Posted: 16 November 2010 at 5:47pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Hey Don RE: There is no "natural consequence" when it comes to fictional characters FOR YOU RE: Their marriage was a boneheaded mistake too. FOR YOU RE: the marriage wasn't a well thought out decision NEVER CARED, T'WAS ROMANTIC TO ME RE: admitting your own didn't begin until after the marriage. ACTUALLY, I FELL IN LOVE WITH THE CHARACTER WITH ASM 257 (MJ says "I know you're secretly SM") , PETER PROPOSES IN ASM 290 RE: Someone who jumped in during the Clone Saga could make the claim that Ben Reilly taking up the mantle was a "natural consequence." EXACTLY. SINCE PETER HAD LEFT THE BOOK, AT THE TIME, IT WAS. FOR A NEWER READER, IT WAS TOO. LOVED THE CLONE SAGA, WITH AND SANS PETER. RE: Ditto Sins Past IF A NEW READER LEARNS THAT STORYLINE IS BASED ON A 70's DEAD CHARACTER HE / SHE DOESN'T CARE. YOU AND I MINDED AND WERE SAD (ON THAT WE AGREE). I'D FORGIVEN JMS CUZ HE'D BROUGHT BACK MJ (Parker :-) ) AFTER JB "KILLED" HER IN ASM 13. RE: I always love it when fans justify any stupid change to a character by saying it was the status quo when they began reading, therefore, it's legitimate 'STUPID' CHANGE: FOR YOU LEGITIMATE FOR A NEWER READER: YES. DON'T TELL ME YOU WERE THERE WHEN ACTION COMICS 1 CAME OUT. YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN A NEW READER TO SOMETHING. WILL YOU BLAME A YOUNGER READER FOR HAVING MISSED DECADES OF CONTINUITY? HIS 1ST READ IS A MEMORY HE/SHE CHERISHES. WHY SPOIL HIS/HER FONDEST MEMORY? RE: Take that same guy and give him a wife, and at best he's a very different animal. SO PETER SHOULD HAVE REMAINED A 16 YEAR OLD ASEXUAL VIRGIN TEENAGER FROM 1962 TIL NOW ?? Yuck. And to conclude: you preferred the unmarried Peter for a plethora of legitimate reasons. Please accept that some people may disagree for legitimate reasons too cuz they're their reasons. Same as in real life, right? And leave it at that. 'nuff said!
|