Author |
|
Matt Reed Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004 Posts: 36075
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 1:31pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Howard Mackie wrote:
Come on,guys, this is all just smoke and mirrors. Changes come and go... mostly in the attempt to get a boost in sales. In the end... and,eventually, there will be an end...writers, edtiros,editors-in-chief leave. The further the Spider-Man books drift away from the core concept, the more satisfying the return. |
|
|
I totally understand this. Personally, I've been reading comics for 30 years and year 1 started with Spider-Man. So I get the notion that things change. I'm not against change in the sense that we get an appearance of change. Spider-Man joins the Avengers. I don't like it, don't think it's at all in character, but that's easy enough to revert back to the status quo. I hate this new costume (why Spider-Man needs metal spats and armbands, I'll never know), but the original will return, so I'll wait. But things like the marriage to boost sales under the pretext that the character will eventually return to status quo? Well, it's been over two decades and he's still married. I'd venture to say the marriage is the status quo and we may possibly never see a return to the regular MU of the Spider-Man many of us know and love. Same can be said for all the "fate" BS JMS is shoveling on the character while at the same time saying he's not making any fundamental changes to his origin. Seriously. Does he believe the crap he's spewing? It goes from an accidental radioactive spider bite to a Spider-God who has created many Spider-Men and Peter Parker being fated to be one of them. Yeah. Right. That's not fundamental and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this is yet another change that becomes status quo.
So, although I understand the notion that "the more things change, the more they stay the same" or "just ride it out", I've been doing that for the past 15 years and nothing has reverted the character back to the status quo in an overall character sense in that time. Nothing. Am I in a rage about it? No. Am I upset about it? Sure. If I had seen just one instance of Peter Parker/Spider-Man recovering from all the crap that's been heaped on him, I'd agree that a "wait and see" mentality would be appropriate. That I haven't seen evidence of that at all from Marvel suggests to me that they don't even know what status quo is for the character and, quite frankly, don't really care. It's too bad that it seems I care more about this character than the company from which he sprang.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 133523
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 1:39pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
There are two basic problems with the "just ride it out" notion.First, there are several writers who have a stated "It doesn't matter what we do, they'll just change it anyway" approach -- which is very dangerous, considering we never know what will become carved in stone. (Would anyone really familiar with the character's history have expected Magneto to be transformed into a Jewish freedom fighter -- and stay that way??) Second, there are the anal-retentive fanboys, who insist that every jot and tittle be forever maintained exactly as it is (except the ones they don't like), and the editors and writers, often fanboys themselves, who listen to them. These are also the same people who like to crow and gibber whenever some change is made to a change I made -- as if, after 30 years in this business, I would be foolish enough to assume anything I do is bulletproof! Look at his history, and see Batman change his "shape" about every ten years --- before DARK KNIGHT. But how long has he been a psycho ninja, now?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
James C. Taylor Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 4705
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 1:55pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Jon Juzan wrote:
Yet you had to come back with "People at Newsarama are always in a rage. That's what they do." With that statement you're attempting to discredit my point for no other reason other than to be "obtuse". |
|
|
I wasn't discrediting your point, Jon. I was insulting Newsarama. That was my reason.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
|
Matt Reed Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004 Posts: 36075
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:08pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
To be fair, Jon, when you mentioned people going into a rage, you did it in this thread with no specification that you weren't actually talking about people in this thread. That Howard was addressing people specifically in this thread (not about rage, but his own comments about change) and that you replied to him suggested you were, in fact, talking about this forum and not Newsarama and/or other message boards.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Rob Hewitt Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 10182
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:09pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
That's not fundamental and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this is yet another change that becomes status quo.
**** The only thing is. it seems a lot of people dislike the totem mumbo jumbo.
The marriage? Believe that was Stan Lee's idea and while it ebbs and flows, I think there are as many a people who like it (since its all they know) then dislike it. maybe more
What is a spat? I keep seeing that used in reference to the new costume.
JQ says the biggest genie that can't be put in the bottle is being put back into the bottle end of this year. (and i think a smaller genie too)
Some have speculated the marriage-though JQ being coy says Pete is definitely not getting divorced. Think it is the marriage? and if not, what else could be a genie that big?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Brian Miller Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004 Location: United States Posts: 31277
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:12pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Spat:
Although, they were part of formal men's wear back in the day.
Edited by Brian Miller on 02 February 2006 at 2:13pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Matt Reed Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004 Posts: 36075
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:12pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
A genie that big could be secret identities across the board. Make it so all superheroes secret identities are unknown to everyone but those closest to them but not to anyone walking into Avengers Tower seeing Peter with his mask off, or people who equate DD and Matt Murdock, or Tony Stark saying that, yes, at one time he was Iron Man, but not now, or Steve Rogers unmasking on live TV in front of millions. Me, I'd back that genie going back into the bottle in a big way.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Rob Hewitt Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 10182
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:18pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
That might be. Civil War is supposedly based on one faction which wants superheroes to register and unmask, and one that doesn't.
For some reason, Spider-man will be a pivotal figure in that choice.
So maybe something will happen and they will mindwipde everyone who knows anything-which would include putting the X guys and Xavier back under. That would fit in with some jokes Bendis/New Avengers has made about "Who doesn't know your identity." Maybe the heroes will fight enough to distrust each other and agree to let everyone forget about everybody-they'll be comrades but maybe not close friends anymore-in the sense of everyone knowing everything
Or maybe its someother genie, and in the process, another genie gets let out-Spidey unmasks ;)
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Jon Juzan Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 696
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:29pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
To be fair, Jon, when you mentioned people going into a rage, you did it in this thread with no specification that you weren't actually talking about people in this thread. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ I agree. That was why I clarified myself when I said, "I didn't specify at this board, James" without being the least bit snarky.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Brian Miller Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004 Location: United States Posts: 31277
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:58pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
"I believe I can fly"
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Matt Reed Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004 Posts: 36075
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:59pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
sigh
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Brian Miller Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004 Location: United States Posts: 31277
|
Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:04pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I guess he's the "Web-Glider" now instead of the "Web-Slinger"?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|