Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 27 Next >>
Topic: Dan Slott gets death threats for ASM#700 (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Howard Mackie
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Armed and Dangerous

Joined: 16 February 2005
Posts: 666
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 11:53am | IP Logged | 1  

"Poked" in what way? 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 12:53pm | IP Logged | 2  

I recall Slott commenting that he actually identified with Doctor Octopus -- he is chubby and dumpy -- and the idea of gaining Peter Parker's body is a great fantasy.

I thought this demonstrated how far off the rails Spider-Man has gotten. Doctor Octopus, along with all the other Spider-Man villains, were supposed to represent authority and adulthood through the lens of youth -- an assortment of Captain Hooks taking on Spidey's Peter Pan. A kid doesn't identify with them, he identifies with Peter Parker. And Peter Parker's life shouldn't be a fantasy -- Spider-Man is his escape (just like reading his adventures is an escape for us) but he should be the character with whom the geeky kid identifies.

Stan Lee did an excellent job of taking a lot of childhood neuroses and making them identification points for his heroes -- ranging from Spider-Man to the Hulk to the Thing to even Thor. Over time, though, creators started making the villains the "relatable" ones -- they had "tough" childhoods, too; they were also bullied... hey, who can blame them for going bad? Which is a shame because the original Spider-Man, Hulk, and Thing were examples to strive for ... they had our flaws (feet of clay) but were still noble.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Vinny Valenti
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8117
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 12:56pm | IP Logged | 3  

Well, when you think about it, SPIDER-MAN 2 beat Slott to it - Doctor Octopus was the one to save the day in the end.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14857
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 1:09pm | IP Logged | 4  

I recall Slott commenting that he actually identified with Doctor Octopus -- he is chubby and dumpy -- and the idea of gaining Peter Parker's body is a great fantasy.

I thought this demonstrated how far off the rails Spider-Man has gotten. Doctor Octopus, along with all the other Spider-Man villains, were supposed to represent authority and adulthood through the lens of youth -- an assortment of Captain Hooks taking on Spidey's Peter Pan. A kid doesn't identify with them, he identifies with Peter Parker. And Peter Parker's life shouldn't be a fantasy -- Spider-Man is his escape (just like reading his adventures is an escape for us) but he should be the character with whom the geeky kid identifies.

-----

I'm not sure this is a demonstration of how Spider-Man has gone off the rails, but rather how the comic book audience has gone off the rails. Instead of wish fulfillment for kids, he's wish fulfillment for chubby thirty and forty somethings.

And I have to disagree with Peter's life not being a fantasy. He struggled with everyday problems WHILE dealing with the horrific burden of hot girlfriends and superpowers. Even with all of Peter's troubles, I think his life would be considered a step up for many readers. 


Edited by Michael Roberts on 04 January 2013 at 4:33pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rick Shepherd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1095
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 1:33pm | IP Logged | 5  

Stephen (and Michael, in response) - oh, goodness. There was something about this whole stunt that was nagging away at me, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

Wow - that does pretty much encapsulate so much that's wrong with current 'mainstream' (to stretch the definition of the word) comicbooks, the 'creators' and the target readership. Rather depressing thought, too...

Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7526
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 1:51pm | IP Logged | 6  

the hype over this is a lot of sound and fury. otto octavius will be operating peter parker's body for awhile. who knows? it could be FOREVER (or at least 20+ years), so that a whole generation only knows ock-as-spider-man.

but as has been pointed out, it's all fiction. if marvel so chooses, they can reverse this with a snap of the fingers. it's possible dan slott is playing the long game, too, setting up peter's eventual return from death. in the meantime, read the comic or don't read it-- marvel is doing what it is supposed to do, and that is generate buzz for one of its characters.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Woronchak
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 September 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1631
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 2:34pm | IP Logged | 7  

and that is generate buzz for one of its characters

Although you are right, why can't a title achieve 'buzz' with interesting stories and well drawn art delivered monthly? Are these 'game changing' stunts really necessary?
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 2:42pm | IP Logged | 8  

MICHAEL: And I have to disagree with Peter's life not being a fantasy. He struggled with everyday problems WHILE dealing with the horrific burden of hot girlfriends and superpowers.

SER: Using the powers "responsibly" was the burden -- the perfect analogy for adolescence. We have more "power" but now more "responsibility."

Also, the Spider-Man identity served for Peter was comics did for us -- an escape from our normal lives. When did Peter start dating hot girls? Was it during the Romita era when Gwen Stacy was introduced or even earlier, during the late Ditko days with Betty Brant? I'm curious as to when the shift began.

It definitely had occurred by SPIDER-MAN 50 when Peter quits being Spider-Man because Spider-Man makes his life more *difficult*.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15775
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 3:25pm | IP Logged | 9  

I was thinking about something, lately. I suppose it deserves a thread of its own, but it's relevant here, too.

 

What's your tipping point for a fictional universe's "house of cards"?

I "lost" Spider-Man a long time ago. Yet, I can read issues from the good 'ol days, and still get sucked into the stories and characters--even when I know about backstage controversies and such.

But, for a long time, now, characters like Spider-Man have felt so much more about the singers than the songs. As a result, I can't connect. For many years, picking up an issue has not made me feel that these are the same characters I know and love. It just feels like Writer X putting their stamp on a character for a few months or years, before someone else comes along and does something completely different.

All I can see are rockstar writers and editors having their way with the characters. Stunt after stunt after stunt. Where's the room for verisimilitude in that atmosphere?

 

Again, it's weird, because I can pick up an old issue of ASM or FF or whatever, and get sucked in. So, it's not a matter of my lacking verismimilitude, or needing a new hobby, right?

Seems to me like these fragile, fictional houses of cards fall apart when all of the attention is drawn to the people behind the curtain.

Without consistency, without the relative anonymity and secrecy that the creators used to have, it's much harder to believe in the characters and the universe, I think.

One of the great things about classic Marvel--even up through the 90s--is that, occasional bumps in the road aside, it still mostly felt like one cohesive universe, with the same characters doing their thing over decades of publishing history. Now, anything goes, and the tonal/character changes and constant retcons just obliterate that feeling of consistency for me.

As I've noted in the past, nitty-gritty continuity is not so important to me as is continuity of character and theme.

 

A Peter Parker who bounces from one ill-conceived stunt event to another, hangs out with the Avengers and the FF, and has one-night-stands does not feel to me like the same Peter Parker of 1962, 1972, 1982, or even 1992. It doesn't feel "real", y'know?

Even if good stories do occasionally come out of the modern titles, for me, the damage has been done. I can't invest in such an unstable house of cards, anymore!

Especially when the house was long ago bulldozed, and replaced with a strip club.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Petter Myhr Ness
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 3906
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 3:53pm | IP Logged | 10  

Seems to me like these fragile, fictional houses of cards fall apart when all of the attention is drawn to the people behind the curtain.
--

When I started reading comics, I had no idea who was making them. Occasionally there would be some editorial piece about an artist or writer (I remember one about Curt Swan in our regional Superman book), but that was it.

And what to do when you didn't like an issue, which would happen? Easy - wait for the next one. There was no point in being mad at anyone. The next issue usually meant a new story.

Now names seem to be what the business is about. Superman will only sell when names like Geoff Johns or Grant Morrison are attached. And that's what ruined it for me, ultimately. Which is funny, because I used to pick up a Superman book no matter who was doing it.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Aaron Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 10461
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 4:23pm | IP Logged | 11  

What's your tipping point for a fictional universe's "house of cards"?

***

Greg, your entire post sums up how I feel about the whole subject. As for where my "tipping point" was, I think it had something to do with a universe that started trying too hard to become a universe! What I mean is this:  when I look at Marvel from, say, 1962 to maybe somewhere in the late 90s (it's hard to pinpoint the moment since I gave up reading comics in the 90s and it was all screwed up by the time I tried to return) the Marvel Universe felt like an organically growing entity. Yes, everything was connected, but it felt like it had developed that way because hundreds of great stories had been written over a period of decades and interconnected with one another almost accidentally. Each title was written and drawn separately and wound up being related to other titles because they all took place in the same world, but it never felt forced. Connections occurred, but we were never slammed over the head with the idea that it was all part of one big story (even when the early "events" happened, they were still rare enough to be exceptions to standard business). Somewhere along the way, the natural evolution of this wonderful imaginary world ceased and was replaced by this apparent need, on the part of those in charge, to connect everything a little too closely to the point where the grandeur was stripped away and we were left with something that screamed "I am a product," rather than "this is a good story." Suddenly, the strings on the puppets were very, very visible and the magic was lost!

A big part of the problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that the Marvel Universe seems so small now. It used to be a vast wonderland of different places and the rarity with which those zones intersected was part of what made it seem so incredibly big. I've made this next point before on this forum, so forgive me for repeating myself, but the "real" Marvel universe used to have at least four distinct zones to it, four different worlds that seemed far enough apart that when they did cross-over with each other (usually in guest-appearances rather than constant events, because writers and editors understood restraint back then), it felt really special. It used to be that we had the public heroes, like the Avengers and FF, the street-level guys like Spider-Man and Daredevil, the mutant world which usually kept to itself except for the occasional thing like Hank McCoy joining the Avengers, and the magical corner which dealt with events that the more mainstream heroes might not be aware of, let alone understand, and was populated by weird beings like Dr. Strange and Dracula. Now, that natural-feeling separation of church and state and street and mutant is gone and everything is a constantly tangled mess of Spider-Man and Wolverine joining the Avengers, most of the X-Men's best villains joining the team, reboots, renumberings, stunts, events, and big giant rewritings of secrets that never should have been revealed (yeah, let's take all the mystery out of a wonderfully mysterious character like Wolverine! Great idea, that was.)

It feels to me now that each new creator (with whom almost invariably comes a "bold new direction" or "jumping on point" or new issue # 1) tries to cry out "Let there be light!" and start a piece of the universe over again when what they should really be doing is working by the light already created by Lee, Kirby, Ditko and all those who had the common sense to build on the foundations put there by the fantastic forefathers instead of knocking down the house of ideas and trying to build something shockingly different but blatantly forced at every opportunity.    
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Aaron Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 10461
Posted: 04 January 2013 at 4:43pm | IP Logged | 12  

Again, it's weird, because I can pick up an old issue of ASM or FF or whatever, and get sucked in. So, it's not a matter of my lacking verismimilitude, or needing a new hobby, right?


***

I'm convinced that those who want the characters to grow and change for them are missing an ability that I take for granted, the ability to turn on the part of the mind and imagination that can just get lost in a story, especially when the story is told well with competent writing and great art. A year or so ago, I was sitting there reading an old Spider-Man story in an Essentials book (an issue from the Lee/ Romita run) and I was truly, honestly worried about Peter and Gwen when a truck almost crushed them. Yes, intellectually I knew that Peter wasn't going to die and that Gwen had another 60-something issues to go, but I got so sucked into that story that the incident really scared me! It was great! If that seems silly to some people, then THOSE people need a new hobby. I feel sorry for those who can't get lost in a story like that.  
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 27 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login