"Of course maybe I was never a fan of Spiderman because I never demanded stories be a certain way. All I can say is, thank for for that.  Never did I have to rant, rave, thump my nose at, cry, whine, piss, throw my hands up in disgust over him or tell someone else they were wrong for liking him however they wanted to.  I can simply continue to enjoy the stories I already like and can look forward to future stories that I will like."

What do you like about them?  What sort of change or alteration to Spider-Man WOULD you find unacceptable?  What if they hadn't retconned the marriage but had Peter and MJ break-up because he finally realizes that he's gay?

Mike

So Victor, you are saying most Spider-Man stories over the past 20 years ahve been terrible, but you also say you haven't read them??  Hmmmm. 

*****

Really? I need to read every single Mcfarlane Spider-Man to know it was a bad run? I read a lot of the books from that era. .But yes I stopped buying them around a certain point but I would check in every so often.

I think Tom Defalco had a good run post clone saga. Glenn Greenberg and Roger Stern did a very good Hobgoblin story in Spectacular (Not to mention Stern doing the great Hobgoblin miniseries) Howard Mackie and JB had a very good run in the relaunch era. But thats a drop in the water compared to all the mediocre/bad Spidey stories done in this period.

You know I can't prove Rob Liefeld and Todd Mcfarlane were terrible artist. But It doesnt change the fact they were. You can add the "in your opinon" garbage. but thats a sissy way to argue.

SER: I'd agree with you but the marriage was but the worst of many changes to Peter Parker:

No longer a teenager

No longer a student

No longer lived with his elderly aunt

All three things -- just to name a few -- were things that set him apart from other heroes of the period.

************************************************************ ***

Two of these three changes were made by Stan Lee. Did he not get the character ?

Its always seemed clear to me that from the beginning Spider-Man was meant to evolve. Lived, learn, grow. Both as Spidey and Peter.

You know I can't prove Rob Liefeld and Todd Mcfarlane were terrible artist. But It doesnt change the fact they were.

***************************************

Hardly "the fact". I, and plenty of others, thought McFarlane was a terrific artist on Spidey. On the other hand, I have no recollection of Liefeld working on the character.

Why, exactly? I have never understood this attempt at "logic".

*****

If im posting it, its my opinon. Their is no need to further clarify it. Trying to add "in your opinon." is another attempt at playing a shell game. Making it an arguement over some minor unrelated thing, than the subject at hand. Except for myself, I have yet to see anybody else attempt to cite examples of Spider-Man being good in this period.

QUOTE: Hardly "the fact". I, and plenty of others, thought McFarlane was a terrific artist on Spidey. On the other hand, I have no recollection of Liefeld working on the character.

Are people trying to pretend like Mcfarlane was ever good?