of a chemistry set, another
> example of stupid updating...we still have chemistry sets in this day
> and age, and it's still the kind of thing young Pete should be
> interested in if he's to have made his own webbing) and then went to
> case the house. While casing the house, he sees Spidey come out the
> window, assumes that he is a second-story man, and when Spidey
> confronts him in the warehouse, he tells him the reason he was in the
> house was because he wanted to hook up with Spidey again. It's
> overkill. Peter was responsible for Ben's death because he didn't stop
> someone from escaping, not because he became Spider-Man in the first
> place.
Ya know, I don't know why people have a problem with this. All the same
elements are still in place. I think it adds an interesting angle to it
that the Burgular considered Spidey a sort of ally in the whole deal.
> In the end, this was every bit as disgusting and insulting to
> Spider-Man as I expected.
Never let it be said that you don't have a dramatic side. For those not
intent on fanning the Byrne flames, I think we were given a re-telling
that kept everything important and added some depth to the Doc
Ock/Spidey and Burgular/Spidey relationship. Disgusting and insulting?
Please.
> Marvel is doing permanent damage to
> Spider-Man with every issue they publish these days
The FINAL CHAPTER storyline is a good example of this statement.
Spider-man: Chapter One is not, IMO.
> and whoever comes
> in to finally clean it up is going to have another few months of
> reparations to make before the character will ever be usable again.
Randy? He needs months of reperations before he'll be usable as a
character again? Give me a break. Your anti-Byrne bias is showing.
---Alan
don...@brunnet.net
Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> rwla...@snapjudgments.com (Randy Lander) writes:
> > (Okay, the creative teams at the moment have a lot to
> > do with that too, but Byrne's changes took away a lot of what made
> > Superman cool.)
>
> Whatever Byrne "took away" the later writers could have
> added it later, if they thought it was necessary for the
> character. If they didn't, it isn't Byrne's fault.
>
> I really don't understand how Byrne's responsible for
> what's going on in the books today.
"GAAHHHH!!! I AGREE WITH MIKKO! SOMEBODY HELP ME!" MacPherson exclaimed.
> My opinion is that
> most of the reason behind Superman's problems are editorial
> nature: making the book "weekly", marriage - which is even more
> dead end for Superman than it is for Spider-Man etc.
I disagree with the comment about Superman's marriage. One of the big
challenges when writing Superman (I would imagine) is trying to come up with a
challenge he hasn't faced before in some other form. His personal life is the
best place to introduce much needed new challenges (hey, marrige isn't easy;
it's something both partners have to work at).
Don MacPherson
don...@brunnet.net
rwla...@snapjudgments.com (Randy Lander) wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Oct 1998 20:09:00 GMT, don...@brunnet.net wrote:
>
> >In article <361acbb6...@news.io.com>,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
> >> "Bitter Lesson"
> >> John Byrne
> >>
> >Image creators in 1992. The Clone saga was a terrible attempt to rejuvenate
> >the character's appeal; this one strikes me as a more honest one, less
> >gimmicky. So far, I like it.
>
> Nah, it's still gimmicky...the gimmick isn't a story this time,
> though, it's a creator. Which is at least a step in the right
> direction, only IMO they got the wrong creator for it. I liken this to
> my disappointment with Claremont on FF. Good creator in the past,
> absolutely wrong-headed choice for current comics.
Creators as gimmicks isn't exactly new, especially at Marvel. Just in the
past couple of years, the following creators were brought on board to lure
readers back into the Marvel fold: J. Lee (FF), Liefeld (CAP, AVENGERS), Waid
(CAP), Busiek (IRON MAN, AVENGERS), Perez (AVENGERS), K. Smith (DD) and the
Choas! Crew (SUPERNATURALS).
> (This should not be construed as ageism. I'd have been thrilled if
> Spidey: Chapter One was written by Stan Lee and drawn by Steve Ditko
> or John Romita Sr.)
As much as I appreciate what Stan Lee did for comics, I wouldn't welcome a new
story. He was great in his time, but that time has passed. His style just
isn't sophisticated enough for new stories in this day and age.
LaxMid18
> I'm not defensing anybody here. If you find it necessary for
> you to get through your day to think I must me defensing
> something - then think I'm defensing my opinions. And my
> opinions alone.
>
aploogist- you have to counter any negative opinon any person may have about
either of them, legitimate or not.
--Dan
NYSteve11
>From: don...@brunnet.net
>I disagree with the comment about Superman's marriage. One of the big
>challenges when writing Superman (I would imagine) is trying to come up with
>a
>challenge he hasn't faced before in some other form. His personal life is
>the
>best place to introduce much needed new challenges (hey, marrige isn't easy;
>it's something both partners have to work at).
While I would rather enjoy reading a comic about how Superman(or Spiderman or
whatever) deals with his marriage and the little foibles and follies that make
a relationship, I can understand if Marvel or DC were reluctant. Relationship
problem are pretty internal story devices and seem great for the writer but
pretty dull for the artist.
I know you're aware of all this. But it may be worth keeping in my mind that
what _I_ would like the superhero books to grow into is not where they are most
at home (action action action). At a certain point its time to find another
comic, one that perhaps doesn't star such an archetypal character and has much
more room for maneuvering.
Steve Wacker
Alleigh
wrote:
>
>rwla...@snapjudgments.com (Randy Lander) writes:
>> My advice: Knock off the kneejerk Byrne defense regardles
>
> Huh?
>
> I'm not defensing anybody here. If you find it necessary for
> you to get through your day to think I must me defensing
> something - then think I'm defensing my opinions. And my
> opinions alone.
>
> Anyway, my post wasn't about the quality of Byrne's work
Mikko everytime someone says Byrne is an egomaniac or whatnot - you
respond the same way - I have yet to see you disagree with something
he has done - even though I like Claremont - I know he has done some
things wrong -
Alleigh
wrote:
>
>rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
>> So how does changing how the creators wrote the origin story fit into
>> respecting the creators -
>
> Do you think that Byrne won't respect Stan Lee or Steve Ditko?
>
Um - you read the story - didn't you - isn't Doc Ock supposedly the
reason this happens to Peter - I don't read Spidey but IIRC that is
what Byrne is planning on doing - or already did
David Crowe
: Here are some capsule reviews of some Marvel titles I read this week.
: I bought Captain America, but read the other two as a result of the
: First-Look program. Which is a good thing, because if I'd bought
: Spidey: Year One, I'd probably be foaming at the mouth in anger.
: Reviewed:
: SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
: POSSIBLE SPOILERS
: SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
: "Bitter Lesson"
: John Byrne
<snip>
: But that's not the worst of it. Those are minor annoyances at best.
: Even worse is that Byrne has the burglar robbing Ben not because he
: randomly chose the house, but because he ran into Ben buying a
: computer for Pete (computers instead of a chemistry set, another
: example of stupid updating...we still have chemistry sets in this day
: and age, and it's still the kind of thing young Pete should be
: interested in if he's to have made his own webbing) and then went to
: case the house. While casing the house, he sees Spidey come out the
: window, assumes that he is a second-story man, and when Spidey
: confronts him in the warehouse, he tells him the reason he was in the
: house was because he wanted to hook up with Spidey again. It's
: overkill. Peter was responsible for Ben's death because he didn't stop
: someone from escaping, not because he became Spider-Man in the first
: place.
I don't have an AF #15 reprint in front of me, but wasn't the burgler
running down the hall with the guard in hot pursuit? Byrne's rewrite
didn't have any urgency to it. Spidey seemed to let the burgler go
because he was baffled by his comments, not because he didn't feel like
it. That fateful decision was now made after the fact, rather than on the
spur of the moment. Robs it of a lot of his power, I'd say.
And Byrne's odd-shaped word baloons aren't very pleasant to look at.
--
David "No Nickname" Crowe http://www.primenet.com/~jetman
"A ripoff is a ripoff even if you call it a 'homage.' If you can't think
up original concepts, get out of the industry and quit wasting our time,
the retailer's rack space and our precious natural resources."
-Toren Smith on manga "homages" in US comics.
Alan Travis
> Well, let's see. He took the origin story of their most famous creation
> that respecting them?
Well, seeing as how Stan was involved in changing the original story
(with Peter David) before Byrne came along, I guess he wouldn't mind.
---Alan
Alan Travis
>
> Um - you read the story - didn't you - isn't Doc Ock supposedly the
> reason this happens to Peter - I don't read Spidey but IIRC that is
> what Byrne is planning on doing - or already did
Another person that is against the story but hasn't read it. All the
Byrne-haters are coming out of the woodwork and they aren't even
bothering to get firsthand evidence before they begin their attacks.
---Alan
Alan Travis
> I didn't read the whole issue and have no plans to do so. But
> no matter how he justifies it, it's not a case of "back to the
> basics" like so many Byrne fans have said about a lot of his
> the work of the creator of a character over all other interpretations,
> the VERY FIRST story every written about Spider-Man. How the hell
> is that respecting the creators take on the character?
I love it when people haven't read the story, but are convinced that it
is unjustifiable.
> I mentioned it here too. I don't think he stole it from PAD and
> The Man, I just see it as evidence that it's not a very original idea.
>
> To tell the truth, I don't mind Doc Ock being a part of the origin as
> much as the explosion. I think both are unnecessary, but tying Doc
> Ock to Spidey's origin can at least make for good stories. The
> explosion just seems like change for the sake of change, and I really
> don't see the point.
I don't see a point in getting upset over such a minor addition. If you
are not against Doc Ock, was there some other reason beside the
explosion that you found the book to be unjustifiable?
---Alan
Alan Travis
> Nah, it's still gimmicky...the gimmick isn't a story this time,
> though, it's a creator. Which is at least a step in the right
> direction, only IMO they got the wrong creator for it. I liken this to
> my disappointment with Claremont on FF. Good creator in the past,
> absolutely wrong-headed choice for current comics.
Sorry, Randy, but I have to take issue with this. Okay. The gimmick is
the creator? I see. Next time, the gimmick will be the character.
Spider-man in a Spidey title? How low will Marvel stoop before they
realize that gimmicks are no longer appreciated!?!
---Alan
Mikko Aittola
rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
> Mikko everytime someone says Byrne is an egomaniac or whatnot - you
> respond the same way - I have yet to see you disagree with something
> he has done - even though I like Claremont - I know he has done some
> things wrong -
I couldn't care less if people think Byrne is an egomaniac.
I enjoy talking about comics, not about people's opinions
about creators as a persons.
In my response to Randy Lander I just wanted to point out
that in original story Peter got a microscope. Not chemistry
set. I also wanted to point out that if Peter got a computer
that doesn't mean he couldn't have a microscope or a chemistry
set. I also pointed out that in fact it seems Peter *did* have a
chemistry set in Chapter One.
In my opinion, Randy Lander understood the Burglar-Spidey-Ben
connection incorrectly and I wanted to explain how I saw
that part of the story and how I think it didn't change
the origin.
I'm sorry if you think those are the kind of things that I
shouldn't say publicly.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
don...@brunnet.net writes:
> As much as I appreciate what Stan Lee did for comics, I wouldn't welcome
> a new story. He was great in his time, but that time has passed. His
> style just isn't sophisticated enough for new stories in this day and age.
I must disagree here. I'd definetely like to see Stan writing
something for Marvel.
/Mikko
Alleigh
I think it is a stupid retcon yes - I just don't read Spidey - I don't
care if you like the story or not - but saying that Bryne is
respecting the creators and then changing the original origin story
just doesn't go together - then again Mikko seemed to think Byrne was
respecting the previous WW stories when he later admitted not to
reading them
Peter Meilinger
: mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
: > Well, let's see. He took the origin story of their most famous creation
: > and decided it wasn't good enough the way it was.
: When he decided that?
I'd have to say when he changed elements of it. Why else would he
do that?
Pete
Peter Meilinger
: In article <6vl6rt$sob$2...@news1.bu.edu>, mell...@bu.edu says...
: >
: >Mikko Aittola (mait...@beta.hut.fi) wrote:
: >: I think he gives more weight to the creators of the
: >: characters as opposed to every story published - and I guess
: >: it might be said that he respects the history so much that
: >: if there is something wrong with it he "fixes" it. :)
: >
: >You do know that neither Doc Ock or a huge explosion played any
: >part in the original origin of Spidey, right? Was this a case
: >of Byrne "fixing" the work of the creators he supposedly reveres?
: How credible is it that there would be _two_ radiation-related,
:super-being-creating accidents in a couple of months time in the same part of
: New York, intimately effecting some of the same people?
I'd have to say that two radiation accidents are a helluva lot more
plausible than a man getting super-powers from a radioactive spider's
bite.
Which is not the point of course. These are comic books - implausible
origins are par for the course. As far as I'm concerned, the weirder
the better! So it bugs me when they get changed.
: I'm not at all sure I like the changes Byrne has wrought on Spidey's origin,
:this one included (although the one I really hate is the extra junk about the
:Burglar -- that was perfect as it was, and has only been diluted and weakened
:by Byrne's changes.) but I can certainly understand the p;lausibility concerns
that led to it, and I think it helps join Web-Head and Doc Ock thematically in
: a way that has cool possibilities.
I'm not crazy about the new link between Spidey and Doc Ock, but I
do grant that it at least has possibilities. The changes with the
burglar and the huge explosion were completely unnecessary to my
mind.
Pete
Peter Meilinger
: : POSSIBLE SPOILERS
: : SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
: : "Bitter Lesson"
: : John Byrne
: I don't have an AF #15 reprint in front of me, but wasn't the burgler
: running down the hall with the guard in hot pursuit? Byrne's rewrite
: didn't have any urgency to it. Spidey seemed to let the burgler go
: because he was baffled by his comments, not because he didn't feel like
: it. That fateful decision was now made after the fact, rather than on the
: spur of the moment. Robs it of a lot of his power, I'd say.
That's a good point, one that hadn't occurred to me. It did seem like
a leisurely stroll rather than the chase from the original story. And
like you say, it changes Peter's motivation from a selfish, split-second
decision to an after the fact rationalization.
Pete
Peter Meilinger
: Peter Meilinger wrote:
: > I didn't read the whole issue and have no plans to do so. But
: > no matter how he justifies it, it's not a case of "back to the
: > basics" like so many Byrne fans have said about a lot of his
: > work. The fact is that you and others have said Byrne respects
: > the work of the creator of a character over all other interpretations,
: > or words to that effect. But when you think about it, Byrne changed
: > the VERY FIRST story every written about Spider-Man. How the hell
: > is that respecting the creators take on the character?
: I love it when people haven't read the story, but are convinced that it
: is unjustifiable.
I read the parts I've commented on. I did not read the parts I have
not commented on. Where exactly is the problem?
: > To tell the truth, I don't mind Doc Ock being a part of the origin as
: > much as the explosion. I think both are unnecessary, but tying Doc
: > Ock to Spidey's origin can at least make for good stories. The
: > explosion just seems like change for the sake of change, and I really
: > don't see the point.
: I don't see a point in getting upset over such a minor addition. If you
: are not against Doc Ock, was there some other reason beside the
: explosion that you found the book to be unjustifiable?
I think it was the way it seemed to be change for the sake of change.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And Spider-Man's origin was definitely
not broken.
The specific reason I don't like the explosion just came to me as I
was discussing it with friends - Spider-Man's origin has changed from
a million-to-one longshot that affected only his own life to a huge
explosion that hurt lots of other people and made front page news. I
just don't like that.
Pete
Peter Meilinger
: > that respecting them?
: Well, seeing as how Stan was involved in changing the original story
: (with Peter David) before Byrne came along, I guess he wouldn't mind.
Did Stan actually write any of that story? I know he edited the book,
but I thought I only saw PADs name as author of that story. Which I
also didn't care too much for, by the way.
I did love Stan's foreword, though. He admits that he can't remember
how he came up with the idea of Spider-Man and comes up with a cool
story, saying "Hey, it might be true!" He's The Man!
Pete
Mikko Aittola
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
> I'm not crazy about the new link between Spidey and Doc Ock, but I
> do grant that it at least has possibilities. The changes with the
> burglar and the huge explosion were completely unnecessary to my
> mind.
Just keep in mind that there was an explosion in Doctor
Octopus' original origin.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
> That's a good point, one that hadn't occurred to me. It did seem like
> a leisurely stroll rather than the chase from the original story. And
> like you say, it changes Peter's motivation from a selfish, split-second
> decision to an after the fact rationalization.
No it doesn't.
In both, AF #15 and C1 #1, Spidey is confused and doesn't have
a clue what to do. Then Police shouts "Stop Stop!" Then the
burglar escapes to elevator. Then there's the discussion
between Harrigan and Spidey and it's very much the same in
both books.
/Mikko
Peter Meilinger
So what? No, really. So what? I wasn't talking about Doc Ock's origin,
I was talking about Spidey's. And all that really says to me is
that Byrne thought Doc Ock's origin was more important to keep
unchanged than Spider-Man's.
Pete
Mikko Aittola
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
> So what? No, really. So what? I wasn't talking about Doc Ock's origin,
> I was talking about Spidey's. And all that really says to me is
> that Byrne thought Doc Ock's origin was more important to keep
> unchanged than Spider-Man's.
You were talking about Dock Ock's origin since the characters
now have the same origin. And Byrne didn't keep Ock's origin
unchanged, he just merged it with Spidey's.
/Mikko
Peter Meilinger
No, Mikko. I was talking about Spider-Man's origin and how I don't
think any change was necessary. I'm not too upset at the merging
of Doc Ock and Spidey's origins - it's far from the worst thing that
could have been done. But I don't think the explosion was appropriate
for Spidey's origin, for reasons I don't necessarily expect others
to agree with.
So, I guess I'd say that if Doc Ock and Spidey have to have the
same origin, I'd rather it be one without a deadly explosion so
as to leave Spidey's origin as unchanged as possible. This would
change Doc Ock's origin, true, but I think his origin takes a
backseat to Spidey's.
Pete
wo...@interlog.com
wrote:
>
>rwla...@snapjudgments.com (Randy Lander) writes:
>> My advice: Knock off the kneejerk Byrne defense regardles
>
> Huh?
>
> I'm not defensing anybody here. If you find it necessary for
> you to get through your day to think I must me defensing
> something - then think I'm defensing my opinions. And my
> opinions alone.
Oh, get over yourself Mikko. I've been watching you pulling the same
crap on the DC ng...for the last two years...every time someone
mentions The Almighty Byrne's name.
You ARE defending Byrne. You ALWAYS defend Byrne. Anyone who mentions
Byrne's name in a less-than-positive light gets an IMMEDIATE response
from you informing them that their opinions are faulty and they should
read the story again and try to understand it better.
Say whatever you want about Byrne. Just don't lie to everyone and
claim you aren't defending him.
> Anyway, my post wasn't about the quality of Byrne's work
Paul O'Brien
<laxm...@aol.com> writes
>
>> I'm not defensing anybody here. If you find it necessary for
>> you to get through your day to think I must me defensing
>> something - then think I'm defensing my opinions. And my
>> opinions alone.
>>
>aploogist- you have to counter any negative opinon any person may have about
>either of them, legitimate or not.
You know, SOMEBODY has to like Mackie and Byrne's work. Doesn't
Mikko have a right to be him?
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
Buy Belle and Sebastian records.
Paul O'Brien
<mait...@jade.hut.fi> writes
Mikko, when was the last time Stan Lee wrote a regular series that
was any good, or at least stood the faintest chance of surviving
in the current market? Ravage 2099? I think not...
Alleigh
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <19981009234550...@ng70.aol.com>, LaxMid18
><laxm...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>> I'm not defensing anybody here. If you find it necessary for
>>> you to get through your day to think I must me defensing
>>> something - then think I'm defensing my opinions. And my
>>> opinions alone.
>>>
>>Oh come off it, Mikko, you're the nInternet's onumber one Mackie/Byrne
>>aploogist- you have to counter any negative opinon any person may have about
>>either of them, legitimate or not.
>
>You know, SOMEBODY has to like Mackie and Byrne's work. Doesn't
>Mikko have a right to be him?
>
There is a difference in liking and having the view "they can do no
wrong" - I have yet to see him ever think anything by Byrne wasn't
okay - most people do see something wrong with books writers they like
wrote
Jay H.
Peter Meilinger wrote in message <6vo422$q35$5...@news1.bu.edu>...
>Alan Travis (amtr...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>: Peter Meilinger wrote:
>: > Well, let's see. He took the origin story of their most famous
creation
>: > and decided it wasn't good enough the way it was. How exactly is
>: > that respecting them?
>
>: Well, seeing as how Stan was involved in changing the original story
>: (with Peter David) before Byrne came along, I guess he wouldn't mind.
>
>Did Stan actually write any of that story? I know he edited the book,
>but I thought I only saw PADs name as author of that story. Which I
>also didn't care too much for, by the way.
It was written by Stan and PAD. I actually liked that story - well, the
first half of it anyway. But I never thought of it as being in
continuity. Just a different take on the original.
>
>I did love Stan's foreword, though. He admits that he can't remember
>how he came up with the idea of Spider-Man and comes up with a cool
>story, saying "Hey, it might be true!" He's The Man!
>
Yeah, I got a kick out of that too.
Jay H.
>Pete
>
Jay H.
Alan Travis wrote in message <361F07...@earthlink.net>...
>Alleigh wrote:
>>
>> Um - you read the story - didn't you - isn't Doc Ock supposedly the
>> reason this happens to Peter - I don't read Spidey but IIRC that is
>> what Byrne is planning on doing - or already did
>
>Another person that is against the story but hasn't read it. All the
>Byrne-haters are coming out of the woodwork and they aren't even
>bothering to get firsthand evidence before they begin their attacks.
>
I don't hate Byrne. I don't even hate this comic book. I just think that
for a reboot, it's pretty uninspired. When I finished reading it, all I
could think was, "What was the point of that?" This story just
underscores how solid the original story was. Byrne couldn't find any way
to improve upon it, so he just added gratuitous new elements to it.
The three things that bothered me about this story have mentioned by
other posters. But I'm going to comment on 'em anyway.
Updating all the cultural references is so not necessary. When I read the
stories from the sixties, I tend to do this mentally anyway. So the
microscope is now a computer - so what? This sort of thing is better
retconned in flashbacks, IMHO. I don't think an entire series is needed
to take care of these minor details.
The burglar's new motivation is lame. In trying to fix what he perceives
as holes in the Lee/Ditko version, Byrne is just adding a very contrived
and unnecessary new plot element. Besides, I never wondered how the
burglar ended up in Peter's neighborhood. Coincidence, fate, whatever -
it doesn't matter. What matters is that Spider-man didn't stop him when
he could have, the burglar killed Uncle Ben, and Peter learned that with
great power comes great responsibility.
But the thing that really bugged me was the explosion. I don't mind the
Doc Ock tie-in, but does Spidey's origin really need a higher body count?
Isn't there enough deaths associated with Spidey's career without adding
a lecture hall-full more? And how dramatic is Uncle Ben's fate when we've
just seen scores of people die violently? Sorry, I just don't like this.
I may pick up the second issue, but if it turns out to be more of the
same then I'll stop there.
Jay H., missing UTOS more and more.
>---Alan
Mikko Aittola
wo...@interlog.com writes:
> Oh, get over yourself Mikko. I've been watching you pulling the same
> crap on the DC ng...for the last two years...every time someone
> mentions The Almighty Byrne's name.
>
> You ARE defending Byrne. You ALWAYS defend Byrne. Anyone who mentions
> Byrne's name in a less-than-positive light gets an IMMEDIATE response
> from you informing them that their opinions are faulty and they should
> read the story again and try to understand it better.
>
> Say whatever you want about Byrne. Just don't lie to everyone and
> claim you aren't defending him.
anybody.
I'm ever amazed how some people have time to write three paragraphs
of personal insults (which are off-topic here) instead of
responding to the content of my post.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
> There is a difference in liking and having the view "they can do no
> wrong" - I have yet to see him ever think anything by Byrne wasn't
> okay -
Why does that bother you so much?
You better face it: You'll never know what I think. All
you can see is my posts here. I'd be thankful if you could stop
insulting me as a person and instead of that respond to the
content my posts, if you have something to comment on them.
If you're unable to respond to the content of my posts, please
stop wasting bandwidth.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Mikko, when was the last time Stan Lee wrote a regular series that
> was any good, or at least stood the faintest chance of surviving
> in the current market? Ravage 2099? I think not...
I think the market should decide what survives in the
market.
And I'm not necessarily talking about regular series.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
You think Peter can't have a microscope because he has a
computer now???
> The burglar's new motivation is lame.
His basic motivation (he wants to rob the house) is still
exactly the same!
> And how dramatic is Uncle Ben's fate when we've just seen scores of
> people die violently? Sorry, I just don't like this.
The "drama" in Ben's fate was the fact that Peter could have
stopped the burglar, but he didn't.
/Mikko
Alan Travis
> I don't hate Byrne. I don't even hate this comic book. I just think that
> for a reboot, it's pretty uninspired. When I finished reading it, all I
> could think was, "What was the point of that?"
I said that when I heard they were going to do this project. I had
already read a couple years worth of Untold Tales. Do we really need to
dive back into the early Spidey material so soon?
> This story just
> underscores how solid the original story was. Byrne couldn't find any way
> to improve upon it, so he just added gratuitous new elements to it.
Hmmm... I don't think they are gratuitous. I think they add some
interesting complexities to the Spidey and Doc Okc relationship and the
Burgular scenario. Other than that, I think Byrne fully intended to
reiterate the origin for a whole slew of Spidey fans disillusioned by
the clone saga.
> Updating all the cultural references is so not necessary. When I read the
> stories from the sixties, I tend to do this mentally anyway. So the
> microscope is now a computer - so what? This sort of thing is better
> retconned in flashbacks, IMHO. I don't think an entire series is needed
> to take care of these minor details.
Marvel is doing this across the board in their titles. If they have to
reference a time specific point, then they update it. Right or wrong,
it's policy at Marvel and now something specific to Spidey: Chapter One.
> The burglar's new motivation is lame. In trying to fix what he perceives
> as holes in the Lee/Ditko version, Byrne is just adding a very contrived
> and unnecessary new plot element. Besides, I never wondered how the
> burglar ended up in Peter's neighborhood. Coincidence, fate, whatever -
> it doesn't matter. What matters is that Spider-man didn't stop him when
> he could have, the burglar killed Uncle Ben, and Peter learned that with
> great power comes great responsibility.
Yep. The bad decision is the most important thing. However, I think
developing the back story of the burgular a bit (to try and soften the
massive coincidence that the guy would bump off Spidey's uncle) was well
intended and interesting.
> Isn't there enough deaths associated with Spidey's career without adding
> a lecture hall-full more? And how dramatic is Uncle Ben's fate when we've
> just seen scores of people die violently? Sorry, I just don't like this.
Those were faceless unknowns. Not a surrogate father. I don't think it
has an impact on the Ben death. Besides, Peter had no culpability in
the lecture hall students' death.
---Alan
Alan Travis
>
> Alan Travis (amtr...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : Peter Meilinger wrote:
> : > Well, let's see. He took the origin story of their most famous creation
> : > and decided it wasn't good enough the way it was. How exactly is
> : > that respecting them?
>
> : Well, seeing as how Stan was involved in changing the original story
> : (with Peter David) before Byrne came along, I guess he wouldn't mind.
>
> Did Stan actually write any of that story? I know he edited the book,
> but I thought I only saw PADs name as author of that story. Which I
> also didn't care too much for, by the way.
I have been told that he co-authored the story with Pad.
> I did love Stan's foreword, though. He admits that he can't remember
> how he came up with the idea of Spider-Man and comes up with a cool
> story, saying "Hey, it might be true!" He's The Man!
Stan's great. I think if this story has his blessing, that's good
enough for me. ---Alan
Alan Travis
> I think it is a stupid retcon yes - I just don't read Spidey - I don't
> care if you like the story or not - but saying that Bryne is
> respecting the creators and then changing the original origin story
> just doesn't go together - then again Mikko seemed to think Byrne was
> respecting the previous WW stories when he later admitted not to
> reading them
I could care less what Mikko thinks.
As for Byrne and creators, I don't think that having respect for
creators and making the kind of additions to their creation's origin
story are mutually exclusive. I guess Stan doesn't think so either.
---Alan
Alan Travis
> I read the parts I've commented on. I did not read the parts I have
> not commented on. Where exactly is the problem?
Well, you claimed the story to be unjustifiable, but you didn't read the
entire thing to see if there was something that made it legitimate
hidden within its pages. As hard as it is to imagine, there might have
been something within the unread pages that would have made it easier
for you to stomach the changes he made.
> I think it was the way it seemed to be change for the sake of change.
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And Spider-Man's origin was > definitely not broken.
Neither was Superman's and neither was the Fantastic Four's or Iron
Man's, but they get changed time and time again. FF going to the moon?
Not anymore. Now, they are trying to go faster than light in their
unshielded rocket. These things happen and they will continue to
happen.
> The specific reason I don't like the explosion just came to me as I
> was discussing it with friends - Spider-Man's origin has changed from
> a million-to-one longshot that affected only his own life to a huge
> explosion that hurt lots of other people and made front page news. I
> just don't like that.
Yeah, now it's a million to one longshot that affected about 30 or more
people. Damn you, Byrne! YOU BLEW IT ALL UP! ---Alan
Paul O'Brien
<mell...@bu.edu> writes
>: > and decided it wasn't good enough the way it was.
>
>
>I'd have to say when he changed elements of it. Why else would he
>do that?
Well, perhaps because he thinks the approach that was ideal for
an audience in 1963 is inappropriate for an audience in 1998?
To be honest, I agree with him about the implausibility of the
original experimental accident.
Alleigh
wrote:
>
>rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
>> There is a difference in liking and having the view "they can do no
>> wrong" - I have yet to see him ever think anything by Byrne wasn't
>> okay -
>
> Why does that bother you so much?
>
> You better face it: You'll never know what I think. All
> you can see is my posts here. I'd be thankful if you could stop
Oooh How long did it take you with that response - I know all I will
see is your posts - and what I see is a person who doesn't think Byrne
is ever wrong and will tell anyone that disagrees with a Byrne "plot"
> insulting me as a person and instead of that respond to the
> content my posts, if you have something to comment on them.
You have insulted people as well - and I have seen posts where you
comment on someone because of their views on a subject (mainly Byrne -
that is the only time I see you post) - how about this post saying
that Randy obviously didn't get what John Byrne was doing
> If you're unable to respond to the content of my posts, please
> stop wasting bandwidth.
I have before - but you just change the subject - and half the time
you respond with "why" or whatnot
Jason Fliegel
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>To be honest, I agree with him about the implausibility of the
>original experimental accident.
In Spider-Man's original origin, Peter Parker is attending a demonstration
of "how we can control radioactive rays here in the laboratory."
Unbeknownst to anybody, a spider gets caught in the rays and irradiated.
The spider then butes Peter, who, as a result, gains his familiar
Spider-Man powers. Meanwhile, the scientists go on with their experiment,
unaware of the spider.
I flipped through Chapter One in the store, and, from what I can tell,
Byrne changed the story in two ways. First, he changed it so Dr.
Octavious was running the experiment rather than a generic scientist; this
seems silly to me, but ultimately harmless. Second, he had the spider
cause a massive explosion that decimated the building in which the
experiment took place and put Peter in the hospital. To me, this makes
the accident far less plausible. We go from a spider unobtrusively giving
Peter his powers to a spider causing millions of dollars worth of damage.
Mostly, though, I can't believe I typed "original origin."
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
3L, University of Chicago Law School
Mikko Aittola
rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
> that is the only time I see you post) - how about this post saying
> that Randy obviously didn't get what John Byrne was doing
Yes, how about that?
I'm still waiting for the respose on the content of that post.
If you don't have anything to say, you could always keep quiet.
/Mikko
Paulo Costa
> > something for Marvel.
>
> was any good, or at least stood the faintest chance of surviving
> in the current market? Ravage 2099? I think not...
>
Stan Lee would have a chance in writing if he hadn't stopped. But in the
late 70's and 80's he hardly wrote anything AFAIK.
--
Paulo Costa
"Tonight, God is a DJ" - Maxi Jazz
Alleigh
Jay H.
Mikko Aittola wrote in message ...
> computer now???
>
I suppose that he could have both. But since "Spider-Man: Chapter One"
reinterprets the events of "Amazing Fantasy" #15, in which Uncle Ben
gives Peter a microscope, I assumed that in the new version,
computer=microscope.
But lets say that Uncle Ben did give Peter a microscope AND a "top of the
line home computer system, fully loaded." For me the microscope has
always been a symbol of Uncle Ben's selflessness and of his love for
Peter. The Parkers didn't have a lot of money and, the way I've always
read it, the microscope was something they really couldn't afford but
that they wanted Peter to have. But now we have an Uncle Ben who perhaps
tended to shower Peter with expensive gifts. "Shower" is probably a
little strong, but my point is that such an extravagant gift dilutes the
symbolism of the microscope. A little thing, really. But it was always a
nice touch in the original.
>
>> The burglar's new motivation is lame.
>
> His basic motivation (he wants to rob the house) is still
> exactly the same!
>
Not according to Anna Watson: "May told me as much as she could, Peter. A
man broke into the house. He must have been some kind of madman. He waved
a gun around and said he was looking for Spider-Man."
>
>> And how dramatic is Uncle Ben's fate when we've just seen scores of
>> people die violently? Sorry, I just don't like this.
>
> The "drama" in Ben's fate was the fact that Peter could have
> stopped the burglar, but he didn't.
>
Sorry, I probably wasn't very clear here. I meant the dramatic impact
from a narrative point of view. Which has more "punch": an explosion
followed by the sight of wreckage and dead bodies, as well as the hero
sustaining massive injuries; or an old man getting shot by burglar
off-panel? After seeing so many people die so early in the story, Uncle
Ben's death becomes, well, just one more. Well, not quite "just one
more;" but the dramatic intensity of the murder, which is after all the
pivotal event of Peter Parker's life, is watered down somewhat.
Just my opinion.
Jay H.
>
> /Mikko
>
>
Jay H.
Alan Travis wrote in message <362073...@earthlink.net>...
>Jay H. wrote:
>
>> Isn't there enough deaths associated with Spidey's career without
adding
>> a lecture hall-full more? And how dramatic is Uncle Ben's fate when
we've
>> just seen scores of people die violently? Sorry, I just don't like
this.
>
>Those were faceless unknowns. Not a surrogate father. I don't think it
>has an impact on the Ben death. Besides, Peter had no culpability in
>the lecture hall students' death.
>
This is just me, but nothing else in this book bothered me as much as the
explosion. Not the business with the burglar, not the computer thing, not
tying Doctor Octopus' origin in with Spidey's (which, actually, I liked),
or anything else that's been tossed around in this newsgroup. But the
fact that we now have more people dying, strangers or not, so that
Spider-Man can live... I don't know: like I said, I just don't like it.
FWIW, I really had high hopes for this book. Spider-Man is a character I
love, but I haven't read any of the titles regularly (except for Untold
Tales) in many, many years. And back in the day, I used to worship John
Byrne - perhaps as much as our friend Mikko. <g> I had hoped this
retelling of Spidey's origin would be a good jumping on point so I could
get back into the character. Alas, if this first issue is any indication,
it's not to be. Maybe my expectations were too high. There's nothing here
that I hate, but there's a lot that I don't like. It's not even like
"Spider-Man: Chapter One" is that horrible; it's more like I can think of
other titles I'd rather spend my money on.
However, I do plan on giving it one more try. Believe it or not, I really
do *want* to like this book.
Jay H.
>---Alan
Mark
> As much as I appreciate what Stan Lee did for comics, I wouldn't welcome a new
> story. He was great in his time, but that time has passed. His style just
> isn't sophisticated enough for new stories in this day and age.
>
Well, gotta disagree here........
Stan Lee's run of Spider-tales from #50 on up to #110 still rank as some of the
best IMO, and I picked them all up as back issues, so I'm not necessarily being
"nostalgic". Maybe he would have to tone down the melodrama a bit, but the
Flash-Vietnam story, the drug issues, the death of Capt. Stacy, the Stone Tablet
caper, and the Lizard / Torch storyline will hold up as quality storylines long
after the Clone Saga and "The Final Chapter" are mercifully forgotten. The stories
were well-written, exciting, with consistent characterization, and were FUN to
read. If a "sophisticated" storyline is one as convoluted as the Clone saga or any
X-Men subplot over the past six years, I'll stick with the old style...
3..2..1..MARK!
thad a doria
>In article <361acbb6...@news.io.com>,
> rwla...@snapjudgments.com (Randy Lander) wrote:
>> SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
>>
>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> SPIDER-MAN: YEAR ONE #1
>> "Bitter Lesson"
>> John Byrne
>>
>> I tried really, really hard to come into this with an un-biased view.
>
>I don't think you succeeded, Randy. :)
>
>> Believe all the people who have been trashing this
>> sight-unseen, because it is exactly that bad.
>
>It's not that bad. In fact, it's not bad at all. I'm sure there were plenty
>of people leery of what Byrne would do with Superman when he rebooted him in
>1986, but that turned out just fine.
Hell, even I, Charter Member of the Executive Committee on Byrne-Baching,
couldn't bring myself to hate this issue. Didn't like some bits, but I
think he made some good choices. It's on par with Jim Lee's Fantastic Four
revamp (which I generally enjoyed).
>> Byrne says that the reason he gets called for these revamps
>> is probably "the respect he has for the history and continuity of the
>> characters" and that he approaches the projects with one question in
>> mind, "How much of the old stuff can I keep?" Yeah...right.
>
>Maybe he doesn't have a full respect for history and continuity, but he does
>have a love of the characters and creators.
Unless their names are "Steve Engelhart" or "Jim Shooter", sure. ;)
>> Problem is, all the good parts read *exactly* like the
>> Lee/Ditko because they're stolen, and the bits Byrne adds to the tale
>> are the stupid parts.
>
>"Stolen" is too strong a term. With the definition you seem to be using, one
>could argue that most Elseworlds books feature "stolen" elements, as would any
>revamp/reboot, from Superman to the Legion of Super-Heroes.
I think I see what Randy's getting at though. I often accuse Byrne's work
of being soulless and devoid of passion. The moments of true emotion here
are all taken from the source material, but the window dressing and
internal consistency have Byrne's fingerprints all over them.
>> In the end, this was every bit as disgusting and insulting to
>> Spider-Man as I expected.
>
>"Disgusting"? "Insulting"? Aren't you overreactig a bit? If Spidey killed
>the thief, that would be an insult to the spirit of the character. I just
>see Byrne making the origin a shade more intricate.
But should it be more intricate? There's no right answer for this, just
like there's no right answer in the "Batman never found his parents'
killer" vs. "Batman brought Joe Chill to justice" dilemma. This thing with
the burglar was the most egregious part of the story for me, however. I
don't think it adds anything to the warehouse scene at all; in fact the
burglar's revelation (occurring far earlier than in the original) took the
edge off Peter's surprise at it and his emotional reaction to it.
>> Marvel is doing permanent damage to
>> Spider-Man with every issue they publish these days, and whoever comes
>> in to finally clean it up is going to have another few months of
>> reparations to make before the character will ever be usable again.
>
>Marvel certainly has had some problems with Spidey ever since they lost the
>Image creators in 1992. The Clone saga was a terrible attempt to rejuvenate
>the character's appeal; this one strikes me as a more honest one, less
>gimmicky. So far, I like it.
But for how long, Don? For...how...long?
--
-Thad Doria
"This is Precious Roy and I like the fresh hot donuts! Suckers!"
thad a doria
Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>"Jay H." <j...@showbuzznet.com> writes:
>> So the microscope is now a computer - so what?
>
> You think Peter can't have a microscope because he has a
> computer now???
Mikko, he's *agreeing* with you! Call off the dogs.
>> The burglar's new motivation is lame.
>
> His basic motivation (he wants to rob the house) is still
> exactly the same!
But moving the reveal of the burglar's identity up (from [original] after
he knocks him out to [new] as soon as Spidey enters, at which point they
have a conversation) kills a lot of the suspense and emotion of the scene.
The chase around the warehouse, the burglar hidden by shadows, the
building suspense, the flash of recognition by Peter--all gone. Now you
have the burglar hitting him over the head with the Hammer of Subtlety
"It's me! It's me!!", you have Peter scream at the top of his lungs "you
killed uncle Ben!!" for all to hear (oh and covering it with "he was
probably unconscious after the first punch"--clumsy, clumsy, clumsy), and
so on. The only possible justification I can think of for this change is
that it establishes Spider-Man's outlaw rep immediately; but I think it
subtracts far more than it adds.
The lab explosion, on the other hand, adds a nice subtext of survivor's
guilt for Peter, who could always use *more* neuroses ;)
don...@brunnet.net
What time is it now?
Kidding... kidding...
Don MacPherson
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Randy Lander
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>You know, SOMEBODY has to like Mackie and Byrne's work. Doesn't
>Mikko have a right to be him?
Sure. Until he starts accusing me of not reading books I review. I
kinda take umbrage at that kinda thing. ;)
--
The above are the opinions of one Randy W. Lander. Had they
been the Biblical Truth, your bushes would be on fire.
---------------------------------------------------------
rwla...@snapjudgments.com <*> http://www.snapjudgments.com
Randy Lander
wrote:
> In my response to Randy Lander I just wanted to point out
> that in original story Peter got a microscope. Not chemistry
> set. I also wanted to point out that if Peter got a computer
> that doesn't mean he couldn't have a microscope or a chemistry
> set. I also pointed out that in fact it seems Peter *did* have a
> chemistry set in Chapter One.
Fair enough. At any rate, there is a vast difference between a
microscope and a computer. As someone else noted, giving Pete a
microscope (which is still more closely linked to a chemistry interest
in my mind than a computer) was something the family could barely
afford, but giving him a computer makes it seem like they're handing
him expensive gifts with no real worries. A panel of Ben and May
deciding to buy it despite the cost would have been nice, at least.
Although my real problem with it is that it makes it seem that Peter's
a typical "computer scientist" when he's never been that into
computers, and chemistry was his interest.
> I'm sorry if you think those are the kind of things that I
> shouldn't say publicly.
I for one have no problem with you disagreeing with me. However, I do
have a problem with you posting it under the heading "Did Randy Lander
Read Chapter One?" when I obviously did or I wouldn't be reviewing it.
Or are you now questioning my integrity?
Randy Lander
<amtr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Randy Lander wrote:
>> Nah, it's still gimmicky...the gimmick isn't a story this time,
>> though, it's a creator. Which is at least a step in the right
>> direction, only IMO they got the wrong creator for it. I liken this to
>> my disappointment with Claremont on FF. Good creator in the past,
>> absolutely wrong-headed choice for current comics.
>
>Sorry, Randy, but I have to take issue with this. Okay. The gimmick is
>the creator? I see. Next time, the gimmick will be the character.
>Spider-man in a Spidey title? How low will Marvel stoop before they
>realize that gimmicks are no longer appreciated!?!
The gimmick is the creator. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but
creators are being used as sales gimmicks. Heroes Return? The gimmick
was that they had high-profile creators on the books. Same with Marvel
Knights.
Now maybe you're reading a negative connotation into gimmick that I
don't intend.
cib...@metrolink.net
> Although my real problem with it is that it makes it seem that Peter's
> a typical "computer scientist" when he's never been that into
> computers, and chemistry was his interest.
A "typical" computer scientist ?!?! There's nothing typical about us.
What
are you trying to say here ???
BTW yes, I do agree, Peter is probably a chemist. However, a geeky kid
having
a computer does not mean he has a preference for computer science. It
just means he has a really good tool to explore any science of his
interest.
Augusto Sellhorn
Mikko Aittola
do...@midway.uchicago.edu (thad a doria) writes:
> But moving the reveal of the burglar's identity up (from [original] after
> he knocks him out to [new] as soon as Spidey enters, at which point they
> have a conversation) kills a lot of the suspense and emotion of the scene.
> The chase around the warehouse, the burglar hidden by shadows, the
> building suspense, the flash of recognition by Peter--all gone.
Only the people who had already read AF #15 before C1 #1 knew that
the character who was featured throughout the book was going
to be the same guy who murdered Ben. When Peter found the
burglar he was masked and nothing linked him to the character
who had been "casing" Ben's house before Peter unmasked him
and found out.
Sure it was foreshadowed, but I think it could be argued
also that the "massive coincidence" (as somebody else here
put it) killed a lot of the suspense and emotion of the scene.
Personally, I never had trouble with how it was done in
AF #15. Anyway, if I understood correctly, you and me both
knew the outcome before we read C1 #1 and that's why I think
it's quite impossible to judge the "suspense" and "emotion" of
the revelation.
/Mikko
Leviathan
>
>
>mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
>> You do know that neither Doc Ock or a huge explosion played any
>> part in the original origin of Spidey, right? Was this a case
>> of Byrne "fixing" the work of the creators he supposedly reveres?
>
> I thought he gave his reason for inserting that part in the
> back of the book. I don't know his motives beyond that.
>
> BTW, some people have posted on Alvaro's SMB that Stan Lee and
> PAD cooked up something similar in "Ultimate Spider-Man"
> or somesuch.
Correct.
--
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
http://www.leviathanstudios.com
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsh...@leviathanstudios.com
"Pineapple Juice... Some things are just WRONG!"
-William Jefferson Clinton,
President, United States of America
Leviathan
>
>Mikko Aittola (mait...@beta.hut.fi) wrote:
>
>: rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
>: > So how does changing how the creators wrote the origin story fit into
>: > respecting the creators -
>
>: Do you think that Byrne won't respect Stan Lee or Steve Ditko?
>
>Well, let's see. He took the origin story of their most famous creation
>that respecting them?
Did _Byrne_ decide that? Or did Marvel? He didn't go to Marvel and say, "I want
to revamp Spider-Man!" They came to him and said "Fix it."
thad a doria
I am referring to the "suspense" and "emotion" *experienced*by*Peter*
Parker* Mikko. By moving the reveal further up, Byrne defused nearly all
the tension of the original scene. Having a conversation with the burglar
takes the reader's POV away from Peter. In the original scene we were
inside Peter's head, experiencing his fear, his anger, etc., throughout the
chase in the warehouse, building to a crescendo in which the burglar is
unmasked. The new sequence is much more detatched emotionally and, IMO,
less effective in depicting a crucial moment in this character's life.
Ah Mikko, you've hooked me in again; I've been distracted from talking
about the bits of the issue that I actually *liked*.
Now I'd like to get Jim Smith in here and talk about a flaw in another of
Byrne's changes. Pro wrestling matches rarely, if ever, have *rounds*. In
the original, a reward was offered to anyone who can go 3 minutes with
Crusher. In the new version, it's 1 round. Why? At least Kurt Busiek is
able to fake some knowledge of wrestling in Thunderbolts...
Jim Smith
do...@midway.uchicago.edu (thad a doria) wrote:
> Now I'd like to get Jim Smith in here and talk about a flaw in another of
> Byrne's changes.
[Sudden cue of WCW-esque shameless ripoff of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song"]
You called me out here, son? Well, here I am.
Pro wrestling matches rarely, if ever, have *rounds*. In
> the original, a reward was offered to anyone who can go 3 minutes with
> Crusher. In the new version, it's 1 round. Why?
Let's bear in mind that pro wrestling matches are even more rarely
*invitational*. A real booker would never in his right mind let a top-carder
(which Crusher obviously was) legitimately challenge whoever happened to be in
the building. One stiff shot from the wrong guy and Crusher's heat goes right
down the drain--which is exactly what happened. As over as Spidey was after
that, Crusher was proportionately finished in the business. I love the big
guy, but no wonder he was a washed-up has-been circa AMAZING #271.
Stan Lee obviously knew wrestling was fake, even then (as evidenced by other
stories involving the "sport" from around that time). Either booking was
much, much different in 1962 or he just couldn't think of a quicker way to
test Spidey's powers and get him on TV and figured it wasn't infeasible. The
point is, both approaches to that scene are a little off.
But at least Stan's wasn't off for any specific reason. Byrne must've
re-read AMAZING FANTASY, so he had to have deliberately altered the match.
Why is beyond me; I didn't buy CHAPTER ONE, since I already know a) Spidey's
origin and b) how crappy Byrne's inks look over his ugly pencils.
(I did flip through the back at the store, however, and I could just
*throttle* Byrne for calling CHAPTER ONE a "reboot," while I'm sitting here
trying to write a FAQ that sets fans' minds at ease that it is not. MAN OF
STEEL was a reboot, John, and this ain't MAN OF STEEL.)
At least Kurt Busiek is
> able to fake some knowledge of wrestling in Thunderbolts...
Well, the trick Kurt uses is never actually writing about wrestlers wrestling
in a wrestling match. If my bio-modem weren't on the blink and I could make
him write that Grapplers reunion I've been waiting for, we'd probably start
to see little mistakes here and there. But since all he does is make
Songbird think in terms of tag-team partners and bodyslams, he's safe. I'm
generally content, though, with the carryover of the *attitude*, if not the
jargon and fighting style. If Songbird doesn't piledrive and anklelock
anybody in T-BOLTS #21, I won't mind so long as she does the psychotic facial
expressions.
If she jams a sock puppet down somebody's throat though, I *guarantee* I will
pee my pants. God, I love that woman.
Jim Smith
de Designers, Consul
> BTW yes, I do agree, Peter is probably a chemist. However, a geeky kid
> having a computer does not mean he has a preference for computer
> science. It just means he has a really good tool to explore any
> science of his interest.
But I think the point is that this "geeky kid" is dirt poor. The microscope was
penny pincher for Ben and May. I would have preferred to see Peter scrap one
together from books he read, not have one storebought.
--
de Designers,
[Jameson Stalanthas Yu, Shade and Sweet Water, mes amis and Edgerunners]
[Link at http://www-scf.usc.edu/~jamesony -X- ICQ 10208399]
[Joint Educational Project http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/JEP]
[Mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human]
de Designers, Consul
> Mikko, when was the last time Stan Lee wrote a regular series that
> was any good, or at least stood the faintest chance of surviving
> in the current market? Ravage 2099? I think not...
The Spidey comic in the newspaper? But is that in reruns or not? It's not really
that good either.
M.B. Crampton
>
> I'm not crazy about the new link between Spidey and Doc Ock, but I
> do grant that it at least has possibilities. The changes with the
> burglar and the huge explosion were completely unnecessary to my
> mind.
>
> Pete
You have summed up my opinions perfectly Pete. The only thing that I
would add was that I really disliked the topical references that "dated"
the story. I could accept the "Kruschev" reference in the original
because Stan could hardly imagine that people would still be reading about
a character he created for a one-off story 35+ years later. But if you
want to eliminate this problem why go and create a whole new one by
planting new references that will make the story seem dated 10 years from
now? Shouldn't the goal have been to make the story as ambiguous as
possible? And I can't say that Byrne is totally to blame for this one as
even if he did write it, it should have been editted out (and to think I
once though Ralph was the best thing to happen to the Spidey books in 10
years!).
In JB's defense however I must say that I did enjoy the story and if this
was all completely new I would have much less of a problem with it.
Anything he did was going to irk me in some way and at least he stayed
mainly consistent with the original.
Lastly, I did enjoy the art. It had a good traditional feel and most
importantly it effectively told the story (unlike say Bachalo in UXM or
Larocca in FF)... but what was up with the blue spider on Spidey's back on
some panels? I know it was probably just a printers error as it was
correctly red on other panels but come on, if you're going to produce a
new origin for your franchise character you could at least put some care
into the details!
Mike.
Paul Wondolowski
not the radiation accident,but how he downplayed the buglar
connection,and 'tweked' it for his own purposes. This IMHO sucks!
C'mon,Mikko,flame me. I am
expecting it. :(
Paul
(Felder & Avocado Mafia fan since '89)
ALBERT B. CHING
Jim Smith <jimna...@hotmail.com> wrote, in a post BEGGING for
my response:
>[Sudden cue of WCW-esque shameless ripoff of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song"]
>You called me out here, son? Well, here I am.
[Sudden sound of Chucky laugh. Jim argues with Chucky for 10 minutes.
Lodi does a run-in. And the crowd goes mild.]
>Let's bear in mind that pro wrestling matches are even more rarely
>*invitational*. A real booker would never in his right mind let a top-carder
>(which Crusher obviously was) legitimately challenge whoever happened to be in
>the building. One stiff shot from the wrong guy and Crusher's heat goes right
>down the drain--which is exactly what happened. As over as Spidey was after
>that, Crusher was proportionately finished in the business. I love the big
>guy, but no wonder he was a washed-up has-been circa AMAZING #271.
Well, the best explanation I can think of was that to say someone can "last
3 minutes" in the ring, means they could just run around and kick him in
the shins, Chavo/Stevie Ray style. Going one "round" actually sounds like
the guy had to prove something. But, I don't think I need to prove to anyone
that Byrne is nuts, do I?
>Why is beyond me; I didn't buy CHAPTER ONE, since I already know a) Spidey's
>origin and b) how crappy Byrne's inks look over his ugly pencils.
BUT YOU ONLY KNOW _HALF_ THE STORY! FORGET THAT OLD CRAP! SANDMAN'S STILL
EVIL! DOC OCK HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH SPIDEY'S ORIGIN! AN EXPLOSION,
DAMN IT!!!!
Sigh. You know, I could write better Spider-Man stories than Byrne
and Mackie can at this point. Ergh.
Hh. I acutally like Byrne's pencil stuff. Hh.
>(I did flip through the back at the store, however, and I could just
>*throttle* Byrne for calling CHAPTER ONE a "reboot," while I'm sitting here
>trying to write a FAQ that sets fans' minds at ease that it is not. MAN OF
>STEEL was a reboot, John, and this ain't MAN OF STEEL.)
You're still writing the FAQ? I lost track after you told me to buzz
off. :)
>Well, the trick Kurt uses is never actually writing about wrestlers wrestling
>in a wrestling match. If my bio-modem weren't on the blink and I could make
>
>him write that Grapplers reunion I've been waiting for, we'd probably start
>to see little mistakes here and there.
Especially that Triple-Jump Asai Moonsault and rana cradle you had
Poundcakes doing. Sheesh.
>If Songbird doesn't piledrive and anklelock anybody in T-BOLTS #21, I
>I won't mind so long as she does the psychotic facial expressions.
I generally try to ignore stuff like that in wrestling, but okay.
>If she jams a sock puppet down somebody's throat though, I *guarantee* I will
>pee my pants. God, I love that woman.
She does a trick with a dog you wouldn't believe...
Albert
--
thad a doria
Jim Smith <jimna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <F0tMI...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
> do...@midway.uchicago.edu (thad a doria) wrote:
>
>> Now I'd like to get Jim Smith in here and talk about a flaw in another of
>> Byrne's changes.
>
>
>You called me out here, son? Well, here I am.
Know your role, Jim.
> Pro wrestling matches rarely, if ever, have *rounds*. In
>> the original, a reward was offered to anyone who can go 3 minutes with
>> Crusher. In the new version, it's 1 round. Why?
>
>Let's bear in mind that pro wrestling matches are even more rarely
>*invitational*. A real booker would never in his right mind let a top-carder
>(which Crusher obviously was) legitimately challenge whoever happened to be in
>the building.
Well, duh. I assumed this was a tiny rinky-dink organization broadcasting
on a UHF station. If Crusher were in a bigger fed, any wrestling fan's
suspension of disbelief goes out the window faster than a physicist who
sees Priest walking through the door.
Boy, that made no sense, didn't it?
> One stiff shot from the wrong guy and Crusher's heat goes right
>down the drain--which is exactly what happened. As over as Spidey was after
>that, Crusher was proportionately finished in the business. I love the big
>guy, but no wonder he was a washed-up has-been circa AMAZING #271.
Glad to see somebody else read that story.
>Stan Lee obviously knew wrestling was fake, even then (as evidenced by other
>stories involving the "sport" from around that time). Either booking was
>much, much different in 1962
Oh, come on. Guys were still doing "take on all comers" stuff
occasionally. Steven Regal started his career that way. Lou Thesz did this
stuff too, didn't he? Oh, and Andy Kaufman. If Crusher believed he was a
legit tough guy like Thesz, I can see him putting on a few of these,
especially with somebody to screen the participants and let only the
scrawny teenage masked guys get through :)
>or he just couldn't think of a quicker way to
>test Spidey's powers and get him on TV and figured it wasn't infeasible. The
>point is, both approaches to that scene are a little off.
Another few decades, and somebody'll revise the origin and say Peter was
just a big fan of Lucha Libre! That's *almost* the explanation for
Spider-Man 2099's costume. (Oh, and get well soon Rey!!)
>But at least Stan's wasn't off for any specific reason. Byrne must've
>re-read AMAZING FANTASY, so he had to have deliberately altered the match.
>Why is beyond me;
I'd hate to say something trite like "change for change's sake"....Oh,
fuck it, it's change for change's sake!
>I didn't buy CHAPTER ONE, since I already know a) Spidey's
>origin and b) how crappy Byrne's inks look over his ugly pencils.
>
>(I did flip through the back at the store, however, and I could just
>*throttle* Byrne for calling CHAPTER ONE a "reboot," while I'm sitting here
>trying to write a FAQ that sets fans' minds at ease that it is not. MAN OF
>STEEL was a reboot, John, and this ain't MAN OF STEEL.)
>
> At least Kurt Busiek is
>> able to fake some knowledge of wrestling in Thunderbolts...
>
>Well, the trick Kurt uses is never actually writing about wrestlers wrestling
>in a wrestling match. If my bio-modem weren't on the blink and I could make
>him write that Grapplers reunion I've been waiting for, we'd probably start
>to see little mistakes here and there. But since all he does is make
>Songbird think in terms of tag-team partners and bodyslams, he's safe. I'm
>generally content, though, with the carryover of the *attitude*, if not the
>jargon and fighting style.
Exactly. If Kurt watches just *one* interview segment with Stone Cold, and
Mimi's dialogue writes itself for a year.
> If Songbird doesn't piledrive and anklelock
>anybody in T-BOLTS #21, I won't mind so long as she does the psychotic facial
>expressions.
She's in her zone!!
>If she jams a sock puppet down somebody's throat though, I *guarantee* I will
>pee my pants. God, I love that woman.
I got 24 words for ya...
thad a doria
de Designers, Consul <jame...@usc.edu> wrote:
>Paul O'Brien wrote:
>> Mikko, when was the last time Stan Lee wrote a regular series that
>> was any good, or at least stood the faintest chance of surviving
>> in the current market? Ravage 2099? I think not...
>
>The Spidey comic in the newspaper? But is that in reruns or not? It's not really
>that good either.
The wrestlers *still* haven't gotten to the ring yet!
(paraphrased from Ronald Reagan, of all people, commenting on the strip's
snail-like pacing)
thad a doria
ALBERT B. CHING <chin...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>
>Jim Smith <jimna...@hotmail.com> wrote, in a post BEGGING for
>my response:
>
>
>>You called me out here, son? Well, here I am.
>
>Lodi does a run-in. And the crowd goes mild.]
I'm warning you Albert. Don't force me to bring Robocop out here to kick
your ass!
>>Well, the trick Kurt uses is never actually writing about wrestlers wrestling
>>in a wrestling match. If my bio-modem weren't on the blink and I could make
>>
>>him write that Grapplers reunion I've been waiting for, we'd probably start
>>to see little mistakes here and there.
>
>Especially that Triple-Jump Asai Moonsault and rana cradle you had
>Poundcakes doing. Sheesh.
[obligatory puroresu/Marvel U. joke] If Poundcakes were real, she'd be
working for ARSION.
>She does a trick with a dog you wouldn't believe...
Leave...me...alone...
Mikko Aittola
"M.B. Crampton" <cram...@muss.cis.McMaster.CA> writes:
> Lastly, I did enjoy the art. It had a good traditional feel and most
> importantly it effectively told the story (unlike say Bachalo in UXM or
> Larocca in FF)... but what was up with the blue spider on Spidey's back on
> some panels? I know it was probably just a printers error as it was
> correctly red on other panels but come on, if you're going to produce a
> new origin for your franchise character you could at least put some care
> into the details!
The spider on the Spidey's back was supposedly colored
blue in original printings of AF #15 (I think), and Byrne
wanted to put some care into the details! :)
/Mikko