Author |
|
Brian Hague Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/BrianHague/2007-01-31_222838_11-28-04-4562.jpg)
Joined: 14 November 2006 Posts: 8515
|
Posted: 01 January 2013 at 1:03am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I remember hearing about that. I thought this whole thing had a sense of immediate "deja vu" to it... Didn't we just do this same "controversy" with Spider-Man? Thanks for the reminder, Rob!
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Brad Krawchuk Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/BradKrawchuk/2009-01-13_002145_52_question_70x70.JPG)
Joined: 19 June 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 5819
|
Posted: 01 January 2013 at 1:56am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Fandom didn't even blink an eye at that one so perhaps the Spider-man brain trust felt entitled to take it further.
---
Fandom DID blink an eye and because of the uproar they specifically stated in an issue afterward that all Chameleon-as-Peter and Peter's roomate did was make out, not have sex.
It was a "thing" everywhere I go for comic news, be it my LCS, Newsarama, Bleeding Cool, or CBR. Didn't we even mention it in a thread here?
That's far from "Fandom didn't blink an eye" - Fandom got Marvel to specifically state that no sex occurred.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Michael Roberts Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/MichaelRoberts/2014-04-28_044717_FFX.png)
Joined: 20 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 14830
|
Posted: 01 January 2013 at 2:33am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
No need to even go back that far. Dan Slott did a warm up to this storyline with the Chameleon posing as Peter trying to put the moves on Michelle. Fandom didn't even blink an eye at that one so perhaps the Spider-man brain trust felt entitled to take it further.
-----
Except Dan Slott didn't write that story. That was Fred Van Lente. And as noted, there was enough controversy for Marvel that it had to be explicitly stated that nothing happened. And I would assume that reaction is still fresh in Marvel's and Slott's memory.
Regarding that Twitter exchange, it appears to me that Wacker was trying to call out Johnston for shit-stirring, as is wont to happen on Bleeding Cool, and ended up arguing himself into a corner and spouting dumb points.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Stephen Churay Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/StephenChuray/2010-08-23_020658_bekah_and_steve.jpg)
Joined: 25 March 2009 Location: United States Posts: 8369
|
Posted: 01 January 2013 at 3:11am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I remember hearing about that. I thought this whole thing had a sense of immediate "deja vu" to it... Didn't we just do this same "controversy" with Spider-Man? Thanks for the reminder, Rob!
====== Heck, we're not THAT FAR removed from the reveal that Norman Osborn committed what appeared to be statutory rape with Gwen Stacy. Thank you JMS for that one.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Carmen Bernardo Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/avatars/jbf_default_avatar.png)
Joined: 08 August 2006 Location: United States Posts: 3666
|
Posted: 01 January 2013 at 8:19am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
You know, all this talk about rape and sex in the Spider-Man books is bringing back something that I once read in one of Peter David's But I Digress columns about the hero actually being motivated by repressed sexual tension rather than the obsession with righting the wrong which led to his uncle's murder...
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Steve Gumm Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/avatars/jbf_default_avatar.png)
Joined: 10 May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 1455
|
Posted: 01 January 2013 at 9:39am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Here's the link to Slott's interview on NPR regarding AMS 700:
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Francesco Vanagolli Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/FrancescoVanagolli/2010-01-08_121056_TsubAvatar.jpg)
Joined: 03 June 2005 Location: Italy Posts: 3130
|
Posted: 01 January 2013 at 2:55pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Carmen Bernardo:
QUOTE:
the hero actually being motivated by repressed sexual tension rather than the obsession with righting the wrong which led to his uncle's murder... |
|
|
Well, Lee and Ditko stated that it was Peter's sense of guilt driving him, but they were only the creators, so their opinion, of course, doesn't matter.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Brian Hague Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/BrianHague/2007-01-31_222838_11-28-04-4562.jpg)
Joined: 14 November 2006 Posts: 8515
|
Posted: 01 January 2013 at 7:57pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I knew Sally Avril was a more central figure in the origin of Spidey than Uncle Ben! I knew it! Sally's so hot...
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Chad Carter Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/avatars/jbf_default_avatar.png)
Joined: 16 June 2005 Posts: 9584
|
Posted: 01 January 2013 at 10:31pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I hate to talk about an issue I haven't read, as I haven't read a Spider-Man comic in some years (outside of guest appearances in other books I've bought,) but I can't fathom the logic behind this move to "kill" Peter Parker and replace him with an amalgamation of a villain infused with Peter's high moral/ethics.
I mean, I can kind of see how writing Peter Parker in any context would suck, given how the character has become a caricature for every post-college art student type who ever Dreamed Big. The Loser who gets the Super Model. The Super-Powered Zero Charisma. I kind of thought that was the whole point of Peter Parker, though I'd prefer Peter to just be a young guy, dealing with young guy issues in perpetuity. Of course you can't have that when Peter, like his fans, have to "grow up" and "die."
All right, accepting that, Peter Parker dies so Spider-Man can become more diverse as a character, more conflicted (this time by having a little devil on one shoulder, an angel on the other.) This Spider-Man is a different man altogether, who might do hardcore things like allow villains to die in fiery wrecks and beating people to death with his bare hands. I get the allure of that, if I wasn't already in the camp of letting Peter be a young guy who has Spider Powers, has clumsy dates with girls and gets yelled at by Jonah Jameson. Since it's a long-running serial character I've outgrown, I don't see the need to destroy Peter Parker to have this conflict in the story-telling.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Chad Carter Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/avatars/jbf_default_avatar.png)
Joined: 16 June 2005 Posts: 9584
|
Posted: 01 January 2013 at 10:39pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I'm almost to a point of thinking, here, that Marvel Comics has decided to respond to Mark Waid's Daredevil, a Matt Murdock who has simply left behind his inner turmoil for a more expanded view. A Daredevil who smiles at danger and is preternaturally attuned to a radar world which rids him of "fear" as we understand it.
The response to Daredevil (formerly, the "shadow" of Spider-Man, the knock-off Spider-Man per se; or one could say, the "older" Spider-Man, the responsible, put-together Peter Parker as he Might Become) is to darken, Pulp-ize Spider-Man. The unpredictable Spider-Man is now the shadow of the well-lit Daredevil; Spider-Man is what DD once was. The switch is not between Doc Ock and Spider-Man, but DD and Spider-Man.
There's a bond between these characters, which is easily traced through their respective histories. DD and Spider-Man have been somewhat rivals, somewhat friends, kissing cousins. The bond of history has always been interesting and understated. Even here, in this instance, the new Dark Spider-Man is merely a reflection of 1980s Daredevil.
What is probably the impetus behind Dan Slott's thinking is how Spider-Man is, or can be, more interesting as a menace. Spider-Man is a lot frightening, and that aspect used to be played up regularly in the comics of Ditko and Lee. The contrast of Peter's bungling awkwardness was necessary, to counter the Spider-Menace persona he articulated. What Slott seems to want is more the Pulp Spider than Spider-Man, a madman in a mask.
Again, I find it interesting, but unnecessary, to change Spider-Man in exactly this way. You could have a dark Spider-Man without sacrificing Peter Parker. Surely...surely a less odious way could have been imagined to rid Peter of his moral center and give the world the creeping menace of Spider-Man? This whole thing sounds weird and confusing and, well, amateurishly unclear to a new reader of any stripe.
Edited by Chad Carter on 01 January 2013 at 10:40pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Steve Gumm Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/avatars/jbf_default_avatar.png)
Joined: 10 May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 1455
|
Posted: 01 January 2013 at 10:48pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Deleted because it was a bit redundant echoing the previous post.
Edited by Steve Gumm on 01 January 2013 at 10:52pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Joe Zhang Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/JoeZhang/2008-07-30_060011_avatar471813_1.gif.png)
Joined: 16 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 12857
|
Posted: 02 January 2013 at 12:03am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
"You could have a dark Spider-Man without sacrificing Peter Parker. Surely...surely a less odious way could have been imagined to rid Peter of his moral center and give the world the creeping menace of Spider-Man? This whole thing sounds weird and confusing and, well, amateurishly unclear to a new reader of any stripe. "
I think they could have borrowed a page from Firestorm; Octopus would have primary control over Spider-Man, while Peter watches in horror but manages to exert his will to avert the worst circumstances.
Edited by Joe Zhang on 02 January 2013 at 12:05am
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|