The Amazing Spider-Man #700

[soir8]

So after 50 years, Marvel have decided to end one of their most popular and successful series with a shocking and drastic change, leading into the new series, Superior Spider-Man.

For those of you who haven't been reading Spider-Man comics lately:

Dr. Octopus, his body failing him after a career of getting punched by people with super strength, tried to go out in a blaze of glory - attempting to incinerate the entire planet using an array of orbital lenses. Spider-Man foiled his plans and saved the world, even saving Doc Oc from his flooding underwater base; but the devious doctor had one last trick up his sleeve, using one of his octobots to switch bodies with his longtime foe, leaving Peter Parker's mind trapped in a dying body locked in a maximum security prison and Dr Octopus living Spider-Man's life, complete with all his memories and secrets.
However, Peter Parker soon realised that he also had access to all of Otto Octavius's memories, and used the doc's own technology and contacts to stage a prison break. He found and fought the imposter Spider-Man, but at every turn was outwitted. In the final moments of their battle, Peter felt the body he was trapped in failing at last; his life flashing before his eyes, he let it all flood through the lingering mental link he and Octavius shared. As Peter Parker died, the man who had stolen his body understood the horror of a life lost, and promised to protect Peter Parker's loved ones and continue his legacy; knowing, at last, that with great power must come great responsibility.
Seeing the world, and his own past, from a new perspective, Otto Octavius is determined to surpass the man who's mantle he has assumed; to become the Superior Spider-Man.

TLDR;
HOLY MC****ITYBALLS PETER PARKER'S DEAD AND DOC OC IS SPIDER-MAN NOW!!!

Apparently the new series is intended to be somewhat darker and grittier than the Spider-Man we're used to; "Spider-Man by way of Batman". I'm actually quite excited about this daring change.

Thoughts?

[Surfing HalfOrc]

He's a major comic book character. Peter Parker WILL be back! He's only mostly dead...

Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What's that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.
:smallwink:

Clone, Artificial Intelligence, "It was all a Dream," it doesn't matter. Stand him up, dust him off, give him a pep talk. He'll be fine.

[Ramza00]

He will be back, this is marvel main continuity we are talking about.

[soir8]

Well, **** spoilers I suppose...

C'mon guys, lets just pretend we don't all know the status quo will return next time someone rewrites Marvel reality, and get excited about the possibilities opened up by this new development.

Of course Peter parker won't stay dead; I'm not expecting anyone to care about that. What I'm excited about is Doc Oc being Spider-Man. This is a huge change in direction for a character who's spent years as a notorious villain.

[Aotrs Commander]

The sheer level of unbridled idiocy at Marvel simply flabberghasts me. And they do this AFTER One More Day? To set the status quo to something Quesada liked just to do this?

It's so sad that I have to say I'm glad all the comics I'm getting are ending. Heck, it's even sadder to say that I'm now sorta wishing Disney HAD interfered when they took over, because I fail to see how what could have been there would have been worse than what what got now, which is, by turns, stupid, full of unneccessary character deaths (see Avengers Arena) for nothing more than the kicks and giggles and, worst of all, in the case of the closing issues of all the X-Men titles - boring.

I swear Marvel and DC are having a competition to see who can suck most and frack off the largest proportion of their long-standing fans in a desparate attempt to attract a larger customer base that, due to their distribution methods, simply does not exist...

[Friv]

*yawn*

Dumb plot, dumb idea, won't last.

[Avilan the Grey]

Well, **** spoilers I suppose...

C'mon guys, lets just pretend we don't all know the status quo will return next time someone rewrites Marvel reality, and get excited about the possibilities opened up by this new development.

Um... if we pretend that, I would simply have to stop reading Marvel comics forever to punish the brainless morons doing this story. Seriolusly, if I didn't know this was going to be retconned away at some point, it would be the final straw that made me boycott all superhero comics forever.

The saddest part is that people like Gail Simone is riding to the writer staff's defense begging people to not stop reading the comic and promising that since Dan Slott is a fan, he knows what he is doing and this is best for the character.

[LaZodiac]

Like many others I know this is going to be retconned out, and I even know HOW they're going to do it, but it's still disgusting and stupid.

Anyway, how they're going to do it. Doc Ock in Peter's body has PEter's memories. WELL, it's gonna turn out, the body switch didn't ACTUALLY happen, despite all evidence to the contrary. What REALLY happened was just a MEMORY transfer, so Peter just THOUGHT he was a Doc Ock, when infact he's still himself.

[Avilan the Grey]

And as usual the writers are so damn full of themselves. Dan Slott sounds like he thinks he IS Doc Ock in his interviews (110% EGO).

On the other hand:
Admittedly I am not personally suffering from this, since I have not picked up a single issue of main continuity spider-man since One More Day. It is still on my boycott list since that was published.

Edit: Just saw a post on the official John Byrne forum where he points out how stupid some fans are for thinking any change like this is permanent, comparing it to the bashings (by snail mail!) he did get for killing off Doctor Doom, even though "I wrote in the 'Out' right there", and how obvious the 'Out' in this story is.

[Traab]

I think it could be interesting, if only to cause future character development for doc ock once things get switched back. If that even happens. Also, the whole drama of the doc pretending to be someone he isnt, now that he has a conscience.

[Jerthanis]

Yeah, this seems like a stupid thing to do to Peter Parker, since they couldn't get him divorced from the brand name of Spider-Man when they had set him up to retire and Ben Riley had all his memories and conscience too.

The idea of a body swap is shaky and contrived as is... to have it form the lynchpin of a major character change like this is... dubious.

[soir8]

My opinion of the current state of Marvel comics is that the general creative direction is a complete mess, but individual writers can be very good. I'm enjoying everything involving the X-Men at the moment, and some of the newer titles like Hawkeye and Scarlet Spider are fantastic. I've even enjoyed their Battle Royal ripoff, Avengers Arena. So while the idea of Spidey and Doc Oc swapping bodies sounds stupid, I'm fairly confident it'll be handled well (imo, it's already been done very well so far - the moment where Doc Oc experiences every loss Peter Parker has suffered and understands what drives him to save every life he can - even Oc's - I thought was very poignant).

[erikun]

Like many others I know this is going to be retconned out, and I even know HOW they're going to do it, but it's still disgusting and stupid.

Anyway, how they're going to do it. Doc Ock in Peter's body has PEter's memories. WELL, it's gonna turn out, the body switch didn't ACTUALLY happen, despite all evidence to the contrary. What REALLY happened was just a MEMORY transfer, so Peter just THOUGHT he was a Doc Ock, when infact he's still himself.
Yeah, this looks to be what they are aiming for. It turns out that, just like the mind switch didn't really get rid of Peter's memories, it didn't really get rid of Peter's personality and so he'll wake up one day and realize he's been himself the whole time.

Not that I care much anymore. I mean, there have been some really wacky plot twists in the Spiderman comic (anyone remember the organic stingers?) but between publicly unmasking himself in Civil War and the official retcon in One More Day, I haven't been interested in following what's going on anymore.

[Man on Fire]

I think that's a change for the better. After what they did in OMD and what followed and many earlier stories I came to hate Peter - I saw him as an uncarrying, selfish bastard and hypocrite who will let people die and sell his wife to the devil just so he don't have to feel guilty about something. This guy was beyond redemption. Superior Spider-Man...we all know he is a horrible person but he is at least trying to be better, that's more I can every say about Parker.

Not that I'm gonna read his book anyway, I follow writers, nto characters, and Dan Slott isn't my favorite.

And to people saying there is nothing good at marvel:
Captain Marvel by Kelly Sue DeConnick is great
Journey Into the Mystery by Kathryn Immoen is great and Kieron Gillen run was absolutely AMAZING! No seriously, go hunt it down, Kid Loki's adventures were brilliant.

That's the heroes I can relate to and follow, Peter was interesting only once, when JMS was writing him, outside of that he was jsut a total prick.

[soir8]

"There are no bad ideas, just bad execution"... I think Marvel Comics have proven that statement false many times.

Maybe after One More Day, Marvel have decided anything is a good idea in comparison to that bull****.

[Man on Fire]

"There are no bad ideas, just bad execution"... I think Marvel Comics have proven that statement false many times.

Maybe after One More Day, Marvel have decided anything is a good idea in comparison to that bull****.

But Marvel is proving that statement to be true all the time. Many of ideas that sound terrible on paper turns to be quite good in hands of good writer. Ressurect Loki as a kid sounds terrible, but then you read Journey Into The Mystery and you're awestruck. Sendind Hulk into space so he can be space Conan sounds terrible, yet Planet Hulk is regarded as one of the best modern Hulk stories. Giving Thor's powers to alien with horse head sounds stupid, yet Beta Ray Bill is beloved by many fans. Making Ares a good guy and let him join the avengers is idea that made many people uproar, yet his both mini-series and all other comics he was in made him a fan favorite people moruned after his death.

And One More Day COULD work. There were many ways in which it could work. Simply making MJ be one who got shot and Peter making the deal to save her life would make it much better - he would have sacrificed his own personal happines and literally best thing that ever happened to him to save the dearest person in his life.

In fact, that was plot of one rejected Superman pitch Joe Quesada based the OMD on. It went like this - Luthor and Brainiac steals Mr.Mxhowthehellyouspellthat powers and use them to depower Superman, reveal his secret idientity and threaten his loved ones. Superman teams up with Mr....THAT IMP FROM 5TH DIMENSION and once they set everything right, vilians make one last attempt at making Superman suffer - they literally poison Lois Lane's memories of him. With Lois dying Clark asks repowered Mr.Imnotgoingtowastemytimetryingtolearnhowyouspell that to save her, but he says that, as a 5th Dimension Imp he cannot just do something good, there must be mischief in his every deed, so he offers to save her by removing her and everybody's memories about Clark being Superman and their love and marriage. Superman agrees, sacrificing his happiness to save woman of his life.

There really aren't bad ideas, just bad executions. I personally hate Avenger Arena, but the thing it that with better plan this concept could actually work pretty fine (I even have one, but I doubt anybody's interested in that).

[DiscipleofBob]

But Marvel is proving that statement to be true all the time. Many of ideas that sound terrible on paper turns to be quite good in hands of good writer. Ressurect Loki as a kid sounds terrible, but then you read Journey Into The Mystery and you're awestruck. Sendind Hulk into space so he can be space Conan sounds terrible, yet Planet Hulk is regarded as one of the best modern Hulk stories. Giving Thor's powers to alien with horse head sounds stupid, yet Beta Ray Bill is beloved by many fans. Making Ares a good guy and let him join the avengers is idea that made many people uproar, yet his both mini-series and all other comics he was in made him a fan favorite people moruned after his death.

And One More Day COULD work. There were many ways in which it could work. Simply making MJ be one who got shot and Peter making the deal to save her life would make it much better - he would have sacrificed his own personal happines and literally best thing that ever happened to him to save the dearest person in his life.

There can be good and bad plot comic concepts but it all still comes down to the execution.

I loved the concept of Civil War. It actually got me to start buying comics again. It was a hero vs hero conflict which actually didn't have a clear good vs evil. Each side crossed into gray areas during the conflict, but then at the end, Marvel decided the Pro-Reg guys were right all along and were shocked and astonished that anyone could be Anti-Reg. Horribly executed.

Avengers VS X-Men was the same way, and the initial conflict was one that there were two legitimate sides, and something both sides would go to war over. Oh wait, no, the X-Men were wrong and therefore the bad guys all along. Because the editors say so.

:smallannoyed:

[Man on Fire]

That only proves my argument futher - everythign lies in execution. just because both stories were bad doesn't mean the ideas behind them were bad.

[LaZodiac]

But Marvel is proving that statement to be true all the time. Many of ideas that sound terrible on paper turns to be quite good in hands of good writer. Ressurect Loki as a kid sounds terrible, but then you read Journey Into The Mystery and you're awestruck. Sendind Hulk into space so he can be space Conan sounds terrible, yet Planet Hulk is regarded as one of the best modern Hulk stories. Giving Thor's powers to alien with horse head sounds stupid, yet Beta Ray Bill is beloved by many fans. Making Ares a good guy and let him join the avengers is idea that made many people uproar, yet his both mini-series and all other comics he was in made him a fan favorite people moruned after his death.

And One More Day COULD work. There were many ways in which it could work. Simply making MJ be one who got shot and Peter making the deal to save her life would make it much better - he would have sacrificed his own personal happines and literally best thing that ever happened to him to save the dearest person in his life.

In fact, that was plot of one rejected Superman pitch Joe Quesada based the OMD on. It went like this - Luthor and Brainiac steals Mr.Mxhowthehellyouspellthat powers and use them to depower Superman, reveal his secret idientity and threaten his loved ones. Superman teams up with Mr....THAT IMP FROM 5TH DIMENSION and once they set everything right, vilians make one last attempt at making Superman suffer - they literally poison Lois Lane's memories of him. With Lois dying Clark asks repowered Mr.Imnotgoingtowastemytimetryingtolearnhowyouspell that to save her, but he says that, as a 5th Dimension Imp he cannot just do something good, there must be mischief in his every deed, so he offers to save her by removing her and everybody's memories about Clark being Superman and their love and marriage. Superman agrees, sacrificing his happiness to save woman of his life.

There really aren't bad ideas, just bad executions. I personally hate Avenger Arena, but the thing it that with better plan this concept could actually work pretty fine (I even have one, but I doubt anybody's interested in that).

The only thing I can really disagree with is that, for Spiderman, a deal with literally the devil is wrong. Spiderman's creed is "with great power comes great responsibility". It is not responsible to make a deal with the DEVIL. You live with the consequences of your actions, and try to fix them, prevent them, in the future. There should be no cop out where you make a deal with the Devil.

Now Superman, on the other hand, he doesn't have that as his motto. He believes fully in self sacrafice for the greater good. I can see him doing this. But then I can also see Superman just mindwiping everyone HIMSELF since he can probably do that.

Now, I'm not saying the very central thought of what you said, "there are no bad stories, just bad executions" is wrong. I actually agree with it. But that doesn't mean every story can work with every character. Just because it's a good story doesn't mean it's a good SPIDERMAN story. The best way to execute the story would be for Mephisto to give his terms, and for Spiderman to simply say no and walk away.

[Avilan the Grey]

And One More Day COULD work. There were many ways in which it could work. Simply making MJ be one who got shot and Peter making the deal to save her life would make it much better - he would have sacrificed his own personal happines and literally best thing that ever happened to him to save the dearest person in his life.

And that wouldn't help, since the biggest problem with OMD is that it removes everything Peter is about. It doesn't matter if it's MJ or his aunt. See LaZodiac's post.

[Foeofthelance]

The problem with OMD wasn`t that Petere wasn`t taking responsibility - he was, in his own screwed up way. He believed that it was his choice to out himself during Civil War that was responsible for the shooting, and that by doing this he could fix the mistake. The problem with OMD was the logic and justification for the execution. `We are going to split up MJ and Peter. We know this is controversial, so we promise not to use magic to do it. We also understand Peter is supposed to be strongly moral and at least Christian in name, so they will not be getting a divorce. Instead he is going to make a deal with the Devil so that the Devil can use his powers to rewrite time instead. Oh, and to make sure this works we are going to show that every healer, scientist, and doctor we have on the roster is utterly incompetent.`

[Man on Fire]

The only thing I can really disagree with is that, for Spiderman, a deal with literally the devil is wrong. Spiderman's creed is "with great power comes great responsibility". It is not responsible to make a deal with the DEVIL. You live with the consequences of your actions, and try to fix them, prevent them, in the future. There should be no cop out where you make a deal with the Devil.

Now Superman, on the other hand, he doesn't have that as his motto. He believes fully in self sacrafice for the greater good. I can see him doing this. But then I can also see Superman just mindwiping everyone HIMSELF since he can probably do that.

Now, I'm not saying the very central thought of what you said, "there are no bad stories, just bad executions" is wrong. I actually agree with it. But that doesn't mean every story can work with every character. Just because it's a good story doesn't mean it's a good SPIDERMAN story. The best way to execute the story would be for Mephisto to give his terms, and for Spiderman to simply say no and walk away.

Then don't potray that as a cop out. Make Peter remember what happened and what he did and have to live with the consequences. Make it play on themes of responsibility, make him say that he would gladly damn himself for her sake, say that it was his fault she is dying and it's his responsibility to save her, no matter his personal loss, you can work with it.


Oh, and to make sure this works we are going to show that every healer, scientist, and doctor we have on the roster is utterly incompetent.

Linkara pointed a quick way to fix it - Doctor Strange wasn't there. Here, it's that simple - sudenly Peter cannot at instant ask evry person in the world to help her. He has literally one day to find a way to save may and the only guys in NY who could help her are either X-Men, and therefore guarded by Sentinels, or on pro-reg side, so that means he wil lget arrested if he tries to approach them.

Of course, even simpler would be for him to go to Tony Stark and say he will turn himself in if he'll use SHIELD resources to save MJ. While he is transported to Area 42 Mephisto approaches him and says that yes, Tony will put all resources he has. However, he is not allmighty, he don't control time and his people will get there one second to late. With depowered device around his neck Peter is cut from any means of contacting any other superhero who could help him, and they wouln't be there on time anyway. Mephisto offers him a deal..

[LaZodiac]

The problem with OMD wasn`t that Petere wasn`t taking responsibility - he was, in his own screwed up way. He believed that it was his choice to out himself during Civil War that was responsible for the shooting, and that by doing this he could fix the mistake. The problem with OMD was the logic and justification for the execution. `We are going to split up MJ and Peter. We know this is controversial, so we promise not to use magic to do it. We also understand Peter is supposed to be strongly moral and at least Christian in name, so they will not be getting a divorce. Instead he is going to make a deal with the Devil so that the Devil can use his powers to rewrite time instead. Oh, and to make sure this works we are going to show that every healer, scientist, and doctor we have on the roster is utterly incompetent.`

I'm not going to quote the other post because it'll cause mine to be way to long.

It is not responsible to make a deal with the devil.

Responsibility is LIVING WITH YOUR MISTAKES, and trying to make them NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. Things that have already happened cannot be prevented, but you can prevent them in the FUTURE. To tell Mephisto yes is to say "I don't WANT to live with my mistakes. I want to undo what I just did, because I don't like the results of what I just did". This is the ANTITHESIS of "With great power comes great responsibility". This it the equivilent of him selling his soul to the devil so he could prevent Uncle Ben's death.

[Avilan the Grey]

I'm not going to quote the other post because it'll cause mine to be way to long.

It is not responsible to make a deal with the devil.

Responsibility is LIVING WITH YOUR MISTAKES, and trying to make them NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. Things that have already happened cannot be prevented, but you can prevent them in the FUTURE. To tell Mephisto yes is to say "I don't WANT to live with my mistakes. I want to undo what I just did, because I don't like the results of what I just did". This is the ANTITHESIS of "With great power comes great responsibility". This it the equivilent of him selling his soul to the devil so he could prevent Uncle Ben's death.

Quoted for truth, as it were.

In addition, the reason all this happened is the other problem. Even if the writing had been good, and in character (which it was not), the knowledge of why OMD happened, meaning Joe Quesada pushing his own agenda, and his insane idea that he spoke for all "true" spidey fans doing it, is far enough by itself for fans to loathe it.
And the same thing happens again; Slott is pushing is own story, and not only insults people who assume this is temporary, but also being filled with the exact same kind of Ego as Quesada had at the time. (also, the comment that Doc Ock is "just like him" (a slightly overweight nerd) doesn't make the whole thing sit any better with fans since it reeks of self-insertion...)

[LaZodiac]

Let's not forget Joe Quesada also explicitly said, when taking over, he wouldn't do any Mephisto powered rewrites. The exact quote even refers to Mephisto in terms of "what he's not going to be using to retcon things"

Also, realization I just had. This is a way of "retconning" the deal with Mephisto without actually saying "ok, we did a terrible thing, we are literally turning back the clock so it didn't happen"

For you see, Octopeter isn't Peter Parker. So he can TOTALLY have a relathionship with Mary Jane now.

[Avilan the Grey]

For you see, Octopeter isn't Peter Parker. So he can TOTALLY have a relathionship with Mary Jane now.

I find it interesting that not more people have pointed out that what is happening is in fact borderline rape. The fact that Doc Ock is sleeping with a woman under false pretences is creepy beyond description. It is also a Trope in romcoms and romances, but hey...

I guess I would be waiting for pigs to fly straight out of a frozen hell, but I would love to have MJ actually leave him forever or at least kick him in the balls and never talk to him again when she finds out, but instead Slott is just using this to rewind OMD.

[Man on Fire]

I'm not going to quote the other post because it'll cause mine to be way to long.

It is not responsible to make a deal with the devil.

Responsibility is LIVING WITH YOUR MISTAKES, and trying to make them NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. Things that have already happened cannot be prevented, but you can prevent them in the FUTURE. To tell Mephisto yes is to say "I don't WANT to live with my mistakes. I want to undo what I just did, because I don't like the results of what I just did". This is the ANTITHESIS of "With great power comes great responsibility". This it the equivilent of him selling his soul to the devil so he could prevent Uncle Ben's death.

I disagree here about general assumption that making deal with the devil sin't responsible. I'm trying to explain to you what he would do in version I'm suggesting: he would sacrifice every bit of happiness in his already pretty miserable life, to save the person that is dying because of his mistake. Responsibility isn't only living with your mistakes, it's also fixing them. And if he was put in more convincing situation where the deal really would be the only option to save a life, wouldnt it be really responsible to save that life and bear the burden you put on yourself by making the deal with the devil?

[LaZodiac]

I find it interesting that not more people have pointed out that what is happening is in fact borderline rape. The fact that Doc Ock is sleeping with a woman under false pretences is creepy beyond description. It is also a Trope in romcoms and romances, but hey...

I guess I would be waiting for pigs to fly straight out of a frozen hell, but I would love to have MJ actually leave him forever or at least kick him in the balls and never talk to him again when she finds out, but instead Slott is just using this to rewind OMD.

He's pressing the rewind button in the worst way. And yha, Doc Ock is totally doing that, and that's absolutely god aweful. Especialy since from what I've heard he's still acting like Doc Ock in the Peter Parker body. So he's calling MJ "woman" and degrading her. And her response is "I still love you" and kissing him.

Meanwhile, Gail Simone recently got fired for not agreeing to do something stupid in her book. Fun fun sense make comic book companies.

EDIT: No. Making a deal with the devil is not responsible, even in the situation you describe. He's SATAN. I don't care what your belief system is, if a red guy with horns, a spade tail, cloven hooves, a pitchfork, and firey burning hair says "I'll revive your loved one and set right what once went wrong but all you have to do is sell your soul/marriage to me, because I want to taste it's suffering" you SAY NO.

Being responsible is also knowing what is and isn't the right choice. Selling A COUCH to the devil is a bad idea. Imagine how bad selling your SOUL to the Devil is.

[Man on Fire]

Meanwhile, Gail Simone recently got fired for not agreeing to do something stupid in her book. Fun fun sense make comic book companies.

And was immiediatelly rehired after Internet uproar.
I almost see it as an average episode of Jetsons with Dan Didio playing Mr. Spaycey and Gail Simone playing George Jetson.

"SIMONE! YOUR'E FIRED! Wait, what is this? Internet is mad at me again? What should I do? What should I do? SIMONE! SAVE ME!"



EDIT: No. Making a deal with the devil is not responsible, even in the situation you describe. He's SATAN. I don't care what your belief system is, if a red guy with horns, a spade tail, cloven hooves, a pitchfork, and firey burning hair says "I'll revive your loved one and set right what once went wrong but all you have to do is sell your soul/marriage to me, because I want to taste it's suffering" you SAY NO.

Being responsible is also knowing what is and isn't the right choice. Selling A COUCH to the devil is a bad idea. Imagine how bad selling your SOUL to the Devil is.

It's bad idea for you. But if you are trying to save another person and are desperate enough to spend eternity in hell for her, who say that's not admirable choice?

Also, I apparently need to point that out, I'm the guy who doesn't belive in objective good and objective evil.

[LaZodiac]

And was immiediatelly rehired after Internet uproar.
I almost see it as an average episode of Jetsons with Dan Didio playing Mr. Spaycey and Gail Simone playing George Jetson.

"SIMONE! YOUR'E FIRED! Wait, what is this? Internet is mad at me again? What should I do? What should I do? SIMONE! SAVE ME!"

It's bad idea for you. But if you are trying to save another person and are desperate enough to spend eternity in hell for her, who say that's not admirable choice?

Also, I apparently need to point that out, I'm the guy who doesn't belive in objective good and objective evil.

I don't believe in objective good or objective evil either. What do believe in is that Mephisto is a villian and Spiderman is a good guy, and good guys trusting villians is never a good thing.

Also, I'd rather die then have someone sell their soul to an evil person to save me.

[comicshorse]

[QUOTE=LaZodiac;14442029
Also, I'd rather die then have someone sell their soul to an evil person to save me.[/QUOTE]

Well yes, does anybody think if he'd asked Aunt May she'd have wanted him to destroy his marriage and his life to give her another few years of life.

Of course if we assume dealing with the Devil is a mortal sin, Parker is currently reflecting on his decision in the hottest fire Mephisto can provide

[Jayngfet]

It's bad idea for you. But if you are trying to save another person and are desperate enough to spend eternity in hell for her, who say that's not admirable choice?


I'd just like to point out though, that about 90% of people who'd be ok with you doing that kind of deal aren't worth saving anyway. Especially when they've already had a long, full life already and are old and frail.

[Man on Fire]

I don't believe in objective good or objective evil either. What do believe in is that Mephisto is a villian and Spiderman is a good guy, and good guys trusting villians is never a good thing.

That's quite bad thing to say, you know? That's a dogmatism I really cannot get behind, not a single one of popular reformed supervilians would ever exist if that reasoning was true. Or are you saying that you look at Hawkeye and you still think he has some wicked plot behind his back?


Also, I'd rather die then have someone sell their soul to an evil person to save me.

If you're not the one making the deal, how would you ever know it happened? And just because you don't see it at right thing doesn't mean somebody else won't. People have different morals and values.


I'd just like to point out though, that about 90% of people who'd be ok with you doing that kind of deal aren't worth saving anyway. Especially when they've already had a long, full life already and are old and frail.

I remind you that I am not defending OMD. I am defending the statement that idea of Spider-Man making the deal with the devil could be done well. I'm defending my own fix in which he doesn't save Aunt May by Mary Jane. Read the thread before posting.

[LaZodiac]

That's quite bad thing to say, you know? That's a dogmatism I really cannot get behind, not a single one of popular reformed supervilians would ever exist if that reasoning was true. Or are you saying that you look at Hawkeye and you still think he has some wicked plot behind his back?

If you're not the one making the deal, how would you ever know it happened? And just because you don't see it at right thing doesn't mean somebody else won't. People have different morals and values.

I remind you that I am not defending OMD. I am defending the statement that idea of Spider-Man making the deal with the devil could be done well. I'm defending my own fix in which he doesn't save Aunt May by Mary Jane. Read the thread before posting.

Hawkeye's a hero.

Ok. I disagree with your point respectfully.

[Man on Fire]

Hawkeye's a hero.

But he was a supervilian. He was introduced as a supervilian. With your reasoning he should never get a chance at repemtion because good guys trusting villians is never a good thing.

[LaZodiac]

But he was a supervilian. He was introduced as a supervilian. With your reasoning he should never get a chance at repemtion because good guys trusting villians is never a good thing.

There's a big difference between "redeamable human villian" and a guy who is literally Satan.

But yha, good point, I'll work on a more correct point later.

[Jayngfet]

There's a big difference between "redeamable human villian" and a guy who is literally Satan.

This. Satan type guys don't get the same treatment. I don't even think Batman gives guys like that the same treatment he even gives the Joker. Even then, trusting human villains often goes sideways since you often wind up with more than bargained for.

[Jerthanis]

One big problem with OMD is that it doesn't directly address Peter's belief system. Now, this is years ago, so I might be misremembering details, but in Spectacular Spider-Man just prior to OMD, he met the big cheese himself, God, and God told him it was Aunt May's time and that she would be going to heaven. I almost can't believe that can be canon and Peter still make that choice, so even assuming that story isn't true, it could provide insight into what a legitimate motivation for Peter could be.

What if... the assassins came while Peter wasn't there, and when one attacks MJ and to save her, May kills the assassin, then gets mortally wounded in return.

Now Peter believes his Aunt will be sent to Hell for the complication his choices have presented in her life. The little girl should have been explicitly revealed to be their potential daughter early on, and then Mephisto could have put them on a scale... Eternal Punishment for Aunt May, or nonexistence for Mayday. They needed to be explicit that Mephisto was getting no one's soul out of it, (perhaps he mentions that people have wised up to the soul bargain after Faust) and that Mephisto is offering this because he's playing a long game... that Mayday will be a hero, and he's willing to allow one soul free if it means the next generation is deprived a Spider-Girl. Making the stakes clear makes Peter's choice to go along with it sensible, where in the actual story he's actually kind of uninterested in secondary effects, motivations, or the larger picture.

The trouble with the story was that it was a story that directly interacted with his fundamental character, but the framing kept it from leading us to a place where we could see him making that choice. The fact that it had such overtly religious icons in it as Death, the Devil, the Afterlife, and so on, and didn't actually confront those issues, but sought to ignore them made it clear this wasn't a story, but an attempt to push pieces around a board. This is what made it a bad story... that it avoided engaging its characters. Instead it paints them as thoughtless and childish. It came off as someone who looks at you and tells you that their parents will never die... childish because the only issue was that someone was dying and Peter couldn't accept it. Buck up Peter... you've failed to save people before and will fail to save people again. It happens.


But he was a supervilian. He was introduced as a supervilian. With your reasoning he should never get a chance at repemtion because good guys trusting villians is never a good thing.

The issue with trusting Mephisto to me wasn't that he should have known better precisely, but that because Peter was overtly Christian, it should have been something addressed rather than ignored.

Whether Mephisto is redeemable or not, is a Supervillain or not, Peter should have been making that choice for deeper reasons than "Failed to save someone", because failing to save someone is a thing he had dealt with before and will deal with in the future and will do so in other and more interesting ways than selling marriages to undo them. Ways that are legendary moments in comics history. Moments that give secondary characters moments to prove they're stronger than their character had ever been before. Like when MJ stayed with Peter after Gwen's death. Moments that ring true because they're the things we do when we deal with loss, and remind us of the human connections we make as real people.

That is why I think OMD is a terrible story. Above everything that I feel failed about it in terms of being out of character, or being a transparent attempt to retcon what writers and editors found a troublesome aspect of the character... above all that it didn't engage you in the human elements of the story... as much emoting and crying as the characters did, you couldn't engage because they weren't acting like real people and nothing beyond one simple thing was at stake.

[Foeofthelance]

Two things I would like to point out. First, Peter never sold his soul to Mephisto. What he did was to sell one set of potential futures in exchange for having lived an alternative past. Second, the deal was not to simply save May, but to undo the events leading up to him unmasking himself which thus responsible for May getting shot. The reason this was `responsible` is because the end goal was not to just correct a mistake, but to keep further incidents from happening as well. Sort of the same way he took responsibility for Ben`s death by putting on a costume and attracting the ire of every supervillain in NYC that the Fantastic Four, Avengers, and X-Men are too busy to deal with so that he could make sure it never happened to anyone else again... One of Peter`s biggest flaws as a character is that he cannot be happy if he is not making himself suffer for something in the process, because that is the only way to redeem himself for Ben.

[TheLaughingMan]

My rewrite of OMD would probably just involve me quitting and several swears thrown around Quesada's office.

[willpell]

The OP actually sounds like a cool idea to me, though I seem to be in the minority on that. (By contrast, OMD sounds like a terrible idea to me, though I can imagine how it could be written in a way that might impress me, but almost certainly it wasn't.) It's almost enough to tempt me into checking out Superior Spider-Man, but only almost...comic books are not a lethal overdose I plan to go back to.


Mr.Mxhowthehellyouspellthat THAT IMP FROM 5TH DIMENSION Mr.Imnotgoingtowastemytimetryingtolearnhowyouspell that

It's not actually that hard - "Mix Is Pit Lick", drop the vowels and the redundant "c",, change the hard "s" to an identically pronounced "z" (you could skip these last two steps if English were a logical language, so that Iz and Lik were the correct spellings), then add a "y" between the X and Z (as in the alphabet). MXYZPTLK. Relatively easy compared to what they could have done if they really wanted a weird incomprehensible name for an alien from another dimension.


I loved the concept of Civil War. It actually got me to start buying comics again. It was a hero vs hero conflict which actually didn't have a clear good vs evil. Each side crossed into gray areas during the conflict, but then at the end, Marvel decided the Pro-Reg guys were right all along and were shocked and astonished that anyone could be Anti-Reg. Horribly executed.

Except for the part I crossed out, I "this" this 100%.

[Xondoure]

I see a tiny little light that could end up saving spider man in all this, but I doubt the writers intended it.

If Parker is truly dead then he's probably in hell. Doctor Octopus realizes the world needs Parker more than it needs him, after trying and failing to live up to the responsibilities of being Spider Man. So he makes a journey to fix things, and in doing so resets one more day.

[willpell]

If Parker is truly dead then he's probably in hell.

Wow, guess a lifetime of saving the world doesn't count for much in your book huh? :smallwink:

[soir8]

I see a tiny little light that could end up saving spider man in all this, but I doubt the writers intended it.

If Parker is truly dead then he's probably in hell. Doctor Octopus realizes the world needs Parker more than it needs him, after trying and failing to live up to the responsibilities of being Spider Man. So he makes a journey to fix things, and in doing so resets one more day.

YES! I want to see Spider-Oc battle Satan for the soul of Peter Parker!

I find it quite amusing that everyone's still so pissed about OMD that the most exciting thing about the new development is the possibility it may be used as a retcon.

Actually, though, I'm pretty sure it's canon that Peter's in heaven.

[Avilan the Grey]

Wow, guess a lifetime of saving the world doesn't count for much in your book huh? :smallwink:

Making a deal with the devil automatically condemns you to hell, period, in most myths and fiction.


Two things I would like to point out. First, Peter never sold his soul to Mephisto. What he did was to sell one set of potential futures in exchange for having lived an alternative past. Second, the deal was not to simply save May, but to undo the events leading up to him unmasking himself which thus responsible for May getting shot. The reason this was `responsible` is because the end goal was not to just correct a mistake, but to keep further incidents from happening as well. Sort of the same way he took responsibility for Ben`s death by putting on a costume and attracting the ire of every supervillain in NYC that the Fantastic Four, Avengers, and X-Men are too busy to deal with so that he could make sure it never happened to anyone else again... One of Peter`s biggest flaws as a character is that he cannot be happy if he is not making himself suffer for something in the process, because that is the only way to redeem himself for Ben.

So... are you saying that it is in character, not to mention "good" to not only make a deal with the devil, but to sacrifice your wife and child for this??? Seriously??? The only way I can read this is that Peter was a highly-functioning sociopath all along and really never cared about anyone, period.

[Yora]

Anyway, how they're going to do it. Doc Ock in Peter's body has PEter's memories. WELL, it's gonna turn out, the body switch didn't ACTUALLY happen, despite all evidence to the contrary. What REALLY happened was just a MEMORY transfer, so Peter just THOUGHT he was a Doc Ock, when infact he's still himself.
By the time I've read the first half of the paragraph, I already knew what the second one would be.

[Man on Fire]

This. Satan type guys don't get the same treatment. I don't even think Batman gives guys like that the same treatment he even gives the Joker.

Or does he?
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/CaptainKRool/Batman_Hellboy_StarmanV19992-JungleGreenHorror1999_2-Page3.jpg


Even then, trusting human villains often goes sideways since you often wind up with more than bargained for.

Still, most of times that's what make hero the hero - I mean, people who support the notion that superheroes shouldn't ever kill basically say it's right thing to always trust vilian's capability and willingness to redeem himself. You cannot really scratch that particular villian just because usually heroes end up badly on deals with them, and many times you don't have a choice.


So... are you saying that it is in character, not to mention "good" to not only make a deal with the devil, but to sacrifice your wife and child for this???

I want to point out that he didn't knew about the child.
I would also like to remind you people the discussion wasn't about if OMD was good or bad but if the idea itself can be done well. Which I sitll argue that yes, it can.

[HandofShadows]

This comic just re-justifies why I stopped collecting them (except for Hellboy) years ago. :smallannoyed:

[Avilan the Grey]

I want to point out that he didn't knew about the child.
I would also like to remind you people the discussion wasn't about if OMD was good or bad but if the idea itself can be done well. Which I sitll argue that yes, it can.

Not knowing about the child is only making it better in the same way as putting a snowball in hell to cool it makes it better.

Anyway, no, the idea cannot be done well. Not with a true hero, like Spidey, Cap or Supes. An anti-hero bastard maybe, but it can NEVER be done well with a pure hero.

[LaZodiac]

Peter did know about the child. The little girl in the red dress was his daughter yet to be. Mephisto may of been using her form but she was the future for Peter and MJ if he didn't go through with the deal.

[Avilan the Grey]

Peter did know about the child. The little girl in the red dress was his daughter yet to be. Mephisto may of been using her form but she was the future for Peter and MJ if he didn't go through with the deal.

Thank you.

As for Superior... The more I read of Slott's comments it is clear that he has never understood what Spider-Man is about. He claims to be a true fanboy, yet he wants to write a "Darker Edgier 'Spiderman Batman'" (his actual words).

If you want to write Batman, write Batman. Or Moon Knight, if DC won't let you (they did, after all, turn down this very story: About a year ago he approached DC with this very story, but with Superman / Lex Luthor. They turned him down).

The whole point with Spider-Man is Peter Parker. You cannot replace Peter, because the comic is about Peter, not Spider-Man. Spider-Man was never the star of the comic, he was always just Peter with a mask on.

[Man on Fire]

Peter did know about the child. The little girl in the red dress was his daughter yet to be. Mephisto may of been using her form but she was the future for Peter and MJ if he didn't go through with the deal.

But he didn't knew that when he made that deal.


Anyway, no, the idea cannot be done well. Not with a true hero, like Spidey, Cap or Supes. An anti-hero bastard maybe, but it can NEVER be done well with a pure hero.

And this is where I disagree, as I explained before.

[Mando Knight]

Well yes, does anybody think if he'd asked Aunt May she'd have wanted him to destroy his marriage and his life to give her another few years of life.

Well, considering that "Aunt May is possibly on the brink of death" is one of the most common plot points in Spider-Man...

[Jerthanis]

Peter did know about the child. The little girl in the red dress was his daughter yet to be. Mephisto may of been using her form but she was the future for Peter and MJ if he didn't go through with the deal.

But it wasn't made explicit until after the deal had been struck, and the girl was trying to convince him not to go through with it IIRC.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I agree with Man on Fire that any story can be good if it is engaging. When characters seemingly don't behave consistently with their long established character traits, especially when they are tied to religious imagery, it comes off as cowardly. When the story was written to get people to a place, and not to just tell a good story, it feels like a waste of time.

This is why I wouldn't be too excited about the idea of a mind-swap to head toward a major character shift, because it feels like the writers are doing whatever they want to manipulate the tone and content of the book... a sort of shuffling of the roster, but in a solo book. In addition, the expectations out of the character of Doc Oc are totally null and void now because he's had such a change of heart that has shifted him from a supervillain to superhero, so no matter how he acts, it can be argued to be consistent, since it's so drastic a shift. He could be a total SOB and sure, because Doc Oc was so evil for so long. He could struggle mightily to do the right thing, and sure it makes sense, he's got Peter's memories now. There's no relatable basis for how he's shifted in personality.

In fact, I actually really like the idea of a supervillain deciding to become a superhero, and having a character shift like in Shocker: Legit... But the more fantastic elements are used to trigger such a shift, the less relatable it becomes.

Mind swapping is also worrisome because it can literally be retconned back to a status quo without a moment's notice, so it feels toothless.

[TheLaughingMan]

>I don't believe in objective good or objective evil either.

>What do believe in is that Mephisto is a villian and Spiderman is a good guy, and good guys trusting villians is never a good thing.

I'm not sure if B quite follows A.

[LaZodiac]

I'm not sure if B quite follows A.

I probably should of changed that, in retrospect. What I was getting at is that even if objective good and evil doesn't exist, we can sort of assume that "for the most part, Spiderman is a good guy, since he does heroic things. Sure, the villians don't like him so for them he is a bad guy, but for the most part, Spiderman is a good guy" and that "Mephisto is literally the Marvel version of Satan, so even if objective evil doesn't exist, Mephisto is still an evil person because, as said, he is literally Satan."

It's a strange kind of thought. Objective good and evil don't exist, but there are people who, due to their actions or nature, are able to make it look like there is. Maybe somebody just needs to feed Mephisto some pamcakes.

[Lurkmoar]

I long for the days when nobody stayed dead in comics except Uncle Ben, Bucky and Jason Todd.

From the looks of things, I made the right choice for myself to stop buying Spidey books when OMD came out. Still can't stop myself from asking other folks about it/looking into it...

[Avilan the Grey]

I long for the days when nobody stayed dead in comics except Uncle Ben, Bucky and Jason Todd.

I find the funniest thing Slott's attitude. The dead-set "You are lying to yourselves if you think this is not permanent! This is the real deal! FOREVER!!! Peter is DEAD!!!".

Either he is lying to himself, or he is told to say these things by Marvel.

[TheLaughingMan]

I probably should of changed that, in retrospect. What I was getting at is that even if objective good and evil doesn't exist, we can sort of assume that "for the most part, Spiderman is a good guy, since he does heroic things. Sure, the villians don't like him so for them he is a bad guy, but for the most part, Spiderman is a good guy"

And what precisely about doing heroic things is good if there is no objective good or evil?

[LaZodiac]

And what precisely about doing heroic things is good if there is no objective good or evil?

the people who are effected by it in a good way feel good, I imagine. I should also clarify that the belief is only something I kind of believe in, and only in relation to reality. Comic books can totally have clear black and white stuff if they want or need. Reality works a little differently and not EVERY situation is black or white. But sometimes it also is.

[Mando Knight]

I long for the days when nobody stayed dead in comics except Uncle Ben, Bucky and Jason Todd.

And, y'know, two of the three stopped staying dead.

[TheLaughingMan]

the people who are effected by it in a good way feel good, I imagine.

But why is what they feel good? How can it effect them in a good manner if there is no good?



And, y'know, two of the three stopped staying dead.

Wasn't one of those replaced with Gwen Stacy somewhere down the line? Just curious.

[Man on Fire]

In fact, I actually really like the idea of a supervillain deciding to become a superhero, and having a character shift like in Shocker: Legit... But the more fantastic elements are used to trigger such a shift, the less relatable it becomes.

And what do you think about recently finished Kieron Gillen's Journey Into Mystery with Kid Loki?

[Lurkmoar]

And, y'know, two of the three stopped staying dead.

I know. That's why I said I long for those days. :smallcool:

[Jerthanis]

And what precisely about doing heroic things is good if there is no objective good or evil?

...That it's subjectively good?


But why is what they feel good? How can it effect them in a good manner if there is no good?


Good is perhaps a poor term. Perhaps "Generally promotes the health, happiness, safety or freedoms of an individual" works better. Saving them from dying at the hands of a supervillain promotes all those things, and so it is said to be good. There's nothing about this that requires the good or evil nature be imposed objectively, it could be that a state of health, happiness, safety and freedom has to be judged by each person individually and make their choices based on that judgement.

[Avilan the Grey]

And what precisely about doing heroic things is good if there is no objective good or evil?

I am sorry, but I don't think that this kind of philosphical discussion is relevant in real life (or Spider-Man). If you really feel the need to question this, I pity you. For real.

[TheLaughingMan]

Good is perhaps a poor term. Perhaps "Generally promotes the health, happiness, safety or freedoms of an individual" works better. Saving them from dying at the hands of a supervillain promotes all those things, and so it is said to be good. There's nothing about this that requires the good or evil nature be imposed objectively, it could be that a state of health, happiness, safety and freedom has to be judged by each person individually and make their choices based on that judgement.

But why are the freedoms, health, happiness, and safety of others a priority over the same things pertaining to oneself? If it is about furthering humanity, why should I care about furthering humanity? If it is about helping society, why should I care about helping society?

(I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, comrade. These are simply the most common responses I received regarding this question, and I do not want to remain off-topic for too long).


I am sorry, but I don't think that this kind of philosphical discussion is relevant in real life (or Spider-Man). If you really feel the need to question this, I pity you. For real.

Oh no, I have entirely different philosophical leanings. I'm merely trying to get to the bottom of a philosophy I don't quite understand. The answers I've been getting have been very insubstantial, so I press a bit further.

I suppose though, yes, I've gotten a bit off track, as this is a One More Day topic after all. Carry on. :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[soir8]

Hey guys, there's been a preview released of Superior Spider-Man, and it looks to have much potential to amuse.

The first challenge Spider-Oc encounters is a team of D-listers who have unfortunately (for them) appropriated the name Sinister Six. Spider-Oc is unlikely to take this well...

Keep in mind; Spider-Oc punched Scorpion's jaw clean off when he threatened Aunt May. He probably still has yet to get used to his new super-strength. This could be very messy. Hilariously messy.

[TheLaughingMan]

Keep in mind; Spider-Oc punched Scorpion's jaw clean off when he threatened Aunt May.

Wait a moment. Didn't Doctor Octopus have a crush on Aunt May at some point?

I really hope I'm just remembering incorrectly. :smallfrown:

[kpenguin]

Wait a moment. Didn't Doctor Octopus have a crush on Aunt May at some point?

I really hope I'm just remembering incorrectly. :smallfrown:

They actually dated and were about to get married. While Ock was doing it mostly to get access to a thing Aunt May inherited, he did express a fondness for her.

[TheLaughingMan]

They actually dated and were about to get married. While Ock was doing it mostly to get access to a thing Aunt May inherited, he did express a fondness for her.

Welp, this retool just got way more creepy than it had any right to be.

[Avilan the Grey]

Welp, this retool just got way more creepy than it had any right to be.


Yes, because SpOck is so definitely going to tell MJ that he is his own arch enemy any minute now... so the only creepy thing is that he used to date the aunt 10 years ago... :smallwink::smallyuk:

It IS quite surprising to me a lot of women are up in arms about this part of the whole gig.

[Foeofthelance]

So... are you saying that it is in character, not to mention "good" to not only make a deal with the devil, but to sacrifice your wife and child for this??? Seriously??? The only way I can read this is that Peter was a highly-functioning sociopath all along and really never cared about anyone, period.

That's because I think you are conflating three different things from what I can tell. Yes, it is in character for Peter to make a decision like this, because Peter's whole schtick is punishing himself for the first mistake. Which leads to him making more mistakes/hurting more people, requiring him to redeem himself for those as well. It doesn't help that he's more of an emotional character than a logical one. Peter sees this as the responsible choice because 1) he is the only one to suffer for it (since MJ isn't supposed to remember) and it means those he loves and cares about are still safe. He gets screwed, everyone get's a happy life, therefore all is right with the world.

Second, he doesn't "sacrifice his wife and child". MJ comes out alive and well, is still friends and romantically involved with Peter, they just didn't get married because of his career. May's presence was as a hypothetical, a presentation of futures that might have been if he let Aunt May die. All Mephisto got out of the deal was cutting off a future where Peter may or may not have been happier. He was basically in it for the kicks of watching Peter agonize over the decision.

Now, whether this is good is another matter entirely. I'm not saying it is, and in fact that Peter made a damned stupid decision, but then it was a damned stupid story line to begin with.

[VanBuren]

Not knowing about the child is only making it better in the same way as putting a snowball in hell to cool it makes it better.

Anyway, no, the idea cannot be done well. Not with a true hero, like Spidey, Cap or Supes. An anti-hero bastard maybe, but it can NEVER be done well with a pure hero.

Sure it can, you just have to make sure the downside to the bargain applies exclusively to the hero. Make them be the martyr. I can't use a sort of example, because it strays a little over the religious territory. But I think the idea of sacrificing your own self for the sake of others, even when your eternal soul is at stake, is something that can be used in conjunction.

It takes careful structuring, but I see no reason why it couldn't be done.


I am sorry, but I don't think that this kind of philosphical discussion is relevant in real life (or Spider-Man). If you really feel the need to question this, I pity you. For real.

:smallsigh:

I personally believe in an objective good and evil, but I'd just love to be told that someone pitied me because I didn't share their views.

[Avilan the Grey]

:smallsigh:

I personally believe in an objective good and evil, but I'd just love to be told that someone pitied me because I didn't share their views.

The pity was not "because he didn't share my views". The pity was because if he truly do not see the point of doing good for the sake of doing good even if there is no objective "good", I feel truly sorry for him. If you world is so bleak, or if you are that cynical, then yes, I pity you.

[TheLaughingMan]

The pity was not "because he didn't share my views". The pity was because if he truly do not see the point of doing good for the sake of doing good even if there is no objective "good", I feel truly sorry for him. If you world is so bleak, or if you are that cynical, then yes, I pity you.

If there is no objective good, then who's to keep me from saying what Doc Ock does is good, for example? If I'm doing good for good's sake in such a case, then I become as formidable a villain as most members of the rogue's gallery.

"Just do more good" can't be the answer to the problem, because doing more good means creating even more chaos. You are akin to asking a blind person to just "try seeing more."

[Avilan the Grey]

If there is no objective good, then who's to keep me from saying what Doc Ock does is good, for example? If I'm doing good for good's sake in such a case, then I become as formidable a villain as most members of the rogue's gallery.

"Just do more good" can't be the answer to the problem, because doing more good means creating even more chaos. You are akin to asking a blind person to just "try seeing more."

I definitely do not agree with you. To always try to make good is what everyone should do, always.

[VanBuren]

I definitely do not agree with you. To always try to make good is what everyone should do, always.

But what does that mean if there is no objective good? All good would be subjective, and your subjective good might very well be someone else's subjective evil.

However, such moral ambiguity is probably not at play in most comics, and it's usually clear when it is. I disagree that these conversations have no real world applications, but the problem is just its inverse: these conversations really don't have much applicability to Spider-Man.

[willpell]

The whole point with Spider-Man is Peter Parker. You cannot replace Peter, because the comic is about Peter, not Spider-Man. Spider-Man was never the star of the comic, he was always just Peter with a mask on.

Completely disagree.

[Jerthanis]

But why are the freedoms, health, happiness, and safety of others a priority over the same things pertaining to oneself? If it is about furthering humanity, why should I care about furthering humanity? If it is about helping society, why should I care about helping society?

Basically, you decide what you prioritize, the health, happiness, safety, freedom of yourself or the health, happiness, safety, and freedom of others. Worth noting is that for the most part superheroes value that of others higher than their own and supervillains value others less... but it's Superheroes who tend to be happier, healthier, safer, and freer.

It's possible you don't consider this heroic... but then you'd have to define heroic and I'll see what I can do.

But this is really besides the point... whether subjective morality is well reasoned and sound or not, it's clear Peter believes in objective morality. His decision to do what he surely must have thought was an objectively evil act therefore doesn't ring true. Unless he like... stopped being a Christian at some point, or Mephisto is considered essentially a Sufficiently Powerful Alien, rather than a cosmological evil force, and the similarity of his name and appearance to Mephistopheles is purely coincidental. But these are important details that OMD is mostly not interested in addressing, and they are the critical elements that this story turns on.

[Man on Fire]

The pity was because if he truly do not see the point of doing good for the sake of doing good even if there is no objective "good", I feel truly sorry for him. If you world is so bleak, or if you are that cynical, then yes, I pity you.

So in other words you pity him because he didn't share your views? :smallbiggrin:

[TheLaughingMan]

So in other words you pity him because he didn't share your views? :smallbiggrin:

For the record, being a religious person, I'm sort of obligated to lean towards an objective viewpoint. But I'm not about to let a poor argument, even if it's in my favor, slip pass my notice. :smalltongue:

With that said, though, I must say Superior Spider-Man, just as a concept, baffles me on numerous levels. If they wanted Pete to be an "anti-hero" again, why not just bring back the symbiote?


Basically, you decide what you prioritize, the health, happiness, safety, freedom of yourself or the health, happiness, safety, and freedom of others. Worth noting is that for the most part superheroes value that of others higher than their own and supervillains value others less... but it's Superheroes who tend to be happier, healthier, safer, and freer.

It's possible you don't consider this heroic... but then you'd have to define heroic and I'll see what I can do.

This claim rather contradicts evidence we can see from the heroes themselves. Peter Parker is certainly seldom safe or free, as One More Day would demonstrate. You might argue happiness, but then we are back to the whole "killing innocents makes me happy" deal. Healthier? It's really case by case with that one. He may be healthier than Doc Ock, for instance, but a good number of other villains seem reasonably fit.

In truth, most of the Spider-Man mythos seems to echo the fact that being good is not easy, and at times may seem to carry no benefit. With great power comes great responsibility, after all.


But this is really besides the point... whether subjective morality is well reasoned and sound or not, it's clear Peter believes in objective morality.

True. Sorry for having dragged us so far off topic.

[Avilan the Grey]

Completely disagree.

Really? You must have been reading a different Spidey than I. Admittedly, as you know I have not read any new issues since OMD, but before that I read it for almost 30 years. The whole theme of the book is Peter and what he is going through.


With that said, though, I must say Superior Spider-Man, just as a concept, baffles me on numerous levels. If they wanted Pete to be an "anti-hero" again, why not just bring back the symbiote?

I am more baffled that they try to pull this again at all. Spidey does not an anti-hero make. Marvel already has 10+ anti-heroes, petition to write one of those!

As I said before:
If we wanted to read Batman, we would read Batman.
If he wanted to write Batman, he should write Batman.

All this mess definitely proves that we ARE back in the late 1990ies, the worst decade for Superheror comics, period.

[willpell]

Really? You must have been reading a different Spidey than I. Admittedly, as you know I have not read any new issues since OMD, but before that I read it for almost 30 years. The whole theme of the book is Peter and what he is going through.

I simply believe that the essence of the character is the set of powers, the costume, the backstory, and the general theme, and that all of this remains valid if transferred to a different person. In essence I believe "spider-man" is a "job description" that any person can fulfill, so long as they meet the prerequisites.


All this mess definitely proves that we ARE back in the late 1990ies, the worst decade for Superheror comics, period.

I'd say the worst decade for superhero comics was the 1950s, when they basically didn't exist.

[soir8]

Wait a moment. Didn't Doctor Octopus have a crush on Aunt May at some point?

I really hope I'm just remembering incorrectly. :smallfrown:

This is why he punched Scorpion's jaw off.

"YOU WILL NOT HARM THAT DEAR SWEET LADY!"

I thought it was a nice touch to make that the first point of common ground between Octavius and Parker; their mutual devotion to Aunt May. And there is a hilariously squicky scene in which Peter's memories of his aunt start to merge with Otto's memories of his wedding...

[Avilan the Grey]

I'd say the worst decade for superhero comics was the 1950s, when they basically didn't exist.

But that is like saying the worst years for automobiles were the 1890ies...

[Man on Fire]

All this mess definitely proves that we ARE back in the late 1990ies, the worst decade for Superheror comics, period.

So you're saying that what's happening to one popular character from one big company is enough to decide of the state of entire american comic book industry? Despite there being loads and loads of comics that prove otherwise and would never even had a chance at being published in late 90s?

[VanBuren]

But that is like saying the worst years for automobiles were the 1890ies...

*nods*

General Motors had an all-time low for revenue.

[Avilan the Grey]

So you're saying that what's happening to one popular character from one big company is enough to decide of the state of entire american comic book industry? Despite there being loads and loads of comics that prove otherwise and would never even had a chance at being published in late 90s?

No. I am saying what happens at Marvel and DC (especially DC) proves we are sliding back into the 90ies. It's getting darker, grittier and "angstier" by the issue.

The "Death" of Peter Parker and the creepiness that follows is just an excellent example to point out.

[Man on Fire]

No. I am saying what happens at Marvel and DC (especially DC) proves we are sliding back into the 90ies. It's getting darker, grittier and "angstier" by the issue.

The "Death" of Peter Parker and the creepiness that follows is just an excellent example to point out.

So you mean, you are ignoring many good comics outside the big two and even inside the big two that doesn't fit your argument, yes? Lets see what the same company has to offer aside grimdark spider-man:

Marvel currently has a lot of comics either already there or soon to get started that don't fit your argument here. Journey Into Mystery, both recently finished brilliant Kieron Gillen run with Kid Loki, and new Kathryn Immoen adventorus run with Lady Sif and throwback to the silver age (as she literally brings back one of monsters from original JiM before Thor debuted there), very good and very girl power Captain Marvel by Kelly Sue DeConnick, kid-friendly FF by Matt Fraction, most of Avengers titles (I would make the case only for Avengers Arena and Uncanny Avengers of being really dark), nothing really look that dark about two upcoming Wolverine series, there is a Deadpool series that doesn't suck, from what I heard new Hawkeye and Gambit ongoings aren't dark either, X-Factor is always of good quality, while both Bendis X-men books are serious it's hard to call them 90s, even Daredevil isn't grimdark anymore and Hulk seems to be following his footsteps.

The only comics I could call "90s" from current Marvel are Avengers Arena, Venom, Cable & X-Force, Scarlet Spider, Superior Spider-Man and Uncanny Avenger, but from that one I saw only one page (this one (http://insidepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/red-skull-xavier.jpeg)) so it's hard to say (and o nthe other hand writer demanded them to give Scarlet Witch more sensible uniform than her usual stripper outfit). New Uncanny X-Force aren't there yet so I cannot judge and both Thor and Wolverine & X-Men are by Jason aaron, so it's hard to tell, this guy can jump from dramatic to grotesque without thinking.

[willpell]

But that is like saying the worst years for automobiles were the 1890ies...

No, the 1890s were before automobiles were invented, which for comics would be like the 1910s. The 1950s were a time when comic books, superhero ones specifically, were being crusaded against as threats to the moral purity of america. It was after the WW2 boom and before the Silver Age began (mostly due to the premiere of the Fantastic Four); for like ten years there was almost nothing but Westerns and romance novels being published in comic form.

[Avilan the Grey]

No, the 1890s were before automobiles were invented, which for comics would be like the 1910s. The 1950s were a time when comic books, superhero ones specifically, were being crusaded against as threats to the moral purity of america. It was after the WW2 boom and before the Silver Age began (mostly due to the premiere of the Fantastic Four); for like ten years there was almost nothing but Westerns and romance novels being published in comic form.

Cars were invented before 1890. Ford didn't build a car until 1896, but there are other countries. And manufacturers.

My point is that your argument is weird; to cite the decade of their infancy as "their worst time" is not a logical argument to me.


So you mean, you are ignoring many good comics outside the big two and even inside the big two that doesn't fit your argument, yes? Lets see what the same company has to offer aside grimdark spider-man:

Marvel currently has a lot of comics either already there or soon to get started that don't fit your argument here. Journey Into Mystery, both recently finished brilliant Kieron Gillen run with Kid Loki, and new Kathryn Immoen adventorus run with Lady Sif and throwback to the silver age (as she literally brings back one of monsters from original JiM before Thor debuted there), very good and very girl power Captain Marvel by Kelly Sue DeConnick, kid-friendly FF by Matt Fraction, most of Avengers titles (I would make the case only for Avengers Arena and Uncanny Avengers of being really dark), nothing really look that dark about two upcoming Wolverine series, there is a Deadpool series that doesn't suck, from what I heard new Hawkeye and Gambit ongoings aren't dark either, X-Factor is always of good quality, while both Bendis X-men books are serious it's hard to call them 90s, even Daredevil isn't grimdark anymore and Hulk seems to be following his footsteps.

The only comics I could call "90s" from current Marvel are Avengers Arena, Venom, Cable & X-Force, Scarlet Spider, Superior Spider-Man and Uncanny Avenger, but from that one I saw only one page (this one (http://insidepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/red-skull-xavier.jpeg)) so it's hard to say (and o nthe other hand writer demanded them to give Scarlet Witch more sensible uniform than her usual stripper outfit). New Uncanny X-Force aren't there yet so I cannot judge and both Thor and Wolverine & X-Men are by Jason aaron, so it's hard to tell, this guy can jump from dramatic to grotesque without thinking.

I said "mostly DC". Their "New 52" lineup is very clearly inspired by the 1990ies.
The "Marvel Now" thing that is coming now is... smelling equally foul.

[Man on Fire]

I said "mostly DC". Their "New 52" lineup is very clearly inspired by the 1990ies.
The "Marvel Now" thing that is coming now is... smelling equally foul.

That last sentence forces me to point out that you just ignored all good series I from Marvel Now I listed that don't fit your argument or doesn't look that way, to continue complaining and making board generalisations. I'm brining specific arguments and examples to counteract your point and what your response is? Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la la I'm not listening!", apparently.

[VanBuren]

No, the 1890s were before automobiles were invented, which for comics would be like the 1910s. The 1950s were a time when comic books, superhero ones specifically, were being crusaded against as threats to the moral purity of america. It was after the WW2 boom and before the Silver Age began (mostly due to the premiere of the Fantastic Four); for like ten years there was almost nothing but Westerns and romance novels being published in comic form.

I feel obligated to point out that the Benz Patent-Motorwagen dates to 1886.

Whether or not anything before that really counted as an automobile is sketchy. But we have designs for a steam-powered vehicle from China that date back to 1672.

/spergin

[Avilan the Grey]

That last sentence forces me to point out that you just ignored all good series I from Marvel Now I listed that don't fit your argument or doesn't look that way, to continue complaining and making board generalisations. I'm brining specific arguments and examples to counteract your point and what your response is? Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la la I'm not listening!", apparently.

We'll see what happens. I don't trust Marvel, period. However, as I pointed out, it is DC that leads the charge on this one, which I have repeatedly pointed out.

[kpenguin]

Cars were invented before 1890. Ford didn't build a car until 1896, but there are other countries. And manufacturers.

My point is that your argument is weird; to cite the decade of their infancy as "their worst time" is not a logical argument to me.

Yes, but cars didn't bloom until the next century. Superhero comics had already enjoyed a large level of prosperity before the 1950's. Arguably, superheroes existed before the Golden Age and the debut of Superman in 1938, but it wasn't until that era where superheroes really took off and in a big big big way. I mean, Captain Marvel was selling 1.3 million copies a month, the sort of numbers that dwarf modern sales by a staggering amount.

Then, to go from that to the post-War era and into the 50's, where superheroes all but disappeared for a handful of reasons... I'd say labelling that sharp decline as the worst decade for superheroes isn't far fetched at all.

[Jayngfet]

That last sentence forces me to point out that you just ignored all good series I from Marvel Now I listed that don't fit your argument or doesn't look that way, to continue complaining and making board generalisations. I'm brining specific arguments and examples to counteract your point and what your response is? Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la la I'm not listening!", apparently.

Your argument relies on the idea that everybody has the time and or money to actually read this stuff in addition to whatever it is they already wanted to get.

What we're saying is that the stuff that either looks interesting or appealed to us looks foul. Which it does. If you have an almost entirely unrelated thing in the same line you claim is good, that's fine. But we can neither take your word at face value nor confirm it without spending time we may not have to spare.

[willpell]

My point is that your argument is weird; to cite the decade of their infancy as "their worst time" is not a logical argument to me.

Which is why I did not do that; please read again. Comic books existed before and after the 1950s, but only barely during them.


Arguably, superheroes existed before the Golden Age and the debut of Superman in 1938

This really depends on what you define as a "superhero", but one of the key possible candidates, the Phantom Lady, was also the poster-child for the supposed corrupting-the-innocent qualities that were decried by certain spokespersons at the start of the 50s (because she had large breasts, a skimpy costume, and a tendency to end up in bondage...all of which was also true of Wonder Woman but for whatever reason it was PL they picked on instead), and they convinced enough people to render the industry practically anathema until Stan Lee came along.


Then, to go from that to the post-War era and into the 50's, where superheroes all but disappeared for a handful of reasons... I'd say labelling that sharp decline as the worst decade for superheroes isn't far fetched at all.

Thanks kpenguin, this is what I was saying.


But we can neither take your word at face value nor confirm it without spending time we may not have to spare.

For this reason I would recommend that those on the "yay awesome" side of the aisle think hard and pick the *absolute best* single issue of a comic to recommend to their doubters. Arcs are all well and good, but if you want an ambassador to persuade someone to your point of view, brevity is your friend.

[Man on Fire]

For me worst decade of comics was Silver Age, time where creators were treated even worse than now, CCA told people what not to write, editors decided what to write and there was no consistency or continuity between the issues of the same comics. Say hat you want about current comic, at least we didn't have Jimmy Olsen turning into a werewolf by completely unrelated reasons every 3 months.

[Lurkmoar]

True story:

Jimmy Olsen transformed into a werewolf at least twice. You forgot to mention that the editors/writers of the Silver Age would often reuse old stories because kids didn't pay attention.

[Jayngfet]

True story:

Jimmy Olsen transformed into a werewolf at least twice. You forgot to mention that the editors/writers of the Silver Age would often reuse old stories because kids didn't pay attention.

I think until a few years ago Archie Comics still did this. Since Archie has been consistently done on the same lowish quality paper with a fairly consistent style and coloring technique, you could actually get stories that might literally be reused panel for panel for 5-10 years, often multiple times a year.

I think the only real reason they didn't try to get away with it for longer than that is because it becomes noticeable after a while since the minor cast of characters varied notably by decade beyond the core group. It'd probably get awkward really fast if Archie tried pushing a story with Cricket O'Dell in it today simply because she'd stick out like a sore thumb.

[Avilan the Grey]

True story:

Jimmy Olsen transformed into a werewolf at least twice. You forgot to mention that the editors/writers of the Silver Age would often reuse old stories because kids didn't pay attention.

Heck you can tell that just by looking at old covers. When the cover (with the classic cheezy "Shocking" dialogues, like "*GASP!* Superman is forcing me to marry a quidman!" "Muahahaha Louis! You are not worthy of being my girlfriend! I will sforce you to marry this squidman instead!") often repeated the same setup for the same stories. Right there on the covers.

"I can't let Superman see that I am turning into a werewolf!"
And then 2 years later...
"If only there was a way to hide me being a werewolf from superman!"

Etc...

Although they are good for a laugh though. :smallbiggrin:

[Traab]

I think until a few years ago Archie Comics still did this. Since Archie has been consistently done on the same lowish quality paper with a fairly consistent style and coloring technique, you could actually get stories that might literally be reused panel for panel for 5-10 years, often multiple times a year.

I think the only real reason they didn't try to get away with it for longer than that is because it becomes noticeable after a while since the minor cast of characters varied notably by decade beyond the core group. It'd probably get awkward really fast if Archie tried pushing a story with Cricket O'Dell in it today simply because she'd stick out like a sore thumb.

Considering the rather limited amount of things that can happen in archie land, I cant say im surprised. I mean, there is only so many things that can happen in a small town without bringing in the supernatural or science fiction. There are only so many whacky spy versus spy competitions between betty and veronica that can take place in a world that is fairly normal.

[Scowling Dragon]

And the invention of the internet has an effect on things. A superhero can't fart in one issue without it being written down somewhere on the net to be complained about later.

[Jayngfet]

Considering the rather limited amount of things that can happen in archie land, I cant say im surprised. I mean, there is only so many things that can happen in a small town without bringing in the supernatural or science fiction. There are only so many whacky spy versus spy competitions between betty and veronica that can take place in a world that is fairly normal.

No, even the supernatural and sci fi stuff they threw in after a while got repeated. Jughead as a time traveling space cop reran for something like fifteen years in various issues even after the six issue series built around it stopped being published. Or at least, they were still being reprinted in the digests when I stopped reading as a kid.

[Kris Strife]

They could do a lot with Archie, depending how canon this one is.

http://igrylya.ru/img2/512.jpg

[Jayngfet]

They could do a lot with Archie, depending how canon this one is.

I think the answer is "no more canon than anything else". Archie comics never bothered to even pretend about continuity. If they want to write something weird they pretty much just do it and don't even bother with a justification unless it's a part of the same multi-part story or based on one done in the last month or two.

[Man on Fire]

On the other hand, Archie in recent years seems to have started getting more and more interesting concepts - introducing gay characters and interracial romance, not to mention long-estabilished character dying of cancer. And those alternate futures where Archie married either Betty or Veronica seems to be into some serious stuff too (I once stumbed upon that comics and opened it. You can imagine my face after seeing it opens on Jugghead in prison).

And speaking of which:
http://comiccritics.com/comics/2009-08-19_cc_082.gif

[Aotrs Commander]

And speaking of which:
http://comiccritics.com/comics/2009-08-19_cc_082.gif

Ooooh! Ahahahahaha! Burn! Take that, Marvel!

[Fragenstein]

"*GASP!* Superman is forcing me to marry a quidman!"

Come, Pencelad! We'll pound this sterling sociopath until his crime spree goes into a recession! And you can bank on that!

[Avilan the Grey]

Come, Pencelad! We'll pound this sterling sociopath until his crime spree goes into a recession! And you can bank on that!

Yeah. Sure. Make fun of the guy that forgets to spellcheck.

:smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[LaZodiac]

I've actually expieranced the "they reuse stories" bit. Except the story that reused the panels also used some new ones, and actually ended up being completely different despite having the same set up. It was a wierd trip.

Also, Archie DID marry Betty. Then it was a dream issue.

[Jayngfet]

On the other hand, Archie in recent years seems to have started getting more and more interesting concepts - introducing gay characters and interracial romance, not to mention long-estabilished character dying of cancer. And those alternate futures where Archie married either Betty or Veronica seems to be into some serious stuff too (I once stumbed upon that comics and opened it. You can imagine my face after seeing it opens on Jugghead in prison).

And speaking of which:
http://comiccritics.com/comics/2009-08-19_cc_082.gif

Eh, those aren't exactly new in the grand scheme of things. Every 5-10 years Archie introduces one or two minority characters who are for the most part gone by the time they introduce the next ones. Even if Kevin Keller is a big deal now I honestly don't expect him to be around in like, ten years. Likewise, "archie picks a girl/grows up" is something they've done over and over and over and made actual movies off of. This just looks new to YOU because you probably haven't seen most of the other stuff.

Besides, all this is marginal stuff with the bulk of the things you mentioned happening in AU stories. The actual main archie Digests that sell well are all about the same old characters doing the same things as always.

[Man on Fire]

Your argument relies on the idea that everybody has the time and or money to actually read this stuff in addition to whatever it is they already wanted to get.

What we're saying is that the stuff that either looks interesting or appealed to us looks foul. Which it does. If you have an almost entirely unrelated thing in the same line you claim is good, that's fine. But we can neither take your word at face value nor confirm it without spending time we may not have to spare.

Didn't noticed that post before.
That argument doesn't really change anything - just because you dont like what they did/do with characters you like doesn't give you a right to declare that their entire line of publishing sucks.

That way of approach when buying comics today doesn't simply work. You shouldn't be following the characters, you should be following creators. You should be keeping an eye on some review site or show or just single reviewer and listen to heir opinons and recommendations. You should drop bad comics at the first issue when they start to suck and buy something else in it's place. Following Spider-Man just because you like Spider-man doesn't work in modern comics fandom.

[Aotrs Commander]

Didn't noticed that post before.
That argument doesn't really change anything - just because you dont like what they did/do with characters you like doesn't give you a right to declare that their entire line of publishing sucks.

That way of approach when buying comics today doesn't simply work. You shouldn't be following the characters, you should be following creators. You should be keeping an eye on some review site or show or just single reviewer and listen to heir opinons and recommendations. You should drop bad comics at the first issue when they start to suck and buy something else in it's place. Following Spider-Man just because you like Spider-man doesn't work in modern comics fandom.

And that is fundementally wrong-headed of the comic industry. If I can't read about the characters that I'm interested in, then I don't give a rat's arse about the rest, regardless of who the writer is. I don't follow writers at the best of times (with the possible exception of books, and even then with a pinch of salt - and nowadays, I only buy a handful a year for holiday reading).

So it's dead simple. I'm voting with my wallet. If they stop writing about the characters that I like, the characters that got me interested in comics in the first place, I'm simply going to stop giving them money until they do, exactly the same as I've been buying less and less computer games because they're making less games I want to play. Comics are no longer cheap and I have no sympathy left for marketing ploys, so if I end up not getting any more comics after Regeneration One and My Little Pony ends, then fine. I'll spend my money on something else.

I'm sorry, but I won't support any business if they're not giving me what I want.

[Friv]

And that is fundementally wrong-headed of the comic industry. If I can't read about the characters that I'm interested in, then I don't give a rat's arse about the rest, regardless of who the writer is. I don't follow writers at the best of times (with the possible exception of books, and even then with a pinch of salt - and nowadays, I only buy a handful a year for holiday reading).

So it's dead simple. I'm voting with my wallet. If they stop writing about the characters that I like, the characters that got me interested in comics in the first place, I'm simply going to stop giving them money until they do, exactly the same as I've been buying less and less computer games because they're making less games I want to play. Comics are no longer cheap and I have no sympathy left for marketing ploys, so if I end up not getting any more comics after Regeneration One and My Little Pony ends, then fine. I'll spend my money on something else.

I'm sorry, but I won't support any business if they're not giving me what I want.

That's a pretty common attitude, and it's one of the reasons that comics are failing.

If people only go to look at the characters that got them interested in the first place, new characters will never gain enough of a foothold to succeed, and instead we'll get the same rehashed stories over and over for all eternity.

I never buy comics for the guys that got me interested, because I stopped caring about them when they got old and repetitive to me. I'd much rather move on, discover a new character, read a new story. Something different.

[Aotrs Commander]

That's a pretty common attitude, and it's one of the reasons that comics are failing.

If people only go to look at the characters that got them interested in the first place, new characters will never gain enough of a foothold to succeed, and instead we'll get the same rehashed stories over and over for all eternity.

I never buy comics for the guys that got me interested, because I stopped caring about them when they got old and repetitive to me. I'd much rather move on, discover a new character, read a new story. Something different.

I don't have any particular loyalty to any particular medium. I'm not interested in comics because they're comics, I'm interested in them because they're stories about characters I want stories told about. (And if I want to read/watch/etc new stories about new characters - there are FAR cheaper alternatives than comics.) If they started doing more X-Men novels that were better than the comics (not hard currently), I would have no compunction in switching to them, without even batting an eyeglow. Heck, I do tend to prefer cartoons as the medium, and really got into comics to carry on the stories I'd seen on the telly (which is, broadly, the same reason I started reading fanfic way back, for that matter.)

And the fact remains that if comics are indeed failing, for that reason, because the implied majority want good stories about those characters and they aren't getting them or something... well, honestly: hard lines, comic industry. It's that simple. If you aren't prepared or aren't able to give your preported prior customers what they want, well, nothing doing chaps, sorry. If you're not selling anything I want to buy, I don't care about what happens to you, and you can sit on the shelf along with all the thousands or millions of other companies who make products I don't give a flying frag about.

[Man on Fire]

I don't have any particular loyalty to any particular medium. I'm not interested in comics because they're comics, I'm interested in them because they're stories about characters I want stories told about. (And if I want to read/watch/etc new stories about new characters - there are FAR cheaper alternatives than comics.) If they started doing more X-Men novels that were better than the comics (not hard currently), I would have no compunction in switching to them, without even batting an eyeglow. Heck, I do tend to prefer cartoons as the medium, and really got into comics to carry on the stories I'd seen on the telly (which is, broadly, the same reason I started reading fanfic way back, for that matter.)

And the fact remains that if comics are indeed failing, for that reason, because the implied majority want good stories about those characters and they aren't getting them or something... well, honestly: hard lines, comic industry. It's that simple. If you aren't prepared or aren't able to give your preported prior customers what they want, well, nothing doing chaps, sorry. If you're not selling anything I want to buy, I don't care about what happens to you, and you can sit on the shelf along with all the thousands or millions of other companies who make products I don't give a flying frag about.

The problem is that we are getting good stories, but not about the big name characters that really got repetitive and tired after 50 years. Sorry, but there is a limited amount of good stories you can tell with a character, Spider-Man went through 700 isues of his main ongoing, not to mention additional hundreds of issues of other ongoings, miniseries, one-shots, cameos and crossovers. I say that you really cannot tell more good and new stories with him, really all good stories since OMD were just reheshals of his old stories, tied to his old stories or repeating what happened with his old stories. Made even worse by Marvel's "put your toys back in the box" policy, that means writers should undo all the changes once they're finished, so rarerly people have a chance to toy with new status quo. The reason why we're getting bullmanure like Superior Spider-man is your mentality - people like you don't want good stories, they want stories about characters they like, preferrably good, and they ran out of their date of use long time ago, so writers are trying even most stupid things in hope people like you may like them. Meanwhile good series are cancelled thanks to low sales, because people like you refuse to even try anything outside their comfort zone and find new heroes, always living in land of their childhood characters.

I said it and I'm gonna repeat it:
I belive that characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and Wolverine have been around so long that their potential to tell a good and new story ran off.

Also, the problem is that people are more willing to buy a bad story about character they know and like than a good story about one less known to them. Back when She-Hulk's last ongoing was canceled for low sales, despite being pretty well written and entertaining, Jeph Loeb universally hated run on Hulk was selling like fresh bread, just because it's Hulk.

[Friv]

I don't have any particular loyalty to any particular medium. I'm not interested in comics because they're comics, I'm interested in them because they're stories about characters I want stories told about. (And if I want to read/watch/etc new stories about new characters - there are FAR cheaper alternatives than comics.) If they started doing more X-Men novels that were better than the comics (not hard currently), I would have no compunction in switching to them, without even batting an eyeglow. Heck, I do tend to prefer cartoons as the medium, and really got into comics to carry on the stories I'd seen on the telly (which is, broadly, the same reason I started reading fanfic way back, for that matter.)

And the fact remains that if comics are indeed failing, for that reason, because the implied majority want good stories about those characters and they aren't getting them or something... well, honestly: hard lines, comic industry. It's that simple. If you aren't prepared or aren't able to give your preported prior customers what they want, well, nothing doing chaps, sorry. If you're not selling anything I want to buy, I don't care about what happens to you, and you can sit on the shelf along with all the thousands or millions of other companies who make products I don't give a flying frag about.

There is nothing more poisonous to the spread of good media than a blind devotion to characters who have long since passed their expiration dates. It is the attitude that gives us Transformers 2, or dredges up a new Indiana Jones movie, or results in Amazing Spider-Man selling 700 subpar issues.

It is very common in all forms of media, but Marvel and DC comics have pandered to it for decades. Wolverine is in every issue! Spiderman has joined twelve superhero teams! Thrill as Batman interacts with every member of the Justice League in their own comics, because he's Batman!

And by pandering to it, they have driven those characters into the ground, transforming them into snarls of continuity that almost no one can write good stories for. They won't do a proper restart of the comics, because their "fans" howl with rage when they do. They won't let the characters die, because their "fans" howl even louder. They jump through increasingly absurd hoops to try and keep their stories current, without solving the underlying problem that nothing is allowed to change, so every reset relies on ever-more-ludicrous gimmickry which everyone knows won't last.

It is a blind fear of discovering something new. I do not believe in loyalty to characters. Characters are bunk, and they have no inherent value beyond that given to them by their authors (illustrators/actors/etc). I don't read Order of the Stick because of my deep fondness for Belkar, and if I tuned in tomorrow and this comic was now written and drawn by Rob Liefeld you can be sure I would be going to find out what Rich Burlew is working on next.

[Avilan the Grey]

I agree with the mindset that the Commander has:
I don't follow writers, I follow characters, and only certain versions of the character.

I am completely uninterested in the New 52 version of Powergirl, where she is an alternative reality and paired with the Huntress. I LOVED her own comic pre-New 52 (which has been cancelled for more than 2 years). The same thing happened with Birds Of Prey, which was a fun, actionfilled comic up until New 52, when it went all 1990ies and crappy over night (replaced all characters except Black Canary, trippled the violence, everyone using lethal weapons and all fights ends with the death of the villains).

The same, btw happened with the other comics I used to read in the DC lineup: Stephanie Brown was magically removed as Batgirl. Wonder Woman (the one comic I have collected the longest) I am about to give up on because it has just gotten too weird for me. They also changed her mother back to a blonde, for some reason (I loved that she was actually looking like a very beautiful Greek woman and not a 1960ies blonde American pinup girl in a toga, which she is back to looking now).

I stopped caring for Spider-Man after OMD. I had already stopped caring for almost all other Marvel characters before that. In fact, I won't buy another Marvel comic until Joe quits as head of Marvel.

If Power Girl gets a new comic I will pick up one issue to try it. Same with Birds Of Prey.

Anyway, I do occasionally skim through new issues of new things, but primarely I follow characters, not writers or artists. It is nothing wrong with this.

Besides, the type of stories I enjoy are just not popular at the moment, everything is going grittier and darker again.

[Man on Fire]

I agree with the mindset that the Commander has:
I don't follow writers, I follow characters, and only certain versions of the character.

I am completely uninterested in the New 52 version of Powergirl, where she is an alternative reality and paired with the Huntress. I LOVED her own comic pre-New 52 (which has been cancelled for more than 2 years). The same thing happened with Birds Of Prey, which was a fun, actionfilled comic up until New 52, when it went all 1990ies and crappy over night (replaced all characters except Black Canary, trippled the violence, everyone using lethal weapons and all fights ends with the death of the villains).

The same, btw happened with the other comics I used to read in the DC lineup: Stephanie Brown was magically removed as Batgirl. Wonder Woman (the one comic I have collected the longest) I am about to give up on because it has just gotten too weird for me. They also changed her mother back to a blonde, for some reason (I loved that she was actually looking like a very beautiful Greek woman and not a 1960ies blonde American pinup girl in a toga, which she is back to looking now).

I stopped caring for Spider-Man after OMD. I had already stopped caring for almost all other Marvel characters before that. In fact, I won't buy another Marvel comic until Joe quits as head of Marvel.

If Power Girl gets a new comic I will pick up one issue to try it. Same with Birds Of Prey.

Anyway, I do occasionally skim through new issues of new things, but primarely I follow characters, not writers or artists. It is nothing wrong with this.

Besides, the type of stories I enjoy are just not popular at the moment, everything is going grittier and darker again.

You cannot make that last statement, considering you clearly don't read everything. And as I and Friv are trying to explain to you and Commander, this approach only limits you and keeps you from many good stories. When thhings you got used to don't work at the moment, focus everywhere. Find a creative team you like and buy their comics. Voting with your walled, despite what Commander is saying, doesn't end on not voting on things you dislike, it also include voting on thing you like. And if none of the things you want you like, you vote for something else, to send the message to the publishers that you want more of this. If you're lucky, creative team will get the book you want to read in the first place. i mean, rick Remender started at Marvel working on Punisher, then he got Venom, and his style was enough to earn him place as a writer of Uncanny X-Force and later Secret Avengers. And now he is writing the main Avengers book. because people voted with their wallets they want more of him. Keeping "voting with your wallet" to only not voting for things you dislike is pointless and accomplishes nothing, you only send them message that there is decline in sales and they don't know why. so they go and make dumb decisions. Gurrent trend at DC to make things darker and grittier was probably caused by lower ales of more "classic" books and higher sales of more "edgy" ones - DC didn't got the message that fans don't like JLA because writing sucks, they got the message fans don't like JLA and like Uncanny X-Force, so they should make everything like Uncanny X-Force. There are happy and optimistic comic out there, many very recent - Gladstone's School For Wolrd Conquerors for example, or Super Dinosaur. You need to look for them. Once they'll beat current 52 in sales - that's the only way DC will get the message what fans really want.

[Aotrs Commander]

There is nothing more poisonous to the spread of good media than a blind devotion to characters who have long since passed their expiration dates. It is the attitude that gives us Transformers 2, or dredges up a new Indiana Jones movie, or results in Amazing Spider-Man selling 700 subpar issues.

It is very common in all forms of media, but Marvel and DC comics have pandered to it for decades. Wolverine is in every issue! Spiderman has joined twelve superhero teams! Thrill as Batman interacts with every member of the Justice League in their own comics, because he's Batman!

And by pandering to it, they have driven those characters into the ground, transforming them into snarls of continuity that almost no one can write good stories for. They won't do a proper restart of the comics, because their "fans" howl with rage when they do. They won't let the characters die, because their "fans" howl even louder. They jump through increasingly absurd hoops to try and keep their stories current, without solving the underlying problem that nothing is allowed to change, so every reset relies on ever-more-ludicrous gimmickry which everyone knows won't last.

It is a blind fear of discovering something new. I do not believe in loyalty to characters. Characters are bunk, and they have no inherent value beyond that given to them by their authors (illustrators/actors/etc). I don't read Order of the Stick because of my deep fondness for Belkar, and if I tuned in tomorrow and this comic was now written and drawn by Rob Liefeld you can be sure I would be going to find out what Rich Burlew is working on next.

You can dislike the attitude all you like, but at the end of the day, you're not going to convince me - and likely quite a lot of other former comic fans - to care. If the comic industry collapses because of it... *shrug* If it's not giving me personally any entertainment, I don't really care all that much, same as I wouldn't give a flying frag if football or reality television collapsed, aside from feeling a bit sorry for those people that did enjoy it.

I don't follow writers, at the end of the day. I don't really care who the author is, who it is that is telling the story, so long as it's a good story and is about something I'm interested in. If there is an author (etc) that I think is quite good is doing something in a genera I'm interested in - I might give it a look. But ONLY if it's something I'm interested in. If Rich started writing a new comic about, I dunno, a drama set in the colonial period or cowboys something, I'd shrug and say, "well, good luck to you, mate" but I wouldn't be interested in reading it. I have a very narrow spectrum of interests - always have, always will - and within that narrow spectrum, I am very forgiving - heck, I liked the Star Wars prequels and I enjoy Naruto's filler arcs - but only to a point. And Marvel and DC (and Star Wars, finally) have reached that point.

So if indeed Marvel and DC heroes have reached the end of their time (and the continual stream of very watchable to excellent cartoons on the telly indicates that, no, no, they really haven't); well then, let them die out through lack of interest.

I, however, will not be investing further in what is now a highly expensive medium, and when I want new stories, I will look elsewhere. I mean, for crying out loud, at nearly £2.50 a pop for an issue now, I could afford to buy a novel or two every month instead and there's a lot more reading time in a novel than a comic. And it's less storage space. Heck, I could probably start collecting manga or something (if I was that bothered) for what I was spending on comics). I didn't mind paying when it was something I really wanted, but it isn't anymore.

So, you can call me a philistine if you like - not that it helps you in any way - but my tastes are different (and probably a lot more prosaic) than yours at the end of the day; and if I'm not being catered for, I'm not interested. And if that eventually causes the industry to collapse, well. They should have tried harder to cater for me (and those like me), then, shouldn't they?



@Man on Fire: the current frequent corporate attitude that I should buy something I don't really want (e.g. selected episodes on DVD) so that they can maybe deem to produce something I do want (e.g. full season sets) sometime down the line (so they can make money off me twice) needs to go and die in black hole, along with regioning and games you "buy" that you in reality only rent not own. I do not have a lot of spending money, and refuse point-blank to spend on things I don't really want. If they aren't making things I want, I won't settle for a vague shadow of it, I'll find something else to do instead.

(And, if you really want to come to that, some of my comic money IS going to other comics; to IDW, with Transformers and MLP.)

[Avilan the Grey]

You cannot make that last statement, considering you clearly don't read everything. And as I and Friv are trying to explain to you and Commander, this approach only limits you and keeps you from many good stories.

The point is that characters are more important to me than stories. I prefer a mediocre story about an interesting character over a brilliant story about a character I don't care about. I will never follow a creative team, no matter who it is, to a character I just don't care about.

I have had this argument about TV, before with a friend. He keeps insisting I should watch Breaking Bad because it is so well written, but I keep arguing that I am not into that kind of stories, which is an argument he can't understand (I refuse to watch a show with a villain protagonist, period).

Also: The price of comics are just getting too high. I used to, on a student salary, being able to follow 10 comics per month. Now I can, in theory, follow more, but $2.5 $2.99 for what? 20 pages and a lot of ads? Seriously? I demand a HELL of a lot of entertainment for that price.

Edit: Also... I am specifically talking about Marvel and especially DC when I talk about the new 1990ies. I have already stated this before.

[Friv]

I, however, will not be investing further in what is now a highly expensive medium, and when I want new stories, I will look elsewhere. I mean, for crying out loud, at nearly £2.50 a pop for an issue now, I could afford to buy a novel or two every month instead and there's a lot more reading time in a novel than a comic. And it's less storage space. Heck, I could probably start collecting manga or something (if I was that bothered) for what I was spending on comics). I didn't mind paying when it was something I really wanted, but it isn't anymore.

Where do you live that novels are only 2.50?

Wait, dumb question, you used the pound symbol so you live in the UK.

Fair enough. I'm Canadian, and a typical paperback book costs about $12-15, about the price of a trade paperback (slightly less, usually, but it depends on the trade). And given the costs of color ink, and the general value of artwork compared to writing, and the time it takes to do artwork compared to writing, that seems more than fair to me.


So, you can call me a philistine if you like - not that it helps you in any way - but my tastes are different (and probably a lot more prosaic) than yours at the end of the day; and if I'm not being catered for, I'm not interested. And if that eventually causes the industry to collapse, well. They should have tried harder to cater for me (and those like me), then, shouldn't they?

I'm not calling you a philistine, I'm saying that you're just wrong. Objectively wrong, which is something I don't usually toss out. A character is the sum of their writers' efforts. If you like an interesting character, they are not interesting because of the guy who invented them sixty years ago. They are interesting because the guy who is writing them now is doing so well. That's why you follow a writer instead of a character, because it is the writer who is doing things, and he will write more characters in a style that you clearly like.

[Tiki Snakes]

Where do you live that novels are only 2.50?

Wait, dumb question, you used the pound symbol so you live in the UK.

Fair enough. I'm Canadian, and a typical paperback book costs about $12-15, about the price of a trade paperback (slightly less, usually, but it depends on the trade). And given the costs of color ink, and the general value of artwork compared to writing, and the time it takes to do artwork compared to writing, that seems more than fair to me.



I'm not calling you a philistine, I'm saying that you're just wrong. Objectively wrong, which is something I don't usually toss out. A character is the sum of their writers' efforts. If you like an interesting character, they are not interesting because of the guy who invented them sixty years ago. They are interesting because the guy who is writing them now is doing so well. That's why you follow a writer instead of a character, because it is the writer who is doing things, and he will write more characters in a style that you clearly like.

Well, Novels aren't going for £2.99 or so, but at £5.99 or so, you barely need to buy two tiny comics to make up the same price as a seven hundred page epic, which is a thing.

Also, I'm not sure I can agree with you that there's any objective wrongness there. Characters are people, people we grow to care about and become interested in. It's a curiously detatched mindset to me, to dispassionately discard them in favour of following the people hidden behind the curtain.

Characters like those in comics are so much more than the product of any one writer. They have an existence that goes beyond the writer of the moment, an amalgamation of their character as portrayed across their fictional career and the many different writers that have written for them. It's not really surprising that when a writer departs significantly from this amalgamated characterisation that certain fans get so worked up.

Conversely, a good writer attached to a project is a good sign for the quality of it, but it's not always the most important factor in deciding whether you are interested and I'm not sure it should be.

[VanBuren]

You can dislike the attitude all you like, but at the end of the day, you're not going to convince me - and likely quite a lot of other former comic fans - to care. If the comic industry collapses because of it... *shrug* If it's not giving me personally any entertainment, I don't really care all that much, same as I wouldn't give a flying frag if football or reality television collapsed, aside from feeling a bit sorry for those people that did enjoy it.

I don't follow writers, at the end of the day. I don't really care who the author is, who it is that is telling the story, so long as it's a good story and is about something I'm interested in. If there is an author (etc) that I think is quite good is doing something in a genera I'm interested in - I might give it a look. But ONLY if it's something I'm interested in. If Rich started writing a new comic about, I dunno, a drama set in the colonial period or cowboys something, I'd shrug and say, "well, good luck to you, mate" but I wouldn't be interested in reading it. I have a very narrow spectrum of interests - always have, always will - and within that narrow spectrum, I am very forgiving - heck, I liked the Star Wars prequels and I enjoy Naruto's filler arcs - but only to a point. And Marvel and DC (and Star Wars, finally) have reached that point.

So if indeed Marvel and DC heroes have reached the end of their time (and the continual stream of very watchable to excellent cartoons on the telly indicates that, no, no, they really haven't); well then, let them die out through lack of interest.

I, however, will not be investing further in what is now a highly expensive medium, and when I want new stories, I will look elsewhere. I mean, for crying out loud, at nearly £2.50 a pop for an issue now, I could afford to buy a novel or two every month instead and there's a lot more reading time in a novel than a comic. And it's less storage space. Heck, I could probably start collecting manga or something (if I was that bothered) for what I was spending on comics). I didn't mind paying when it was something I really wanted, but it isn't anymore.

So, you can call me a philistine if you like - not that it helps you in any way - but my tastes are different (and probably a lot more prosaic) than yours at the end of the day; and if I'm not being catered for, I'm not interested. And if that eventually causes the industry to collapse, well. They should have tried harder to cater for me (and those like me), then, shouldn't they?



@Man on Fire: the current frequent corporate attitude that I should buy something I don't really want (e.g. selected episodes on DVD) so that they can maybe deem to produce something I do want (e.g. full season sets) sometime down the line (so they can make money off me twice) needs to go and die in black hole, along with regioning and games you "buy" that you in reality only rent not own. I do not have a lot of spending money, and refuse point-blank to spend on things I don't really want. If they aren't making things I want, I won't settle for a vague shadow of it, I'll find something else to do instead.

(And, if you really want to come to that, some of my comic money IS going to other comics; to IDW, with Transformers and MLP.)

Yes, you are clearly their most valuable customer. What were they thinking?

[Jayngfet]

Yes, you are clearly their most valuable customer. What were they thinking?

Honestly he probably is something close to a good representative of the customer he wants. He comes off as a guy who cares nothing for how they treat their staff, what kind of originality or thought goes into the work, or any kind of innovation. So long as he gets his fix and they hand him exactly what he wants, he sounds like he'd basically buy their stuff forever regardless of other circumstances so long as they don't directly affect him.

I mean, he has a lot of good points about distribution and such, but that's the vibe I'm getting from his speech.

[MLai]

The argument on this page... One side is saying "I want to follow the characters I like!" The other side is saying "You should be following the writers because they're why you like those characters in the first place!"

Both sides make sense, but the thing is, the argument starts off on the wrong premise. See, superhero comics have their creation method all ass-backwards, which is precisely why the argument even pops up.

Outside of non-canon fanfics, writers should be in charge of their own characters. Yes, I've developed a devotion to Goku, or Jack Ryan, or Hannibal Lector, or whoever. But why would I ever assume I would have to check to see who's writing? It should be common sense that Akira Toriyama, or Tom Clancy, or Thomas Harris is the architect behind the scenes.

Marvel/DC has turned the absolutely most personal aspects of a creative endeavor into a corporate enterprise. Those grey-haired characters lost their original souls decades ago. I'm surprised it has lasted this long.


Yes, you are clearly their most valuable customer. What were they thinking?
Keep saying that (and be sure to add a dismissive "Pshaw!" at the start). Then say that again about a million times more. And that's why the superhero comics industry ain't doing so hot.

[Friv]

The argument on this page... One side is saying "I want to follow the characters I like!" The other side is saying "You should be following the writers because they're why you like those characters in the first place!"

Both sides make sense, but the thing is, the argument starts off on the wrong premise. See, superhero comics have their creation method all ass-backwards, which is precisely why the argument even pops up.

Outside of non-canon fanfics, writers should be in charge of their own characters. Yes, I've developed a devotion to Goku, or Jack Ryan, or Hannibal Lector, or whoever. But why would I ever assume I would have to check to see who's writing? It should be common sense that Akira Toriyama, or Tom Clancy, or Thomas Harris is the architect behind the scenes.

Marvel/DC has turned the absolutely most personal aspects of a creative endeavor into a corporate enterprise. Those grey-haired characters lost their original souls decades ago. I'm surprised it has lasted this long.


Keep saying that (and be sure to add a dismissive "Pshaw!" at the start). Then say that again about a million times more. And that's why the superhero comics industry ain't doing so hot.

There are a lot of other industries that do this, though.

James Bond movies aren't in the hands of Ian Fleming; haven't been for a very long time. The same goes for the Muppets, who no longer belong to Jim Henson.

In novels, you've got the various Dune books written after the death of Frank Herbert, or the release of And Another Thing written by Eion Colfer, or Brian Sanderson picking up the end of Wheel of Time - or, to go more similar to superheroes, the absolute messes that result from all of the officially written Star Wars or Star Trek or Doctor Who books.

Passing characters to a new writer is actually really common with large worlds, because those characters were often not created by a single person or because they were created for a specific company. Official tie-in novels for video games do much the same thing; few of them are written by the same people that the game companies used for their scripts.


Also, I'm not sure I can agree with you that there's any objective wrongness there. Characters are people, people we grow to care about and become interested in. It's a curiously detatched mindset to me, to dispassionately discard them in favour of following the people hidden behind the curtain.

Perhaps it is a result of being a writer, and spending a lot of time peering behind that curtain. But (to tie in to my argument above) just because you slap Luke Skywalker on the cover of a book doesn't mean I'll buy it. I'll pick up a Star Wars book written by Timothy Zahn. I'm going to avoid one written by Karen Traviss, because I don't particularly like the way she writes the characters. On the other hand, I will read a non-Star Wars book by Timothy Zahn, because I like his writing.

And there's a lot of really crummy Star Wars novels out there. They're all about the same characters in theory, but in practice those characters are significantly altered by what their authors felt about them, and whether their authors were capable. It's the same thing for comics. Cable in the hands of Rob Liefeld is an arrogant, posturing, violent jerk. Cable in the hands of Fabian Nicieza is a reluctant, (still arrogant) self-sacrificing messiah. He's basically a different person. Grant Morrison's Magneto is a genocidal murderer, while Jim Shooter's Magneto joined the X-Men. Which one am I supposed to be following?

[Traab]

I dont really read comics, but when it comes to books, I go by the author first, genre is the second on the list of choices I make. So, just because I prefer sword and sorcery doesnt mean I will grab just any book from that area, I will first go through my established authors that I know I like. And only after I run out of titles will i gingerly step outside and look for a new author (not title) to try out.

On a similar note, if, as an example, terry brooks were to pick up david eddings worlds and start writing more stories for them, I probably wouldnt read them, even though I LOVE those worlds, I dont like brooks, therefore I doubt I would enjoy his take on what belgarion or sparhawk is up to.

[Jayngfet]

I dont really read comics, but when it comes to books, I go by the author first, genre is the second on the list of choices I make. So, just because I prefer sword and sorcery doesnt mean I will grab just any book from that area, I will first go through my established authors that I know I like. And only after I run out of titles will i gingerly step outside and look for a new author (not title) to try out.

On a similar note, if, as an example, terry brooks were to pick up david eddings worlds and start writing more stories for them, I probably wouldnt read them, even though I LOVE those worlds, I dont like brooks, therefore I doubt I would enjoy his take on what belgarion or sparhawk is up to.


Yeah, an individual take on a series can do a WHOLE lot of good or bad.

I mean, look at the last few Wheel of Time books. The characters move and act entirely differently with a new author and some of their skills are forgotten or changed simply to make a point or just a quick joke(Mat's literacy being a big one). It's done using Jordan's notes, which are big enough to fill a bookcase on their own literally, and it's only one change, but it's still noticeable.

Now apply that to Spiderman or Superman. You are, quite literally at this point, following something for no reason other than it's shaped and colored the same as something you liked once.

[Man on Fire]

You can dislike the attitude all you like, but at the end of the day, you're not going to convince me - and likely quite a lot of other former comic fans - to care. If the comic industry collapses because of it... *shrug* If it's not giving me personally any entertainment, I don't really care all that much, same as I wouldn't give a flying frag if football or reality television collapsed, aside from feeling a bit sorry for those people that did enjoy it.

But they give you entertainment, you just want want to notice it. That behavior is pretty lazy - unless something good is in your comfort zone, you don't bother to look at it. That's pretty limiting behavior cutting you from good stories.


I don't follow writers, at the end of the day. I don't really care who the author is, who it is that is telling the story

Yeah, sure, I bet that if tomorrow Order of the Stick was taken over by Rob Liefeld and Jeph Loeb, you would still follow it.


so long as it's a good story and is about something I'm interested in. If there is an author (etc) that I think is quite good is doing something in a genera I'm interested in - I might give it a look. But ONLY if it's something I'm interested in. If Rich started writing a new comic about, I dunno, a drama set in the colonial period or cowboys something, I'd shrug and say, "well, good luck to you, mate" but I wouldn't be interested in reading it. I have a very narrow spectrum of interests - always have, always will - and within that narrow spectrum, I am very forgiving - heck, I liked the Star Wars prequels and I enjoy Naruto's filler arcs - but only to a point. And Marvel and DC (and Star Wars, finally) have reached that point.

You are confusing things. Comics offer you many good stories within the same genre you already like and enjoy. Your approach isn't what your example described, it's saying that if Rich started new comics parodying D&D but it was about completely different characters, you wouldn't give it a try.


So if indeed Marvel and DC heroes have reached the end of their time (and the continual stream of very watchable to excellent cartoons on the telly indicates that, no, no, they really haven't); well then, let them die out through lack of interest.

Those cartoons are mostly updated reheshals of classic stories with bit of later things thrown here and there and modern approach, nothing new about them.


I, however, will not be investing further in what is now a highly expensive medium, and when I want new stories, I will look elsewhere. I mean, for crying out loud, at nearly £2.50 a pop for an issue now, I could afford to buy a novel or two every month instead and there's a lot more reading time in a novel than a comic. And it's less storage space. Heck, I could probably start collecting manga or something (if I was that bothered) for what I was spending on comics). I didn't mind paying when it was something I really wanted, but it isn't anymore.

But you could also ignore things that failed you and try new comics. I mean, when Star Wars failed you, didnt you wanted to look for a better movies to watch? If your favorite book series starts to blow, don't you want to find a new one? Or do you don't care because they aren't about your childhood characters? Otherwise you have double standards here.


So, you can call me a philistine if you like - not that it helps you in any way - but my tastes are different (and probably a lot more prosaic) than yours at the end of the day; and if I'm not being catered for, I'm not interested. And if that eventually causes the industry to collapse, well. They should have tried harder to cater for me (and those like me), then, shouldn't they?

They cater to people like you, that's why industry is dying. What they should do is to forget about people who follow characters and not stories and focus on everybody else.


@Man on Fire: the current frequent corporate attitude that I should buy something I don't really want (e.g. selected episodes on DVD) so that they can maybe deem to produce something I do want (e.g. full season sets) sometime down the line (so they can make money off me twice) needs to go and die in black hole, along with regioning and games you "buy" that you in reality only rent not own. I do not have a lot of spending money, and refuse point-blank to spend on things I don't really want. If they aren't making things I want, I won't settle for a vague shadow of it, I'll find something else to do instead.

But they are making things you want, just not with the same characters. And what I was talking about isn't really their policy, it's just basic logic - if they'll see that happy go-lucky stories sell more than dark ones, they will try to cash in on them and create more of exactly that.


(And, if you really want to come to that, some of my comic money IS going to other comics; to IDW, with Transformers and MLP.)

Good for you. You tried something new. Was it really that hard?


The point is that characters are more important to me than stories. I prefer a mediocre story about an interesting character over a brilliant story about a character I don't care about. I will never follow a creative team, no matter who it is, to a character I just don't care about.

So you willingly limit yourself of only the safe stories about who you know and don't want to try anything else.
That's...sad, really.


I have had this argument about TV, before with a friend. He keeps insisting I should watch Breaking Bad because it is so well written, but I keep arguing that I am not into that kind of stories, which is an argument he can't understand (I refuse to watch a show with a villain protagonist, period).

Those are completely different types of prefferences. There is a difference "I want to read about protagonist who is a good person" and "I want to read abou Spider-Man".


Edit: Also... I am specifically talking about Marvel and especially DC when I talk about the new 1990ies. I have already stated this before.

And you still cannot make that sttement, because you don't read everything from them aside tiny bit in your comfort zone.


Characters are people, people we grow to care about and become interested in. It's a curiously detatched mindset to me, to dispassionately discard them in favour of following the people hidden behind the curtain.

When I grew up I discared childlish things, including attachement to characters I grew up with.
And to flip that argument, if that approach is detached, then what to say about the opposite one, following the characters no matter what and no matter how horrible they stories are, watching them to become mere shells of what made you fall in love in them, sick parodies of their former selves? Stalkerish? Fanatical? I remind you, Wolverine: Origins, well-regarde as THE worst Wolverine comics ever, under the writer seen as one of the worst currently working for Marvel, lasted 50 issues.

I would rather abbandon my favorite character than watch them turn so horrible. Life is short and I don't have time to waste on s***ty stories, that's one. It's better to die as a good story than to turn into bad one, that's two.


Characters like those in comics are so much more than the product of any one writer. They have an existence that goes beyond the writer of the moment, an amalgamation of their character as portrayed across their fictional career and the many different writers that have written for them. It's not really surprising that when a writer departs significantly from this amalgamated characterisation that certain fans get so worked up.

And because of that characters cannot evolve and move foward, they are sorever struck in one status quo that made them popular in the first place. It is that mindset that lead to Joe Quesada creating One More Day, or Dan Didio to bringing back Barry Allen, Hal Jordan and making Barbara Gordon Batgirl again.


Conversely, a good writer attached to a project is a good sign for the quality of it, but it's not always the most important factor in deciding whether you are interested and I'm not sure it should be.

The other equally important factor is the artist. They decide of the quality.
Characters have nothing to say about if the book is good or bad. I seen excellent books with characters I had no interest in and didn't cared about that made me change my mind - Incredible hercules, Journey Into Mystery - and I seen horrible books with characters I love - Jeph Loeb's Hulk.


Outside of non-canon fanfics, writers should be in charge of their own characters. Yes, I've developed a devotion to Goku, or Jack Ryan, or Hannibal Lector, or whoever. But why would I ever assume I would have to check to see who's writing? It should be common sense that Akira Toriyama, or Tom Clancy, or Thomas Harris is the architect behind the scenes.

Disagree really. Sometimes the characters can really flurish under wings of other writers. Over many horrible things Rob Liefeld did, I admire that when he gives his characters to somebody else, he gives them free hand. Look how Supreme, Glory or Propher flourished once he gave them to other people and gave them complete creative control.


Keep saying that (and be sure to add a dismissive "Pshaw!" at the start). Then say that again about a million times more. And that's why the superhero comics industry ain't doing so hot.

The point is, that comics industry is pandering to those millions, who aren't buying their comics anyway apparently, because when was the last time mainstream comic book sold in millions of copies? They should be pandering to other groups, try new things. Which they don't because they are ran out of ideas how to pander to people like commander and try every dumb manure in desperate attempt to make them keep buying comics.

[Mystic Muse]

You know, it would probably help other people to try out comics besides the ones they know they like if they didn't cost so damn much.

Maybe it doesn't seem like a lot to you, but $3 is a lot to a fair amount of people, and using it on something you can't be sure you'll like is simply not an option for them.

[Tenno Seremel]

In novels, you've got the various Dune books written after the death of Frank Herbert

Which are regarded as blasphemously bad by many hardcore fans, sure :}

[Man on Fire]

You know, it would probably help other people to try out comics besides the ones they know they like if they didn't cost so damn much.

Maybe it doesn't seem like a lot to you, but $3 is a lot to a fair amount of people, and using it on something you can't be sure you'll like is simply not an option for them.

Nobody is forcing you to buy comics if you don't have the money. But if you are already going to buy a comics and you have the money and you know the comics about characters you like is horrible, you read previous issue od this run and seen how bad they were or you know the new writer is bad, you shouldn't buy it. And if you don't buy it, you have $3 you wanted to spend on comics anyway, so why not spend them on another comics you never tried?

[Jayngfet]

You know, it would probably help other people to try out comics besides the ones they know they like if they didn't cost so damn much.

Maybe it doesn't seem like a lot to you, but $3 is a lot to a fair amount of people, and using it on something you can't be sure you'll like is simply not an option for them.

Honestly, that's the reason I read Archie instead of everything else for most of my adolescence. I mean lets be honest. I'd rather spend like two cents a page at my local grocery story than go an hour out of my way to spend about ten times that page for page.

This is why kids don't read comics and why comic readers are so damned stagnant. I mean the industry is at this point keeping itself afloat on collectors appeals and good names earned decades ago. It's kind of sad that Grant Morrison and Geoff Johns are pretty much the professional equivalent of two hobos fighting over somebody else's week old cheese sandwich.

[Tiki Snakes]

Perhaps it is a result of being a writer, and spending a lot of time peering behind that curtain. But (to tie in to my argument above) just because you slap Luke Skywalker on the cover of a book doesn't mean I'll buy it. I'll pick up a Star Wars book written by Timothy Zahn. I'm going to avoid one written by Karen Traviss, because I don't particularly like the way she writes the characters. On the other hand, I will read a non-Star Wars book by Timothy Zahn, because I like his writing.

And there's a lot of really crummy Star Wars novels out there. They're all about the same characters in theory, but in practice those characters are significantly altered by what their authors felt about them, and whether their authors were capable. It's the same thing for comics. Cable in the hands of Rob Liefeld is an arrogant, posturing, violent jerk. Cable in the hands of Fabian Nicieza is a reluctant, (still arrogant) self-sacrificing messiah. He's basically a different person. Grant Morrison's Magneto is a genocidal murderer, while Jim Shooter's Magneto joined the X-Men. Which one am I supposed to be following?

The point is, this is a valid viewpoint, but not the only one. It is subjective, and Aotrs Commander's viewpoint is, similarly, not objectively wrong simply because it is not the same as yours.

[Mystic Muse]

And if you don't buy it, you have $3 you wanted to spend on comics anyway, so why not spend them on another comics you never tried?

Because now you have $3 to start saving, or spend on something else you enjoy more. It's not much, but it can add up over time.

[Friv]

The point is, this is a valid viewpoint, but not the only one. It is subjective, and Aotrs Commander's viewpoint is, similarly, not objectively wrong simply because it is not the same as yours.

I disagree!

Closing Argument: Viewpoints can be subjective. Most of them, in fact, are. If we were arguing about what the best comic book was, for example, we'd both be right.

But I do not accept that fictional constructs are more than fictional constructs. Characters are only people inasmuch as a writer/actor/director has given them that life, and they only have inherent value because various fans have decided that. Batman has no meaning. All-Star Batman And Robin doesn't become a better comic because it was written about Batman instead of about someone else. This is an objective fact.

Writers have styles, and levels of talent, and specialties. This is also an objective fact. Refusing to follow a writer's work because you don't already know the character he's going to be working on is objectively wrong, because you do, in fact, know whether or not you like him as a writer. This is not a matter of viewpoints. If you liked the writer, and he's writing something similar, you are almost certainly going to like that too. You will discover a new character, and enjoy them.

Is it possible to not like everything that a writer does, or to not like works that go outside the style? Sure! But there is no objective reason beyond a misunderstanding of the way that fiction works to follow a character and ignore the writers writing them.

[Scowling Dragon]

As much as a puppet is cool, what makes the puppet come alive? The quality of the wood or the puppeteer?

Its like going to puppet shows with one specific puppet instead of following the puppeteer.

[Androgeus]

Its like going to puppet shows with one specific puppet instead of following the puppeteer.

Punch and Judy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy) is a puppet show that's popular up and down the British sea side. It would be a bit hard for a single puppeteer to do all the shows :smalltongue:

[Scowling Dragon]

But considering that comics are mass made I don't think that aplies in this way too.

[SaintRidley]

Well, this doesn't look like the series that will get me back into Spider-Man. Oh well.

I will say that today I did something that I haven't done in over fifteen years, and that's buy an issue of a comic. Two of them, in fact, the first two issues of Thor: God of Thunder. Now that is a comic I think I'll continue to follow.

[Man on Fire]

Because now you have $3 to start saving, or spend on something else you enjoy more. It's not much, but it can add up over time.

Or you can try to not abbandon your hobby only because one comics failed you.

[Avilan the Grey]

Also, I'm not sure I can agree with you that there's any objective wrongness there. Characters are people, people we grow to care about and become interested in. It's a curiously detatched mindset to me, to dispassionately discard them in favour of following the people hidden behind the curtain.


Perhaps it is a result of being a writer, and spending
a lot of time peering behind that curtain. But (to tie in to my argument above) just because you slap Luke Skywalker on the cover of a book doesn't mean I'll buy it.

I still say that the character is most important to most readers. And it is not so strange; it's the same with movies and computer games.

Writing is important, but as I said, I think most people rather follow a character they have grown to love in a mediocre story than follow the writer on to a brand new comic. If you have the money and time you might do BOTH, but it takes a rather large disappointment before you abandon a character you like.


But they give you entertainment, you just want want to notice it. That behavior is pretty lazy - unless something good is in your comfort zone, you don't bother to look at it. That's pretty limiting behavior cutting you from good stories.


And why should he? It is a matter of time and money. I have roughly 4 hours (if lucky) free time per day, because I don't have children or pets that are very demanding. Most grown men has much less.
Those 4 hours are split between helping with dinner, helping cleaning / washing / dishes, other interestes like games, forums, facebook, TV, playing with the cats and comic books, and for some reason my wife thinks I am ignoring her too much already.

I don't have TIME to go look for exciting things outside my comfort zone. I can't even keep up with all the exciting things IN my comfort zone.


So you willingly limit yourself of only the safe stories about who you know and don't want to try anything else.
That's...sad, really.

You have obviously not read my posts. I already told you that I flip through new stuff occasionally, and I have picked some up over the years. But there aren't many that I DO find interesting. Most are either overhyped pretencious crap (Watchmen et al) or just just not to my taste (most manga, dark and gritty crap, horror...). But the most of the time it's just that I don't have the energy or time to get invested in new characters.

Other than that, you sound just like the friend I have I talked about. I don't care if it makes you sad; I know what I like, and even more so I know what I DON'T like and refuse to read or watch, for a number of reasons (I hate zombies in general, I refuse to read a story with a bad / evil person as the lead, horror movies and stories does nothing to me except making me feel disgusted, etc).


When I grew up I discared childlish things, including attachement to characters I grew up with.

Good for you. Establishing that you are more mature than the rest of us... :smallsigh:

As for not being able to argue that "New 52" is a throwack to the Dork Age of the 1990ies... "because I don't read outside my comfort zone". I have read a good 2/3 of those titles. I picked most of them up because I was curious and have dumped them one after another (Suicide Squad, Batwoman, Teen Titans, Red Hood and the Outlaws, Birds Of Prey, Wonder Woman, Supergirl, etc etc). The only titles I still read from the New 52 line is Wonder Woman and Supergirl. And I have decided to drop Wonder Woman.

[Jan Mattys]

I disagree!

Closing Argument: Viewpoints can be subjective. Most of them, in fact, are. If we were arguing about what the best comic book was, for example, we'd both be right.

But I do not accept that fictional constructs are more than fictional constructs. Characters are only people inasmuch as a writer/actor/director has given them that life, and they only have inherent value because various fans have decided that. Batman has no meaning. All-Star Batman And Robin doesn't become a better comic because it was written about Batman instead of about someone else. This is an objective fact.

Not sure I agree with you. Sometimes it's the idea of a character we love that makes us involved enough to care.
Example:
A) if you make a horrible mess of a movie about a general fantasy setting, I go see it, label it as garbage, and forget about it in about ten minutes.
b)if you make a horrible mess of a movie about the Lord of the Rings, I go see it, bitterly admit to myself that it is garbage, and hate you with the intensity of a thousand suns.

The results?
Situation A will probably make me forget about you in fifteen minutes.
Situation B will make me label you "HorribleDirector, Destroyer of Dreams" and I will refuse to ever give you money again. Ever.

Similarly, an average comic can be boosted to above average if it is about my beloved Batman, just as it can be labeled completely forgettable if it's about some random dude I don't care about. Of course, masterpieces will still be masterpieces (see Watchmen) and absolute crap will still be absolute crap (see One More Day), but established and beloved characters and settings can act as a multipliers of the objective merits (or flaws) of a work.

[Man on Fire]

I still say that the character is most important to most readers. And it is not so strange; it's the same with movies and computer games.

Which I still say is wrong and both mediums shall follow the same path if something won't be done about that approach.


Writing is important, but as I said, I think most people rather follow a character they have grown to love in a mediocre story than follow the writer on to a brand new comic. If you have the money and time you might do BOTH, but it takes a rather large disappointment before you abandon a character you like.


I would say that the genigue, good ending is what allows you to abbandon your character as well.


And why should he? It is a matter of time and money. I have roughly 4 hours (if lucky) free time per day, because I don't have children or pets that are very demanding. Most grown men has much less.
Those 4 hours are split between helping with dinner, helping cleaning / washing / dishes, other interestes like games, forums, facebook, TV, playing with the cats and comic books, and for some reason my wife thinks I am ignoring her too much already.

I don't have TIME to go look for exciting things outside my comfort zone. I can't even keep up with all the exciting things IN my comfort zone.

And you apparently still have, as you said it, TIME to waste on something medicore, when you could spend it on something good? That's rich.


Other than that, you sound just like the friend I have I talked about. I don't care if it makes you sad; I know what I like, and even more so I know what I DON'T like and refuse to read or watch, for a number of reasons (I hate zombies in general, I refuse to read a story with a bad / evil person as the lead, horror movies and stories does nothing to me except making me feel disgusted, etc).

Still not what I was talking about, stop confusing things. There i a difference between avoiding specific genres and being to lazy to take interest in something because you don't know these characters.


Good for you. Establishing that you are more mature than the rest of us... :smallsigh:

As you said, I don't care if it makes you sad. I find that attachment to be childlish and something people should reject as they grow up, for me that's natural.


As for not being able to argue that "New 52" is a throwack to the Dork Age of the 1990ies... "because I don't read outside my comfort zone". I have read a good 2/3 of those titles. I picked most of them up because I was curious and have dumped them one after another (Suicide Squad, Batwoman, Teen Titans, Red Hood and the Outlaws, Birds Of Prey, Wonder Woman, Supergirl, etc etc). The only titles I still read from the New 52 line is Wonder Woman and Supergirl. And I have decided to drop Wonder Woman.

Any of these books is dark to you? I could name two geniuquely dark books in new 52 and it would be Animal Man and Swamp Thing, if the rest is dark you don't know what really dark story even means.

And since when 8 is 2/3 out of 52?

[Avilan the Grey]

But I do not accept that fictional constructs are more than fictional constructs. Characters are only people inasmuch as a writer/actor/director has given them that life, and they only have inherent value because various fans have decided that. Batman has no meaning. All-Star Batman And Robin doesn't become a better comic because it was written about Batman instead of about someone else. This is an objective fact.

Bolding the last part because to keep it apart.

You might not accept that, but they are. You even give the reason why in your own post, "because various fans have decided that". This is the basis of imagination, story telling, legends and mythology.
As for your objective fact, if it is only about the objective quality of the story then it is true. For an objective observer.


Which I still say is wrong and both mediums shall follow the same path if something won't be done about that approach.

So... human nature is wrong? :smallsigh:


And you apparently still have, as you said it, TIME to waste on something medicore, when you could spend it on something good? That's rich.

Really? Whatever you say. I must immediately stop my childish ways and waste my evenings looking for good comics. I am sure it will go over way at home if I spend even more time in front of the computer. Or come home late because I spend time in the comic book store after work.


As you said, I don't care if it makes you sad. I find that attachment to be childlish and something people should reject as they grow up, for me that's natural.

Good for you. Being condecending is also a great way of winning arguments on the Internet.

On a less irritated note: Why are you on a board about a stick figure humorous parody webcomic about Dungeon and Dragons if you reject childish things?
Could it be that you like a number of Childish things yourself? :smallamused:


Any of these books is dark to you? I could name two geniuquely dark books in new 52 and it would be Animal Man and Swamp Thing, if the rest is dark you don't know what really dark story even means.

And since when 8 is 2/3 out of 52?

Why would I read them? I have never read them (well that isn't true, I read a few issues of Swamp Thing back in the mid 1980ies). Because I KNOW I don't like them. Why on earth would I read anything intentionally dark?

And yes, all the comics above have taken a turn (sharp or otherwise) towards dark. Just like in the 1990ies. It's not even subjective, it's objective.
That's why I don't read them anymore / didn't continue reading them.

[Man on Fire]

You might not accept that, but they are. You even give the reason why in your own post, "because various fans have decided that". This is the basis of imagination, story telling, legends and mythology.

And this boild down "it's popular therefore it's good", which is fundamentally wrong and is part of mentality killing comics industry.

[Avilan the Grey]

And this boild down "it's popular therefore it's good", which is fundamentally wrong and is part of mentality killing comics industry.

And you are still wrong. Your behavior is in the minority for a reason, humans have always preferred character over writer: It doesn't matter if it is games, movies, legends or comics. Or do you think all stories about Sinbad were made up by one person?

If the modern American superhero comic (which is the comic "dying" from this) does indeed die... it is because they failed to cater to their customers. In other words, they DESERVE to die at that point. Just like car companies that fail to sell cars should be bought by competitors or go bust, or companies that make candy that tastes bad should disappear.

It is how it should be.

[Scowling Dragon]

But catering to consumers in the long run is a loose loose situation.

Consumers just want the same things over and over. But if you do that they get bored of the same eventually.

So the reality is that there should be better consumers more willing to follow authors rather then a meaningless puppet.

[Avilan the Grey]

But catering to consumers in the long run is a loose loose situation.

Consumers just want the same things over and over. But if you do that they get bored of the same eventually.

So the reality is that there should be better consumers more willing to follow authors rather then a meaningless puppet.

Oh yes, companies also need to woo and awe their customers. Maybe the only solution is to actually kill off characters for real, or only publish mini-series. I don't know. What I do know is that the Big Two have painted themselves into a corner several decades ago when they didn't give characters to the creators, and therefore created this very trap they are now in.

[Arranis Thelmos]

They killed Peter Parker again? What happened to the Mexican kid who took his place after the first time he was killed? When (and how) did he come back?

[Friv]

So... human nature is wrong? :smallsigh:


Ah, we have hit the core of our disagreement! And it's actually something new, so I suppose I can post again without feeling like I'm just retreading old ground, as I was doing. :smalltongue:

Yep, human nature is frequently wrong. We're prone to logical fallacies, incorrect assumptions, and bad decisions. Quite a lot of life is about trying to recognize those fallacies in oneself and adapt to or mitigate them, which is far from easy to do.

Following characters instead of writers is extremely common. If it wasn't, we wouldn't see bad entertainment as a common thing for the past "all of human history". It's not a new problem, at all. We don't notice it as much because the real shlock tends to vanish after a while and only the good stuff gets left behind, and also because we live in an era of unparalled choice when it comes to being entertained.

Just because something is common, though, doesn't make it correct, and my argument is essentially that following characters instead of their writers is a logical fallacy which stems from our tendency to anthropomorphise things. And yeah, you're right - it's not a new one. A lot of our old legends are clearly written by dozens, or hundreds of people. You get all sorts of wild inconsistencies with them. And there's nothing inherently wrong with it - I loved Wicked, I enjoy watching Sherlock, and I'm writing a story that's based on Peter Pan right now. The value of using existing characters over new ones is that you don't have to start from scratch; you can assume that your readers know a lot of the baseline material already. The second value is that you have a lot of goodwill to start with, because you're playing to the logical fallacy that because another author did the character well, you will too.

Doesn't mean that following the character is the correct choice.

[Scowling Dragon]

Oh yes, companies also need to woo and awe their customers. Maybe the only solution is to actually kill off characters for real, or only publish mini-series. I don't know. What I do know is that the Big Two have painted themselves into a corner several decades ago when they didn't give characters to the creators, and therefore created this very trap they are now in.

If they ACTUALLY killed them off you would likely just stop reading. Since you only follow the character.

[Reverent-One]

They killed Peter Parker again? What happened to the Mexican kid who took his place after the first time he was killed? When (and how) did he come back?

Miles Morales is the Ultimates universe spider-man, this is about the regular 616 universe spider-man dying.

[DiscipleofBob]

If they ACTUALLY killed them off you would likely just stop reading. Since you only follow the character.

It IS possible to do a character death well, it's just very difficult in comic books because after the Phoenix saga, death became kind of cheap. Everyone knows that the character will eventually come back, so why mourn them? What impact could they possibly have other than a brief leave of absence? Then if they end up not coming back, it's like the magician who makes your watch disappear and never reappear. We're disoriented, confused, disappointed, and want our gorram watch back.

Death needs to be used sparingly, be done believably, and have an impact. Captain America's "death" at the end of Civil War was actually good. It was the end of a major conflict crossover arc, he died shielding a civilian from a sniper attack, and his death was a poignant metaphor for the loss/changing of American and superhero ideals in the Marvel universe. (Yes, he came back later as expected, but it still worked.)

The biggest problem with Parker's death is that, while it's great for Doc Ock's character, it's horrible for Parker. It's not a believable or acceptable end to the story of Peter Parker, especially coming off of the One More Day BS. The whole body-switching angle doesn't really seem like a good way to kill off the character. And the "impact" is had on fans appears to be a good portion of fans is outrage, especially after One More Day.

[Arranis Thelmos]

Miles Morales is the Ultimates universe spider-man, this is about the regular 616 universe spider-man dying.

... Well, I'm behind on the times then.

[Man on Fire]

And you are still wrong. Your behavior is in the minority for a reason, humans have always preferred character over writer: It doesn't matter if it is games, movies, legends or comics. Or do you think all stories about Sinbad were made up by one person?

Humans were always doing a lot of stupid things, many of which we grew out over the course of our history, we should also grow out of this sentiment.


If the modern American superhero comic (which is the comic "dying" from this) does indeed die... it is because they failed to cater to their customers. In other words, they DESERVE to die at that point. Just like car companies that fail to sell cars should be bought by competitors or go bust, or companies that make candy that tastes bad should disappear.

It is how it should be.

You said two things

1) "Companies cannot make new products and try new things, they must slavisly serve the same people to give them the same thing over and over".
2) "Money is more important than the stories"

First one is selfish and has no grip in reality, second is what the companies dragging the industry to the ground belived for decades and look where it got them.

[Avilan the Grey]

If they ACTUALLY killed them off you would likely just stop reading. Since you only follow the character.

What I meant was that if they had done this from the beginning. Or even better as I said had let the original creators write the stories and then stop when they stopped.


You said two things

1) "Companies cannot make new products and try new things, they must slavisly serve the same people to give them the same thing over and over".
2) "Money is more important than the stories"

1. Companies should make things that customers want.

2. Tell me, do you buy books? Music? Games? Do you think that the publishers of these things are into it because of the art, or do they also want to make money?

[Man on Fire]

Everyone knows that the character will eventually come back, so why mourn them?


Unless they are a C-Lister in which case they will never have a chance of return, with some temporary eceptions like Chaos War.


1. Companies should make things that customers want.

Except that who you said are customers are only part of who customers really are. There are multiple groups who are asking Marvel and DC over and over again where are comics for them, and instead we get more and more Batman.


2. Tell me, do you buy books? Music? Games? Do you think that the publishers of these things are into it because of the art, or do they also want to make money?

Notice the "also" part. What you described is policy concerned only about making money.

[Tiki Snakes]

It IS possible to do a character death well, it's just very difficult in comic books because after the Phoenix saga, death became kind of cheap. Everyone knows that the character will eventually come back, so why mourn them? What impact could they possibly have other than a brief leave of absence? Then if they end up not coming back, it's like the magician who makes your watch disappear and never reappear. We're disoriented, confused, disappointed, and want our gorram watch back.

Death needs to be used sparingly, be done believably, and have an impact. Captain America's "death" at the end of Civil War was actually good. It was the end of a major conflict crossover arc, he died shielding a civilian from a sniper attack, and his death was a poignant metaphor for the loss/changing of American and superhero ideals in the Marvel universe. (Yes, he came back later as expected, but it still worked.)

The biggest problem with Parker's death is that, while it's great for Doc Ock's character, it's horrible for Parker. It's not a believable or acceptable end to the story of Peter Parker, especially coming off of the One More Day BS. The whole body-switching angle doesn't really seem like a good way to kill off the character. And the "impact" is had on fans appears to be a good portion of fans is outrage, especially after One More Day.

Personally, I think that it could be, rather than an issue with character death and the impermenance of it, actually more of a problem of the comic-book-time variety. Admittedly, the two big companies handle it quite differently, with marvels sliding present and dc blowing up reality periodically, but it boils down to a strangely stilted, progress-less world.

I think a lot of comics problems would unknot themselves if they just let time flow normally. Well, the problems that arise with the comics themselves anyway. I'm not sure what could be done to fix the slow and steady fall of readers. Though surely stopping trolling your fanbase by radically subverting your characters all the time couldn't hurt to try.

[willpell]

In discussing Spider-Man on another thread, MoF brought up Spider-Ock, and rather than disgress further on that thread, I'm saying this here. While it's virtually certain that Peter Parker's death will eventually be retconned, for now I like the idea of Superior SM (not enough to actually buy the comic, but still), and I thought it would be interesting if they *did* bring Peter back to life...only for him to decide that Ock makes a better Spider-Man than him, and to give up superheroing (perhaps instead becoming May Parker's crotchety old dad), leaving Ock in the role. That would doubtlessly get retconned eventually too, but for however long they could stand to let it last, it'd be a nice way to turn things against the all-too-dreary status quo.

[Jayngfet]

Notice the "also" part. What you described is policy concerned only about making money.

The "also" is a pretty big deal. Nobody who lasts long gets into video games or movies or entertainment in general if they don't care about the stuff even a little bit. They might not care about the specific thing they're making at that moment but on some level you need to actually care enough, or you never really make it very far.

[Avilan the Grey]

The "also" is a pretty big deal. Nobody who lasts long gets into video games or movies or entertainment in general if they don't care about the stuff even a little bit. They might not care about the specific thing they're making at that moment but on some level you need to actually care enough, or you never really make it very far.

It does, in fact, not matter if they are only in it for the money, as long as they are smart about it. If they are smart about it (talking about publishers, not developers) we can as customers not tell if they are in it for the money or not. Because, once again, they are giving us what we want, or what we don't know we want.

About that, btw (giving us what we don't know we want), to loop back to the Big Two and their problems...

The argument has split into three parts:

1. To only give the fans what they want causes a halt in progress.
2. If we don't get what we want we won't buy their products.
3. We should not demand what we want but instead look for something new

In my argument that we (as fans) follow characters, not writers, I never meant that the companies shouldn't try new things.

The problem is that they are so damn clumsy and dumb about it. They are, quite frankly, operating as if they were selling a super-sized reality show of the sleazy kind, or a cheaply written soap.
When the customers can respond with "I hate where this is going, but everything will be back to normal within 24 months" and about 90% of the time be right about it, you have a SERIOUS problem. Add to this all the "new and cool" characters and concepts they HAVE tried over the years that never went anywhere and it definitely explains why we won't start digging for new stuff (at those companies):

Everything from ridiculous character concepts, often built on what 50 year old men thinks kids like ("a hero with a rocket skateboard!" "a hero using rap music (while dressed as MR T) to attack The Man") or already dying fads ("Disco Lad and Studio 54 girl") or Sudden Sexuality ("Did I mention I am gay today?"*) or the cheapest of all, the main character death ("Let's kill Batman! The issue will sell 10 times the normal ammount and NOBODY will EVERY think he will come back! After all Superman never did! ...Oh wait a minute...") or the favorite for a few years in the 90ies: "Depower him and give him two SUPERSIZED GUNS! Kids LOVES guns!!!").

Basically none of these ideas will expand your fanbase, and the old one** will eventually tire of your antics (we have seen it ALL before), which seems to happen more and more often these days.

*I have NOTHING against homosexual characters, it is the way they go about it that can be jarring. Too clumsily written.

**The (superhero) comic book audience is aging with the media. The influx of new fans is shrinking every year.

[Jayngfet]

It does, in fact, not matter if they are only in it for the money, as long as they are smart about it. If they are smart about it (talking about publishers, not developers) we can as customers not tell if they are in it for the money or not. Because, once again, they are giving us what we want, or what we don't know we want.


The rest of your post is spot on and I have no problem with it. The thing here is though that pound for pound, anyone only in it for the money won't come to the big two simply because their numbers are small. They won't go to any other north american comic place because those numbers tend to be just as small on average, if not lower. The idea of a high powered tv executive in a giant limo who doesn't care about anything but the money is a myth, simply because out of all the business guys in the industry there's maybe a few dozen who make a very high amount of money. Given the way most businesses are changing structure that number is decreasing as they cut out the dead weight on both sides of the table.

You can say there's no real difference, but every person who touches a work before it goes out makes a difference, even if it's a total lack of an individual mark, which is noticeable in and of itself. This isn't like say, running a mine, where so long as the right numbers come out and there aren't any safety violations nobody cares.

[Avilan the Grey]

The rest of your post is spot on and I have no problem with it. The thing here is though that pound for pound, anyone only in it for the money won't come to the big two simply because their numbers are small. They won't go to any other north american comic place because those numbers tend to be just as small on average, if not lower. The idea of a high powered tv executive in a giant limo who doesn't care about anything but the money is a myth, simply because out of all the business guys in the industry there's maybe a few dozen who make a very high amount of money. Given the way most businesses are changing structure that number is decreasing as they cut out the dead weight on both sides of the table.

You can say there's no real difference, but every person who touches a work before it goes out makes a difference, even if it's a total lack of an individual mark, which is noticeable in and of itself. This isn't like say, running a mine, where so long as the right numbers come out and there aren't any safety violations nobody cares.

But this is another part of the problem. The whole list of clueless attempts to expand the fanbase (or make a quick buck) above is signs that the higher-ups have lost contact with the fanbase and ARE in it for the money.

Also, I know the TV executive above is a myth. He has not existed for a long time (and if he does, he is not doing well, see Murdoch or Trumph) for the most part. However these days it is very likely that an international conglomerate and/or international investment firm is the boss of the boss, and THEY care ONLY for the money.

Also, see EA.

[Scowling Dragon]

I kinda have to agree with Avilan.

The core company usually does not have a only for the money at the head, but stockholders are a fickle bunch that want short term stock rises NOW.

[Avilan the Grey]

I kinda have to agree with Avilan.

The core company usually does not have a only for the money at the head, but stockholders are a fickle bunch that want short term stock rises NOW.

Not to mention Investment banks, and Investment companies that on the best of days are used to finance good projects, but most of the time are just out for a quick buck and force any company they invest in / buy to work to maximize their (the Investment Company) profit and nothing else.

[Man on Fire]

But this is another part of the problem. The whole list of clueless attempts to expand the fanbase (or make a quick buck) above is signs that the higher-ups have lost contact with the fanbase and ARE in it for the money.

And that pretty much what happens when you ARE in it for the money. All the bad things you listed happened because companies are in it for the money. They need to stop that anc care about medium they represent, they need to really try new things and not just pretend to.

[Man on Fire]

Sorry for foubleposting, but, well, 4chan got leaks of SS-Man #1 and I have a funny spoiler to get this thread back on the track:


Part of Peter's mind survived in Spock. Ghost Peter stopped him from killing a criminal and forced to save a cop. Spock doesn't even know it exist.

[Avilan the Grey]

Sorry for foubleposting, but, well, 4chan got leaks of SS-Man #1 and I have a funny spoiler to get this thread back on the track:


Part of Peter's mind survived in Spock. Ghost Peter stopped him from killing a criminal and forced to save a cop. Spock doesn't even know it exist.


Was this the big reveal? I thought everyone and their grandmother had figured that one out already?
Also... Yeah, so much for claiming in all interviews that this was "permanent, forever and irreversible"...:smallsigh:

[Friv]

Sorry for foubleposting, but, well, 4chan got leaks of SS-Man #1 and I have a funny spoiler to get this thread back on the track:


Part of Peter's mind survived in Spock. Ghost Peter stopped him from killing a criminal and forced to save a cop. Spock doesn't even know it exist.


*presses down stopwatch*

And... time!

Peter Parker dies, and comes back one issue later. A new record, ladies and gentlemen!

Okay, yes, it's not a return to the status quo yet, but it's certainly a good first step.

[Jayngfet]

Was this the big reveal? I thought everyone and their grandmother had figured that one out already?
Also... Yeah, so much for claiming in all interviews that this was "permanent, forever and irreversible"...:smallsigh:

All the claims made in interviews have ever done from the get go was get mockery, and lots of it.

I mean as in actual laughter. I am laughing and mocking a large number of things said in those interviews. The lies in those things are so blatant I don't even NEED to read those comics to know they're lies.

[Avilan the Grey]

All the claims made in interviews have ever done from the get go was get mockery, and lots of it.

I mean as in actual laughter. I am laughing and mocking a large number of things said in those interviews. The lies in those things are so blatant I don't even NEED to read those comics to know they're lies.

So then, is Slott really that full of himself that he thinks he will not be retconned or rewritten? Or is it (more likely) so that he is just repeating what Marvel Higher-Ups told him to?

[Kris Strife]

Sorry for foubleposting, but, well, 4chan got leaks of SS-Man #1 and I have a funny spoiler to get this thread back on the track:


Part of Peter's mind survived in Spock. Ghost Peter stopped him from killing a criminal and forced to save a cop. Spock doesn't even know it exist.


Was it actually a ghost or is Peter the manifestation of Spider-Ocs growing conscience?

[Man on Fire]

Peter Parker dies, and comes back one issue later. A new record, ladies and gentlemen!

No, he's a ghost, they don't count as coming back to life.


Was it actually a ghost or is Peter the manifestation of Spider-Ocs growing conscience?

He said things like "I don't know why, but I'm still here" and "I will get my life back".

[MLai]

Regarding Spider-Ock:
If it is Peter Parker's bonafide consciousness, then it does count as him being back. It doesn't matter if he's a ghost, or if he's a frog, or whatever.

[Androgeus]

Regarding Spider-Ock:
If it is Peter Parker's bonafide consciousness, then it does count as him being back. It doesn't matter if he's a ghost, or if he's a frog, or whatever.

If he's back the very next issue, did he ever leave?

[Jayngfet]

If he's back the very next issue, did he ever leave?

No, he did not. It's the same thing as Hal Jordan "dying" a few months ago, with a death of Superman style cover to advertise the fact. Very next issue it turns out he was back, just lost somewhere.

Booster Gold is also "dead", I think, only just wiped out of the timeline somehow. Only nobody even bothered commenting other than "where did Booster Gold go?" in a footnote written by a guy who never actually met Booster.

Lets be honest, unless you're like, even more obscure than Green Arrow, your death is now meaningless because you'll be back in at most five years, and at the lowest estimate, the very next week.

[Lord Seth]

Man, all this talk makes me glad the only comic series I read regularly is Sonic the Hedgehog.

Which, to be fair, has its own share of dumb developments. But not as dumb as the stuff that seems to go on in other comics.

[soir8]

I just hope that Slott remembers that when Ock notices Parker's ghost hanging around, he should be remorseful for killing him and probably try to restore him to life. Obviously there needs to be some conflict between the two, but there shouldn't be too much outright hostility left.