The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[Eli Katz]

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

Nice.

[Starlord]

Amazing Spider-Man #666

Well I'm going to be real honest with this one. I finished the book, sat it down and thought... so? I don't care. As much as I have tried to enjoy Spidey for the last few years I always come back to this thought: "This ain't the real Spider-Man. He was destroyed a few years ago with OMD." I'm old. What can I say. The art though was top notch and enjoyed every panel. But this single issue really made me realize my Spider-Man is dead and I think I'm done with this book.

Story: 5
Art: 8
My Score: 6.50

[Punchy]

I liked this issue, it tied in a lot of disparate Spidey-threads (or Webs), like his involvement with the Avengers and the FF and his job and his training with Shang-Chi, and made it all feel whole and one. Before setting up an event which will probably change all these threads forever.

Full review on Monday.

[Punchy]

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

[alaska1125]

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

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.

[Punchy]

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.

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.

[alaska1125]

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.

I get what your saying, but I guess I'm one of those that "can't get over it". I'm certainly happy that people are enjoying the new status, but it feels like some crazy alternate reality to me. Like an extended "What if..." story.

That said, I can stomach the Superman divorce better only because I've seen what appears to happen to titles/characters like Teen Titans, Superboy, and Suicide Squad. It can always be worse, right?

[guitarsmashley]

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

because she was uncharacteristically cunty.

[Eli Katz]

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.

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.

[Royal Nonesuch]

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?

Awesome.

[alaska1125]

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.

Very well said.

[Punchy]

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.

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.

[alaska1125]

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.

If they had killed MJ off in a story driven reason that involved emotion consequences then I think it would be a different story. As opposed to the hamfisted, out of character drivel we were handed to give the world a single Peter Parker. Say what you want about the death of Gwen Stacey, but that story had heart. The easy out on the Parker marriage had none. And yeah, "not as extreme"? If someone is still upset about Stacey's death 38 years later as opposed to still not liking OMD 4 years later? I'd say "not as extreme" is a dramatic understatement.

[Zechs]

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

BONG! BONG! Yes there is. It's just that for some of us the character of Spidey is now in an endless cycle or pandering. I liked Carlie this issue, but honestly I demand more Pete and Felcia so of course Marvel fucks that relationship up. I should stop wanting things from Marvel's Spider-Man books.

[guitarsmashley]

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.

Well, when OMD set the status quo of the spiderman stories we're dealing with then yest I would say there is an incredibly good reason. Especially as you reintroduce MJ it's not hard to tie it to one of the worst story lines ever.