The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[Zechs]

Fair enough. Although I don't mind Slott at times my main gripe has been the Hobgoblin debacle which was done quite sloppily in my opinion. For example it's quite debatable as to whether Slott did intend to bring back Kingsley or the revelation that it was really his brother who Phil whacked was just a knee-jerk reaction to the fans who hated the new Hobgoblin( And rightly so I might add).
The one thing I don't buy for example is the notion that Roderick wouldn't have been keeping tabs on his brother when it was clearly obvious that Daniel was a brainwashed decoy for him. I don't buy the fact that Roderick wouldn't have found a way to monitor his movements despite being concerned about tipping off the Kingpin as he could have easily have placed a bug on Daniel or had one of the bat-drones tail him to make sure he didn't break free of his brain-washing or get caught or killed. Plus Slott doesn't even tell us how Roderick found Daniel who was in witness protection all these years. Although I am glad that Slott brought Kingsley back the way the Hobgoblin story arcs were handled was just bad and sloppy as I said. It would have been more convincing if Slott had revealed that Urich was really the decoy for Roderick and was doing his bidding as there are still so many loopholes not addressed.

He did. Note who "Kingsley" wiped out in the opening arc in Big Time? Delvadia. Note as well there were bits off bits involving Kingsley when he and Montana discuss the business proposal the later has for him. Even more note the fact Slott himself with a sly grin refused to answer any Hobgoblin related questions come interview and quickly changed the subject when I asked him in April.

Also note the way Slott acted in interviews pertaining to the move. He pulled a bait and switch. He baited the fans of the Hobgoblin into thinking he killed the character. I feel for it hook, like, and sinker. Save RICHARDS.. who was the first to realize the deception. Not only that but he said this was his reinterpretation of the Saga, and if you re-read it, it is. Note that Kingsley used a dupe that was in effect disposable and one in effect has become his stand-in (ala Ned). Look at Phil's story more and see how much it is a stand-in for Ned's now done right with no huge clutter or plot holes.

[Bianco]

I think the problem with the recent spider-writers and others is instead of just writing a good story they are trying to write these "stand the test of time epic great super stories" that people will talk about for years, it's like a baseball player trying to hit a home run and usually striking out.

[fieldy snuts]

I think the problem with the recent spider-writers and others is instead of just writing a good story they are trying to write these "stand the test of time epic great super stories" that people will talk about for years, it's like a baseball player trying to hit a home run and usually striking out.

I think it's more that they realise it's a once in a lifetime thing and go all out knowing they'll never have another shot at this ever again. In other words.......

YOLO

[Bianco]

I think it's more that they realise it's a once in a lifetime thing and go all out knowing they'll never have another shot at this ever again. In other words.......

YOLO

I guess, i have not read a regular title in a while (still look in on some stuff) so I don't want to weigh in to much on the current issues, but from what you guys are saying i don't think I'll be picking up a spider-man comic anytime soon , i guess I'm just stuck in my own era until i find something that will draw me in again. I have my own image of what I want spider-man to be, they can deviate from that for a while even evolve from that, but ultimately to me spider-man is about a kid who got cocky and arrogant with his new powers like any normal teenager and he paid the price, and he has been trying to make up for that, it what drives him to be spider-man, no matter how good anyone else is in the suit it's not spider-man peter parker is spider-man. just one opinion

[SuperginraiX]

JMS' run may not have been my favorite run on Spider-Man but it wasn't bad when editorial allowed him to write the stories that he wanted to write. When you look back at his run, the bad spots really come when he was forced to change something, like when he wanted the Stacy Twins to be Peter's children who were raised by Norman Osborn but editorial vetoed it in favor of the trash that was Sins Past.

There is no way that Peter being the Stacy Twins' father is a good idea. It's just slightly better than Ozzy being their father.

SLIGHTLY.

A stronger editor would have just said "No. Let's do your next storyline and trash this one. And then burn the trash."

[Grayson]

There is no way that Peter being the Stacy Twins' father is a good idea. It's just slightly better than Ozzy being their father.

SLIGHTLY.

A stronger editor would have just said "No. Let's do your next storyline and trash this one. And then burn the trash."

If JMS had introduced the Stacy twins exactly the same way they were introduced in Sins Past but they were Peter's kids instead of Norman's, yeah, I absolutely agree with you. However, I may have had a different opinion if they children had been able to age normally. I think JMS could have really made a compelling story if he had introduced the Stacy twins as "Norman's" children, had Peter figure out they were Gwen's, allowed Norman to fuck with Peter's head making him believe they was some type of sordid affair, and then finally revealing they were Peter's children all along. The kids didn't need to stick around forever, any number of things could have taken them off the board, maybe they die of an illness because they were waiting for a transfusion and Peter was the only person who could give it to them because of his and their irradiated blood and he didn't figure it out because he was too busy falling for Norman's lies. Who knows.

The point is, I don't think that almost 10 years later, we would still be talking about how terrible that story was compared to Sins Past. People may have been torn about how JMS handled Peter and Gwen's children but there would never have been the level of outrage and disgust that was produced by what we got.

[draco x]

He did. Note who "Kingsley" wiped out in the opening arc in Big Time? Delvadia. Note as well there were bits off bits involving Kingsley when he and Montana discuss the business proposal the later has for him. Even more note the fact Slott himself with a sly grin refused to answer any Hobgoblin related questions come interview and quickly changed the subject when I asked him in April.

Also note the way Slott acted in interviews pertaining to the move. He pulled a bait and switch. He baited the fans of the Hobgoblin into thinking he killed the character. I feel for it hook, like, and sinker. Save RICHARDS.. who was the first to realize the deception. Not only that but he said this was his reinterpretation of the Saga, and if you re-read it, it is. Note that Kingsley used a dupe that was in effect disposable and one in effect has become his stand-in (ala Ned). Look at Phil's story more and see how much it is a stand-in for Ned's now done right with no huge clutter or plot holes.

Interestingly now that the one true Hobgoblin is back, whether or not this was planned is now moot. The one thing I would love to have known is how and when Roderick found Daniel who was in witness protection all this time or what he was doing all the time he was in the Caribbean up to being in Latin America. Up till now we haven't got any insight or backstory regarding Kingsley and I hope we get a long due origin story soon.

[draco x]

There is no way that Peter being the Stacy Twins' father is a good idea. It's just slightly better than Ozzy being their father.

SLIGHTLY.

A stronger editor would have just said "No. Let's do your next storyline and trash this one. And then burn the trash."

The Stacey twins would have worked if they were from an alternate reality where Gwen and Peter had kids and that Peter was evil and had killed their mother instead of Norman. They would then track their father to the 616 reality where they would mistake the 616 Spiderman for their father and attack him. After all the misunderstandings, they would then go after the evil version of Peter with the help of his 616 counterpart. This would be way better than that shit-fest everyone like myself loathes.

[Keb]

I read the first trade of Chew and I didn't care for it. But I read Saga also and I like it.

Image has some great stuff right now....The Activity, Saga, Manhattan Projects, Fatale, etc. But I like my classic characters too like Spidey, Batman, Daredevil, Hulk, etc.

There's no shortage of good comics these days.

Not to put anyone down for this mentality but I think this is what really prevents the medium from growing and developing any real integrity. It's also why we get the "delusional/irate fanboy" stereotype as well.

In my opinion as a former writer/student of fiction, it's an absolute sin for a writer to become emotionally attached to his or her characters. In that same vein, I don't think readers should become too attached to a character, especially a protagonist. They have to realize that despite having some sort of emotional attachment, the character isn't real. Another thing they have to realize about serial characters, especially ones that have survived for this long, is that they are corporate properties designed to make money and rack up stats by pulling in new readers.

The thing about great characters, whether they're serial characters or not is that they end. I always hate that "My story doesn't have an ending" trope that we see in TV, movies and comics today because great stories and their characters have beginnings and endings. That shit bothers me to no end and it's what's rampant in comic book culture. People expect their comics to be as great on day 23422948 as they were on day 1. Reading and collecting for completion has got to be the most idiotic thing ever, like being a diehard fan of a perennial bottomfeeding team, because there's no satisfaction in following bad quality anything.

I think the problem with the recent spider-writers and others is instead of just writing a good story they are trying to write these "stand the test of time epic great super stories" that people will talk about for years, it's like a baseball player trying to hit a home run and usually striking out.

I don't think it's that so much as it's companies trying to cash in on big events and media hype. The Spider-Man movie is over, so now that gives Marvel the opportunity to do something big in the comic book community without having to keep in line with the movie continuity. This thing is getting big press and a lot of word of mouth and online chatter as well, so it's their opportunity to sell a lot of comics. Good "time-tested" stories don't try to be "time-tested", they just happen naturally. All of the best "time-tested" stories happened naturally and have beginnings and endings.

They're just trying to keep Spider-Man relevant. For those who are fed up with the character and the new direction but want to stick with the classics, try tracking down some of the actual classics or go back and re-read those. Or go with creator-owned and independent comics, where you'll find the best stories.

[Bloodrose]

Slott's run is a mixed bag for me. I liked the Lizard's arc and Hobbys return, but I don't like that Spider-man is the new Reed Richards and that every problem is solved by a new gadget. Or suit. I for one don't like Humberto Ramos' artwork either. I like Horizon. I don't like Alpha. Anyone met anyone who liked him? I don't like that he killed of Marla. Not because I liked Marla as a character, but because I like J.J.J. as a character and she was good for him. Philgoblin sucks.

As for the current three issues: I think we can all agree on that Peter is not dead. And I have to say, keeping that in mind I liked the stuff. Especially the first episode. But one thing that nobody mentioned before is this: Octopus in Spidey's body doesn't act or talk anything like any Otto Octavius ever. He is basicly a different character. Now there might be an explanation for that later - Peter's mind being still in his body, effecting Doc Ock's, etc. - but untill that what we got is not Octavius in Peter's body. What we got is a generic Evil Peter. I'm not sure how the Doctor Octopus we all know could star the role of Spider-man, and probably this version will be intersting, but still... it's not Dock Ock... yet. (And thinking about his newly gained responsibility he might never will be...)

[MoneyMelon]

Keb, you're really micharacterizing what I said.

I said I like my classic characters like Spider-Man and Batman. If they do a good series, I want to read it. I'm not a completionist my any stretch. I have no qualm with dropping a book when it's bad, such as the very book we're discussing. I don't want to waste my money on something that sucks and I'm not enjoying. The books I mentioned are all things I like. I'm not reading them because I feel like I have to. I think they're simply good superhero stories. When it becomes stagnant and things stop changing and evolving, I lose interest.

I think the problem with Spider-Man, however, is something you touched on. It seems like a property that's been mired in gimmicks for so long that its become a chore to read. Yeah, I understand its a very profitable corporate property that has to make money, but that doesn't mean you can't tell good stories. Marvel and DC have lots of valuable properties but they do manage to tell good stories with the characters despite 50+ years and hundreds of stories that have been done before. In fact, I think a big problem with Spider-Man is this recent tendency to erase any growth the character has had. When they erased his marriage to Mary Jane, it was setting the character back out of a misguided sense of nostalgia. Spider-Man had been a character that evolved and grew up over time. It's part of what makes him so appealing. I don't want the 1970's status quo. I've read that already. It's been done. But I agree with you that there is a significant chunk of the audience that wants to keep the character exactly as they remembered him from 30 years ago and that stagnation hurts the character and the story. I don't think the story has to end though. I think there are still new things that can be done. It just takes some creativity.

Spider-Man really lacks a writer or an editor who can move the story forward. It seems like especially in the last five years or so they're trying so hard to define a character that didn't need defining. Everybody already knows who he is and what motivates him. I want to see what's next. I actually want to see change and grow. I just want it to be good. To me, this isn't a good change that moves the character forward. It's a gimmick that will get swept under the rug eventually. I don't want to waste my money on something like that. And I have no problem sitting this one out and waiting for something interesting to start happening again. Like I said before, there's plenty of other good comics out there that I'd rather read right now. If people like this era and they enjoy it, that's fine with me. It's just not my cup of tea. I'll read Daredevil or Saga right now instead.

[alaska1125]

I went in to a comic shop today. Saw this and passed.

At eight freaking dollars, I'm amazed at the number of people who bought it. Spoilers were enough for me at that price point. Knowing what happened makes me regret that decision not in the least. I've been a fair weather reader since OMD, so it's really not a loss at this point.

[HNutz]

The Stacey twins would have worked if they were from an alternate reality where Gwen and Peter had kids and that Peter was evil and had killed their mother instead of Norman. They would then track their father to the 616 reality where they would mistake the 616 Spiderman for their father and attack him. After all the misunderstandings, they would then go after the evil version of Peter with the help of his 616 counterpart. This would be way better than that shit-fest everyone like myself loathes.

That would have been BETTER?!?

[fieldy snuts]

That would have been BETTER?!?

in the 90's it would've

[Keb]

Keb, you're really micharacterizing what I said.

I said I like my classic characters like Spider-Man and Batman. If they do a good series, I want to read it. I'm not a completionist my any stretch. I have no qualm with dropping a book when it's bad, such as the very book we're discussing. I don't want to waste my money on something that sucks and I'm not enjoying. The books I mentioned are all things I like. I'm not reading them because I feel like I have to. I think they're simply good superhero stories. When it becomes stagnant and things stop changing and evolving, I lose interest.

Wasn't my intention to single you out personally. Was just commenting on an age-old mentality in comics and where I see fandom within the industry being stagnant.

Besides, you're going to get a lot of disappointment this summer when the Jays consistently put a whoopin on the Yankees