The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by Eli Katz » Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:00 pm

guitarsmashley wrote:
I almost picked scalped, but that should be for us.

by Starlord » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:08 pm

by Punchy » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:11 pm

by Punchy » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:12 pm

by alaska1125 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:43 pm

Punchy wrote:Starlord, there was no reason to bring up OMD at all! It's irrelevant, hell, MJ was in this issue.

by Punchy » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:49 pm

alaska1125 wrote:
I actually disagree. This was the first Spider-Man I've picked up since New Ways To Die, and I felt similarly. Especially when he refers to MJ as his "ex". And then we get the color commentary from Ben Grimm who, quite rightly, points out that they were a great couple. Don't get me wrong...I liked seeing s newly confident and publicly respected Spider-Man, but there was a lot in here to poke at old wounds ala OMD.

by alaska1125 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:12 pm

Punchy wrote:
I just don't think it's fair to negatively review a comic because of a story from 4 years ago that is only very tangentially related. It seems like for some people, reviewing Spider-Man has become impossible, because they can't get over it.

by guitarsmashley » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:14 pm

Punchy wrote:Starlord, there was no reason to bring up OMD at all! It's irrelevant, hell, MJ was in this issue.

by Eli Katz » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:39 pm

Punchy wrote:
I just don't think it's fair to negatively review a comic because of a story from 4 years ago that is only very tangentially related. It seems like for some people, reviewing Spider-Man has become impossible, because they can't get over it.

by Royal Nonesuch » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:57 pm

guitarsmashley wrote:This comic was alright but it went on far too long. The art was very nice. I don't mind saying this is the best Spiderman Comic I've read since before Sins Past. That being said it wasn't just long in page count but plot threads that didn't need to be so expanded.

6.

also next weeks book?

by alaska1125 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Eli Katz wrote:It's fair because the stories are serialized and thus interconnected. Consider this from the opposite point of view: If a new issue makes you think of an old issue and, as a result, you enjoy the new story more than you would have otherwise, is your enthusiastic assessment of the comic unfair? Of course not. Last week, a number of posters gushed over the DD relaunch and noted that this new direction reminded them of classic DD. They (Starlord included) obviously enjoyed the book in part because it evoked memories of "very tangentially related" old stories that they loved.

Others could have dismissed such praise as being overly sentimental and thus unfair. Look at Yoni's review as a contrast. He rightly noted that aside from the tone change in the book, the issue was standard and lacked a strong dramatic hook. I agreed with him, and noted that the cliffhanger was weak. Should Yoni have criticized Starlord's critique of the book as unfair, because it seemed that Starlord was loving the book not for what was in the story itself but rather how the story related to the larger DD history?

With serialized stories, it's difficult to assess each arc on its own without considering how it's connected to (or how it makes you feel about) the grand fictional history of these much-loved, decades-old characters.

by Punchy » Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:29 pm

Eli Katz wrote:It's fair because the stories are serialized and thus interconnected. Consider this from the opposite point of view: If a new issue makes you think of an old issue and, as a result, you enjoy the new story more than you would have otherwise, is your enthusiastic assessment of the comic unfair? Of course not. Last week, a number of posters gushed over the DD relaunch and noted that this new direction reminded them of classic DD. They (Starlord included) obviously enjoyed the book in part because it evoked memories of "very tangentially related" old stories that they loved.

Others could have dismissed such praise as being overly sentimental and thus unfair. Look at Yoni's review as a contrast. He rightly noted that aside from the tone change in the book, the issue was standard and lacked a strong dramatic hook. I agreed with him, and noted that the cliffhanger was weak. Should Yoni have criticized Starlord's critique of the book as unfair, because it seemed that Starlord was loving the book not for what was in the story itself but rather how the story related to the larger DD history?

With serialized stories, it's difficult to assess each arc on its own without considering how it's connected to (or how it makes you feel about) the grand fictional history of these much-loved, decades-old characters.

by alaska1125 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:42 pm

Punchy wrote:
But when you start connecting every Spider-Man story with OMD, I think it becomes a problem. Imagine if someone hated every Spider-Man comic since 1973 because Gwen Stacy was dead and they loved Gwen Stacy as a character. That person would come across as mental. It's almost the same with OMD, except not as extreme.

by Zechs » Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:56 pm

Punchy wrote:Starlord, there was no reason to bring up OMD at all! It's irrelevant, hell, MJ was in this issue.

by guitarsmashley » Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:25 pm

Punchy wrote:
But when you start connecting every Spider-Man story with OMD, I think it becomes a problem. Imagine if someone hated every Spider-Man comic since 1973 because Gwen Stacy was dead and they loved Gwen Stacy as a character. That person would come across as mental. It's almost the same with OMD, except not as extreme.