Well, the New York Post blew the reveal of the end of Civil War #2 before the book was on the stands. Then again, I suppose anyone who actually reads that rag deserves what they get so, y'know, that'll teach ya.
We, however, will allow those who don't know what's going down with Spider-Man to frequent the board without having it ruined for them. For those who do want to discuss it--and you know you do--I provide the space below. Have at it.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at June 15, 2006 07:42 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingQuesada's logic for not liking the Spidey marriage was that it closed off certain types of stories. Soap opera style relationships with multiple girls were a lot of what people expected from Spidey in the early days, so he reasoned that closing off the possibility of doing those stories was not a good thing in the long term.
I can understand that logic, and I see his point about the marriage. So now it seems a little odd that Spidey's secret identity would be revealed. That's another chunk of stories that they can't do anymore. It's another large detail new readers will be confused about. He had a secret identity in every cartoon, TV show and movie that the casual (or just young) reader has seen, so this seems like it would disconnect them from the character more.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. I can see interesting stories coming out of this. I certainly don't mind the idea of Spidey growing and changing in some ways. It just seems like this is the kind of thing that a company wouldn't do with a major character.
Dont like it one bit, but I see it being retconned anyway. It flat out destroys alot of established drama, as bad as Superman revealing to the World he is also Clark Kent. For all the same reasons, it wont stick.
I can understand that logic, and I see his point about the marriage. So now it seems a little odd that Spidey's secret identity would be revealed.
Um, Speedball?
Dont like it one bit, but I see it being retconned anyway. It flat out destroys alot of established drama, as bad as Superman revealing to the World he is also Clark Kent. For all the same reasons, it wont stick.
That's traditional superheroics. However, to some extent, Spider Man broke a lot of the rules.
Peter, did you know about Spidey's id becoming public when you started the Flash Thompson storyline in FSM? I'm curious to see how it will play out now...thanks!
"Um, Speedball?"
What about Speedball?
You know they found him alive and well, right?
This got spoiled for me, but not here, so i appreciate that.
Newsarama spoiled it mostly by having a thread talking about a big spoiler and showing half of Spider-man's body.
and
then I was checking drudgereport for "up to the minute news" and they had the scene. It is still there if anyone cares to look
Huge mistake in my mind. A shame because PAD's Spider-man book was really good-or had the potential to be, I really enjoyed the non-other issues,and particularly Flash Thompson. I feel, though, the book will never get a chance to stand on its own with its own identity
Sorry this happened-if permanent (Joe Q says no mindwipes).
I really don't want the marriage to end. At all. and i feel this will lead to the end of it-either through MJ's death, or something perhaps ending with Spider-man making a deal to reverse people's knowledge and erase the memory of the marriage from at least MJ.
anyway, keeping her as his wife is the way to go for me-I like how JMS and PAD write the marriage-and if this is permanent, the secret ID thing, it is a big mistake.
"and i feel this will lead to the end of it-either through MJ's death, or something perhaps ending with Spider-man making a deal to reverse people's knowledge and erase the memory of the marriage from at least MJ."
Those are also things that J.Q. said he wouldn't let happen. He said that Peter the widower is even worse than Peter the married guy. He also said that things like mindwipes and turning back time would make people feel like the last 20 years were all invalidated, something that he doesn't want to do.
I think I understand the fuss myself. I just don't think there's a valid reason for it.
It's still all about Peter trying to understand the relationship between power and responsibility, right? So long as that continues to be respected -- and from what I see, it is -- there's no problem here.
Speaking of comics yesterday, did anyone else read the newest issue of Ms. Marvel? Carol has to go into hiding, and is told to check into a room under the name Linda Danvers, because no one would be interested in that name.
I miss Supergirl.
This is a terrific series. Truly. But I'd definitely enjoy it more if I had any confidence whatsoever that Marvel isn't going to wish all of it into the cornfield eventually. I'm certain that at best, it'll be a "House of M" sort of deal, where the only lasting effect is to remake the MU into a form that's easier to editorially manage.
I keep thinking of that episode of "Seinfeld" where Kramer announces that he's going to be remodeling his apartment. "Levels. It's alllll going to be levels. Levels, Jerry!"
And Jerry nods and sips his coffee, because as ridiculous as this project sounds, and as disruptive as all that construction would be, he knows from past experience that despite all the big talk, it's never going to really happen.
So I'm enjoying the story. And part of me is intrigued by the notion of these monumental events becoming an inescapable influence on everything that happens in the MU for the next five years. But when you get down to it, after every CW and tie-in issue -- and particularly after I read an interview with Quesada about the unholy earth-shatteringness of it all -- I'm just nodding and sipping my coffee.
I don't want to sound like the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, so I won't say, Worst. Plot. Twist. Ever. But honestly, I keep thinking, "Spider-Man would never do that." But of course, I've had similar thoughts about the entire plot of Civil War since the series was announced. The only sequence of events that would make sense to me is:
1. The Super-Hero Registration Act is announced.
2. All the Marvel super-heroes band together to oppose it.
3. The U.S. government releases Super Sentinels, or perhaps Super Soldiers, to enforce the act.
4. The Marvel super-heroes trounce them.
5. The Super-Hero Registration Act is abandoned or repealed.
But I'd like to hear the other side of the argument: PAD, were you one of the people who made the decision that Spider-Man should reveal his identity? And if you were, what convinced you it was a good idea?
"Soap opera style relationships with multiple girls were a lot of what people expected from Spidey in the early days, so he reasoned that closing off the possibility of doing those stories was not a good thing in the long term."
Well, they always can give Peter Parker some lovers. ¿Anybody said Black Cat?
Didn't Spider-Man have just about the LAST Secret ID in the whole Marvel Universe? Seriously, who's left?
I'm not buying Civil War, but the last issue of JMS's Spidey title kinda leant towards The Big Reveal anyway, so I'm not sure how "spoiled" it can be for any regular reader.
You know, I managed to avoid all the spoilers floating around the past week or so until I got into the car yesterday morning and heard Howard Stern and crew talking about it. It was a choice between driving into a tree or have the whole Peter Parker reveal spoiled. I should have taken the tree...
Peter, I agree with Daniel: I want to know how you felt about the Spidey reveal and whether you agree with it or not. I'm betting on not, but I understand if you don't want to annoy the PTB.
Personally, I think this all ends with a Dr. Strange forgetfulness spell.
My own opinion: Spidey says, 'Screw all of you, I quit. Me and MJ are going to sit on a beach somewhere; call me when the super-villains have surrounded the White House- and make sure my signed amnesty is posted on the front door.'
I saw it pop up in a yahoo news headline. grumble grumble
JAC
Elongated Man had a public identity and a successful marriage. Granted, he didn't have the top tier villians that Spider-Man has.
How many times in Spidey's history has Mary Jane been in danger? So.. whats the difference now? She just needs to hire a bodyguard, thats what most stars do.
This is probably a lot better for her too when with her friends and acquaintances.. "You married that guy? And he's not an actor?" .. "Um no.. he's Spider-Man and he sticks to the ceiling."
My thoughts:
It's either a huge fakeout, or a misguided story development. Either way, it's not going to stand, obviously. If it's a fakeout (a la the Silver Age "revelations" of Spidey's identity)... well, I can't think of anyway to do that without it seeming cheesy, and I'm concerned that's exactly what it will be.
If it's an attempt at a legitimate story development.... well, they'll quickly figure out that the character doesn't work that way, and Xavier will have to do a worldwide mindwipe or something.
I guess we just have to wait till Civil War is over to see which it is, but I for one think that is the completely wrong sort of suspense... the audience should be focused on what's going to happen in the story, not wondering whether the guys behind the curtain will make a particular editorial decision. In essence, they've boiled the question down to "Is Marvel really stupid enough to do that?" and given their track record with character decisions over the last few years, the truly sad thing is that is a completely legitimate question.
If they are that stupid, the thing I'd most like to see when Civil War is over and done with, would be an honest, creator-by-creator breakdown of what they think of the decision, no holds barred. If they think it's stupid or ill-advised, they should be encouraged by The Powers That Be to give their honest open opinion. That would certainly generate a lot more interest in I think, by giving fans who hold the opposing view some representation inside the company.
But again, that's if it's not a huge fakeout.
Fake out. No doubt about it. I don't care what Joe Q says, there will be a mindwipe or some other gimmick.
Personally, I think Stan Lee should have done this somewhere around Amazing Spider-Man #8 (think how cool it would have been to see Flash Thompson find out that "Puny Parker" is his idol, Spider-Man). Forty years late, but hey, it's finally happened.
PAD: Actually, I was more interested on your take of the subject. As a writer for one of the core SM titles, specifically the newest SM title, what do you think of the reveal? It's somewhat artificial to me, but what do I know?
Long time reader of PAD's blog.. first time I felt like commenting.
Seeing this news makes me realize that deciding to drop all the comics I collect.. I don't like Spiderman revealing his identity.. I despise the dissolution of his marriage to MJ.. Hate the Civil War concept (even the heroes who's ids were revealed have long been on record as understanding why others keep it secret).. hate knowing Wolverine's past (destroys the mystery).. at the Distinguished Competition - hate the One Year Later storyline.. absolutely DETEST that Jason is not dead..
I could probably go on and on... but in the end, it seems that comics have lately been more about shock factor rather than storytelling.. JMS and PAD Spider-books being an exception until this nonsense leading into Civil War.
I know that I am no longer the target audience for these books.. and in this age of video games, movies, and instant gratification, comics have to do something to get their demographic's attention.. but still, I mourn at the loss of the heroes of my youth.. and the retconning of the stories that I remember so fondly.
"I despise the dissolution of his marriage to MJ"
sigh
Um, actually, while the newspaper revelation brought the story to national attention, the REAL "blowing" came LAST WEEK in the pages of "Thunderbolts" as part of Marvel's "First Look" program. (For those who don't know about this, it's a program through which participating retailers get a selection of the next week's Marvel and DC titles.) The issue of "Thunderbolts" in question (which officially went on sale Wednesday, the 14th) was included among last week's "First Look" books, and the scene appears on page 2 as part of a television news program playing in the background.
From what I gather through other sources, apparently no one at Marvel caught this and a certain Joe Quesada was more than just a bit peeved when the info made its way around the internet late last week.
Didn't an issue of Spider-Man that came out like a week after Civil War #1 have the same ending?
Re: the marriage: At SDCC I'm asking Joe Q just what the hell his problem is with 20 somethings being married, and since he's already ruined the Summers marriage, why does he feel he needs to destroy another.
As for the big reveal, it was all worth to see JJJ. That image was priceless.
I have just got issue #1 of Civil War and it will be weeks until I get the next issue.
So far, I enjoy it a lot. Reading such a political, thought provoking comic story in Marvel is not something I am used to and also in the context with the ongoing "war against terror" and related topics, you can`t help to make some comparisons.
With my package I also got my latest issue of the Comics Buyers Guide and your views about spoilers. I understand your position but I also think, IF (and that is important) spoiler warnings are given, there is nothing wrong with them. I like reading spoilers, not because they "ruin" my enjoyment but because I see them as teasers. They increase my appetite - well, sometimes, of course, also not. But even then, I know that I have to look at spoilers about something I haven`t read or seen yet with caution. I can form a preliminary opinion but have to do my best to approach the book or whatever with an open mind.
So far, I haven`t got issue #2 and all I have seen so far is this discussion. After Peter was so worried about the consequences of revealing his identity in the first book, this is not a development I would have expected. On the other hand, from articles I have read before that had a more general look at Civil War, I had a gut feeling for a while that Peter will indeed do it.
I think it offers a lot of interesting story possibilities but if I like it or not depends very much on the execution. I don`t want the marriage with MJ to end. I don`t want to see her killed or be the damsel in distress numerous times. As someone already said, give her a bodyguard and also, show that the lady has some teeth and won`t be an easy victim.
Something else about spoilers: Not only do I like reading them because I am curious but also, when I finally get this book, the discussions about this topic will have died down and I will lose the opportunity to participate. I experience that with books all the time and it is very frustrating.
I say we just start throwing out ideas on how to retcon this reveal. All suggestions are welcome! I'll go first.
#1 - Peter's press conference was, in reality, made in an alternate universe, controlled by Mysterio, and his broadcast was exclusively directed towards an audience of Skrulls.
#2 - Peter sticks with the "Iron Spidey" look, proclaiming, "That guy wasn't me! I have the red and Gold costume! See!"
#3 - The Punisher and Wolverine kill everybody on the planet who knows.
#4 - Simply never mention it again, ala Baby May / Clone Saga. If anyone ever mentions it, Parker & Supporting Co. will automatically throw their hands up over their ears and scream, "LA LA LA LA LA LA! I'M NOT LISTENING TO THIS! LA LA LA LA LA LA!"
#5 - Wanda Did It
And so on... you know it'll have to happen eventually, lets just start thinking of ideas now.
"Re: the marriage: At SDCC I'm asking Joe Q just what the hell his problem is with 20 somethings being married, and since he's already ruined the Summers marriage, why does he feel he needs to destroy another."
Bones: The horse is dead, Jim.
Kirk: We... can't take... that chance! Keep... beating it!
I think it's a mssive mistake, and to me seems completely out of character for Spidey. Responsibility is his byword and I can't believe he would risk the lives of his loved ones in this way. Because that's what WILL happen - the only big story "possibilities" that it opens up are ones that bring the villains down on MJ and May (and Pete gets sued by JJJ for misleading him for years or somesuch guff).
All in all, a HORRIBLE decision. Stupid move, JQ.
I can't quite get my head around it, to be honest, for many of the same reasons expressed in this thread already. I do know that I don't like it.
Willing to see where the story goes from here because I'm generally enjoying the whole Civil War so far but my overall enthusiasm for Marvel comics has been hit quite hard by this.
People keep going on about the "Power & Responsibility" angle, which I agree with, he is taking it to the next level, Peter has always been upset about not being "legitimate" and having the Police after him.
For the people who use the P&R card saying that's why he shouldn't have done it - it should have made him protect his family, therefore his secret ID; are forgetting one very important detail about his character. Peter ALWAYS wanted to be liked - he was an outsider, a geek, a victim when he was growing up. That's why when he 1st got his powers he went the showbusines route, he wanted the fame, the glamour, the adulation - to compensate for how he was never loved (outside of his home)when growing up.
I see his "coming out" as another aspect of peter's complex personality - he on some level after all these yrs and after having a relatively quiet life and stability, he would see this as a confirmation that he'd done good and maybe just maybe, he could go on to have everything he wanted when he was a child......the fame and the adulation, the love. He must feel that he's payed his dues in part and can afford to go down this route because he deserves it.
This will obviously lead into his ultimate downfall, I think and he will never ever want to go down this route again. But of course it's too late.
Joe Q said things were getting too safe, everyone liked each other etc, If you know anything about storytelling then I would have thought this was obviously not going to go well and it will bring back, ultimately, that fugative side to spidey back again. This is the genie da'Q wants back and I think it's on it's way.Mark my words!
PS the cover image to #5 - I think while all the villians go after spidey, the real reason they will be doing it is to distract spidey while they go after MJ. Genie 2 now gone as well. ULP!
Well at least this will acomplish a few things:
- People will stop complaining how bad the JMS Gwen story and how out of character that was.
- Fans will beg for them to bring back the clones!
It just doesn't fit, why did it have to be done? Hype wich is what feeds most Marvel books these days (I'm looking your way F4: Death in the Family). Why was he in his regualr costume?
Well I hope it doesn't stick, could the Watcher have a hand in that? Who watches the Watcher?
Since this is a thread on PAD's blog and not JMS's....Under the possibility some have read Civil War, but Not Amazing Spider-Man
or under the possibility some have read neither but are thinking about the information they are learning in this thread...
NOTE: I am about to spoil what happened in the latest Amazing Spider-Man.
Peter's inclination WAS to remain masked. WAS to protect MJ and Aunt May.
But he brought the question to Aunt May and MJ. MJ was at first: "We'll go on the run with you." But Aunt May spoke up and said she wanted the world to be as proud of him as she was. And that the promise he made at sixteen was the promise of a child made without knowledge of the realities of the world. She also told him that responsibility means not running away. MJ agreed with her.
So basically, he expected Aunt May and MJ to support him in his decision to disobey the law, and got blindsided by the two women he loved into realizing the truth of what he had to do.
Love for someone else can at times make someone go a differnt route than they would have otherwise. I also know I make decisions differently today than I did at age 16.
I hope Stark has good lawyers, because what JJJ will do to Peter for faking all those years of supposedly taking photos of Spidey will not be fun. And he just might have a case. He didn't take the photos, the camera's self-timer did.
I've never been a big fan of retcons, but between this and the "Decimation" storyline (specifically, the pretty much wholesale slaughter of characters in the New X-Men title), I wouldn't gripe at all if the decision were made to rewind to just after the "Planet M" thing and start over...
Wildcat
And while I'm at it ...
What about the publishers of WEBS? I expect Peter'll be getting a call or letter from their lawyers as well.
One problem I have as a long time reader is this:
If it is permanent, the stupidness of it seems self-evident. It's like saying "I am goping to take the Peter Parker you've read about for 20 years and say, nah, that was a clone." So dumb, that only people in the bubble can't recognize it.
I don't think it is permanent. But if it is, then it will be reversed. Maybe not now, but a year from now,two years from now whatever. New creators will come and say the same thing Joe Q. says now about the marriage. Or a new Editor in chief. or there will be a movie or book to tie into. Something. So it is inevitable. Maybe after they milke a couple of years worth of stories. Especially when they have already once used the reality warping card in House of M.
it seems very odd that efforts were made not too long ago to put Iron Man's identity back to being secret again too.
Hoinestly, for those who say the last Amazing Spider-man gave it away, it didn't really. It set it up, but it could have gone down differently for sure. I didn't like to have my gut feeling confirmed before I read the book, but there ya go.
Seems weird though too, because one reason for giving him organic webbing was the editor said of a need to match the movies, like synergy. and yet at the same time they gave him the ability to hear insects or something. all after he emerged from a cocoon. and then those powers were not mentioned again by anyone. until he went into another cocoon and got different powers after meeting the spider-gods or some such complete nonsense. Spider-totem, yet another thing that has been and will be ignored by everyone but JMS, until some kid now grows up who dug it and brings it back 15 years from now. So they di the synergy thing, and then do this, a non-synergy thing. I don't believe it is permanent. and even if it is, it isn't anyway. Even Bucky is back.
all I have to say is, when the overwhelming reaction to a story event isn't "Wow!" or even "Nooooo!" but rather an almost resigned. "Huh, wonder how/when they're gonna undo that..." it's pretty much a failure...
The publisher of 'Webs' probably won't have much of a case, as Peter didn't mis-represent the photos (he sold the book to the publisher as photos of Spider-Man, and they were in fact photos of Spider-Man.)
The Daily Bugle might have more of a case, since we've seen on numerous occasions that Peter uses the auto-timer and poses for pictures when he needs quick cash; this practice would be frowned upon, staging photos and selling them as genuinely newsworthy.
My feeling: It will be undone. Period. The only question is whether they've built in a back-door for themselves, which would be where my smart money is (Quesada's public comments aside, I think Civil War will end with everyone's identity becoming secret again, thus restoring the public distrust of super-heroes as nobody knows who these people are. Which is much needed, both in Marvel and DC; when the Atom's ex-wife knows who the current Robin's dad is, that's a sign that your heroic community's become too close. :) )
If they did intend it to be a permanent change, they're fooling nobody but themselves; comic book concepts are like rubber bands. Stretch it as far as you like, but when you let go, it snaps back. Within six years, Peter Parker's identity as Spider-Man will once again be a secret, whether Quesada wishes it or not.
So don't worry so much, people. Take a break, read an 'Essentials' volume, and come back for more next month. :)
I don't like the idea of Spider-Man letting the public know this identity. I liked Peter Parker as the down-on-his luck, outsider. Also, as a teenager, who kept this identity as Spider-Man a secret.
I didn't follow the whole Civil War storyline. In fact I was so fed up with marvel's hyperactive all new greatest change ever kind of attitude about 6 years ago that I've downsized my involvement in Marvel, and have only recently started going back. So I'm really not that aware about what's going o in Marvel.
But, although my first reaction to the story was that it sounds like the worse ide ever, as I was scrolling I stated to feel that there are some good stories that could be told from that angle, if you look at it from a storytelling point of view rather than a fan point of view of 'oh my god they changed spidy. You bastards."
In this day an age of celebraty, paparazzi, reality TV, blogs, spyware, webcams etc. the problems associated with maintaining a secret identity may be a little outdated. The problems now seem to have to do more with how to maintain privacy at all. So maybe it's a storyline worth exploring. I'm waiting to jear what PAD says.
Still, good or bad, this story wil probably be reversed sooner or later like most hyperactive changes.
Before Identity Crisis came out, I was often thinking about whether secret identities were passe in general, but then I saw that there are still good stories that can be told about maintaining such secrets and the prices they pay for it.
Sadly, Civil War looks like Joe Q saw all the buzz DC got from Identity Crisis and said, "hey, let's do a story about secret IDs!" I haven't been buying much Marvel lately, just one or two titles, but I decided to pick up Civil War. So far, I'm not that impressed. Joe Q's pattern at EIC has been all style and no substance and Civil War looks like more of the same.
Compared to the very personal story of Identity Crisis, the disaster that triggers Civil War is too remote with a bunch of anonymous dead. It looks like another attempt by Joey to cash in on 9/11. Other things don't make any sense. I'm sorry, but after guarding his secret so carefully for so long, I can't swallow Peter just tossing it away because of his new found friendship.
And what is the logic of putting Captain America on the opposite side? He hasn't even maintained the pretense of a secret ID for several years. He even voluntarily unmasked after 9/11 in another exploitative story. It just seems like someone (cough, Warren Ellis, cough) who doesn't get either character decided that Steve and Tony have to be on opposite sides of every issue.
It's sad, but as much as I love many of Marvel's characters, it doesn't look like I'll be buying more than one or two titles so long as Joey's at the helm.
I hate this idea. Not only because it goes against the last 35 years of Spidey stories, AND because it is sooooooo out of character for him (his big reason for having a secret identity has been to protect his family. Now what?), but also because this plot point is so 5 years ago. I mean, who hasn't revealed their secret identity in the past 5 years? Marvel used to be the company that led the industry witrh ideas and events. Now it seems like they are stuck spinning their wheels.
I stopped reading monthly comics about two years ago, but the habit is in my blood, so I still keep abreast of what's going on via online resources. When I read about this and saw the page of Peter's announcement, I was floored. This story, this act, that one page made me want to run to my LCS and put the rest of the series on a hold list.
I have so much faith in the creators working on this story that they'll be able to use this as a spring-board for so many great and new stories for Spider-Man.
I hope Stark has good lawyers, because what JJJ will do to Peter for faking all those years of supposedly taking photos of Spidey will not be fun. And he just might have a case. He didn't take the photos, the camera's self-timer did.
Well, all Peter has do to square everything away with 3J is say three magic words:
"Bugle Exclusive Interview"
John raised some interesting points up there. Peter DIDN'T want to do it. But MJ and Aunt May said that he should. The two most important(living) people in his life told him to do it. Now, one of the reasons I've always related to the Marvel characters is they have internal dialogue, a sense of (Not to be too trite) responsibility. Their decisions way on them. The characters evolve.
I'm gonna go to the opposite side here and say I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with this. C'mon, Peter Parker is Spider-Man? Seems like half the other heroes already know who he is. So does SHIELD. But oh no, his greatest enemies will find out! Like the Green Goblin! Oh, he knows already. And Doc Ock. And Venom. And Kaine. And...
To see what I hope will be done with this, go back and read Daredevil's last couple of years. He was outed and the storyline didn't back away from the ramifications. It charged right into them and made for some of the most powerful storytelling I've seen in quite a while.
"To see what I hope will be done with this, go back and read Daredevil's last couple of years. He was outed and the storyline didn't back away from the ramifications. It charged right into them and made for some of the most powerful storytelling I've seen in quite a while."
My point exactly. It has already been done (and done well!)! What is the point of rehashing plot points from other books?
I think Civil War will end with everyone's identity becoming secret again, thus restoring the public distrust of super-heroes as nobody knows who these people are.
*****
I thought that two-one of the 3 genies to be put back in the bottle. But seems the opposite.
***
But MJ and Aunt May said that he should. The two most important(living) people in his life told him to do it
****
Yeah, but they said what JMS wanted them to say. i thought AUnt May sounded out of character and her arguments simply weren't logical.
And Doc Ock
****
He doesn't know. Not since he died and came back
Only Venom (Scorpion version, I believe Brock doesn't know anymore if he is alive and when the scorpion found out, he kidnapped aunt may), Green Goblin (who did kill Gwen that didn't work out so well. "But peter you made a silly promise when yuou were 16 that you didn't think out." "Yeah May, but you know, when Gobbie threw Gwen off a bridge, i realized I was right"), and a bunch of clone related people who will never be brought up again (like the jackal, judas traveller, etc). Lots of heroes know, but that i thought shgould be changed. Virtually nobody should know.
Now everyone knows. All his villains, everybodu elses villains, every petty thug, every person he ever had a cross word with, every mafia guy, terrorist, person looking to sue Spider-man for assault, wrongful imprisonment, property damage and all the other "realistic" things they ignore, various criminal charges for assault, vandalism, reckless endangerment, manslaughter.
I mean, he chooses this? He makes this kind of decision in one night? I mean, at least have it forced out.
"Peter, did you know about Spidey's id becoming public when you started the Flash Thompson storyline in FSM? I'm curious to see how it will play out now...thanks!"
No, I didn't. So the dynamic has now been completely changed. And there's a few interesting ways to go with it. One way is that Flash is the only person in NY who flat out doesn't believe it. He's figuring it's a scam while things are "hot" because of the new law. But that once things die down, Peter and Spidey will be seen in public together and that'll settle that. Another is that Flash starts being Peter's best pal, which would annoy the hell out of Peter because Flash really WAS his best pal at one point, and now he'd figure it's only because Flash knows he's Spider-Man, so it's not like Flash appreciates him for himself. That's just two possibilities.
"But I'd like to hear the other side of the argument: PAD, were you one of the people who made the decision that Spider-Man should reveal his identity? And if you were, what convinced you it was a good idea?"
I wasn't involved in the decision, no. But I think any idea that gets people talking, that stirs interest in a character who's been around for more than four decades, and that doesn't denigrate him (turning him into a serial rapist would accomplish the first two, but would hardly be a quality direction to take him) is inherently a good idea.
And the great thing about this sort of thing is that we can really be guided by fan reaction--both vocal and sales. I mean, hell, truth to tell, when we introduced the original b&w Spidey costume, we figured it would be around for a few months, tops. But the costume being astoundingly popular. People loved it. So not only did Spidey wind up wearing it for far longer than usual, but part of the reason Venom was created was so the alien costume could stay around in the Marvel universe. And if a move is astoundingly unpopular, well, it's comics. I've seen fans all over the place coming up with ways that the reveal could be undone within the parameters of the existing Marvel U.
PAD
Ideas for the eventually retcon:
1.Cosmic Cube anyone?
2.Charles Xavier world-wide mind wipe
3.Infinity Gems anyone?
4.Scarlet Witch hex causes everyone to have short term amnesia
5.Crisis on Marvel Earths resulting in the erasure of the silver age Spiderman leaving only the Ultimate Spiderman.
6. Superman teleports to the marvel universe and posions the water supply with that stuff he used in Superman II that made Lois forget his identity.
7.The Beyonder returns and grants Peter a wish (Secret Wars III anyone?)
-just throwing some ideas out there.
"I don't like the idea of Spider-Man letting the public know this identity. I liked Peter Parker as the down-on-his luck, outsider. Also, as a teenager, who kept this identity as Spider-Man a secret."
Which is pretty much the status quo in both "Ultimate Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man Adventures," which I'm going to writing for a bit, by the way. So...
PAD
The above should read, "The costume BECAME astoundingly popular."
And by the way, just in case I haven't made it clear, I'm perfectly happy with the reveal. It means that I'm working at a time when Spidey's status quo is completely different from anything that's gone before. How cool is that? It's an exciting time to be writing his adventures. Plus, hey, I'm writing him for Spidey Adventures, so it's the best of both worlds.
PAD
I'm more "meh" on the whole reveal. It's a story element in a fictional world. A world where things change from issue to issue, or even within issues, continuity is not a very strong point. So this will either take or it won't, meaning either books will sell or they won't. It'll be good or bad depending on who's writing it. A public ID Spidey can be just as interesting and entertaining as a secret ID Spidey.
I think, without the knowledge of Peter's conversations with May and MJ, this move seems to be totally out of character for him. Knowing that the people he would mostly be concerned with are behind the move, it makes more sense.
But this brings up a bigger reason why I didn't like #2...it was a poorly presented story. Yes, I know it's #2 of a seven issue series, and it's a story that spill over and onto many other books, and that it incorporates elements from other books. But I also know that a good writer finds ways to incorporate essential story elements from those other sources into the main book. I found it very poor writing to leave the fate of Speedball and the New Warriors to Front Line. Ditto for a major scene behind Peter's motivations. And then there's Captain America...I think he was driving the SHIELD van with the New Avengers, but I don't think I saw one Cap or Steve reference. I don't know who else a blond buff guy could be that opposed to the Registration Act...but the story/writer didn't help me out any. Maybe I missed it...I've yet to go back for a second or third reading. But I've been reading comics for over 20 years, and I've rarely put down a book feeling more disappointed than this one. As well done as #1 was, #2 was done poorly.
"Superman teleports to the marvel universe and posions the water supply with that stuff he used in Superman II that made Lois forget his identity."
As I recall, he kissed her. So you want him to contaminate the water supply in the Marvel U with his super spit? I mean, I can see some folks at DC being all in favor of that, but...ewwww.
PAD
If the Marvel universe is supposed to be so "realistic" now, Mary Jane and Aunt May will need to be dead within the next 6 months (by the end of Civil War).
With all the nut case villains who have a real hate for Spider-Man, they are going to try to kill his loved ones for revenge. If either of them survive the end of the mini-series, this will be the biggest farce Marvel has done in a long time. There really is no other possible outcome short of undoing the reveal.
I'd be really happy if some cosmic event occured and the Marvel universe rebooted back to like it was around 1972. Pick up right before the death of Gwen Stacy and this time Spider-Man saves her leading to a Gwen/Peter/MJ triangle.
Then slowly re-introduce the characters who have appeared since then. Maybe some time-shifting could occur so that the All-New All-Different X-Men appeared around that same time so Wolverine, Storm, Colossus and Nightcrawler would already be around.
Retcon theory:
Dr. Strange does a big spell that erases Peter Parker's existance from the map of reality. instead of mindwiping everyone it's as though Peter didn't exist. This dissolves the marriage (which Joe Q seems intent on) without killing MJ or ending in divorce. She doesn't remember ever being married in the first place. Nobody remembers her ever being married. Except Spiderman.
Peter gets to agonize over whether he should pursue MJ knowing the danger he could be putting her in while introducing a new supporting cast.
I hate this idea... but I could see it.
I really can't believe they did this. After Daredevil, why would they repeat such a thing. Look how that story is turning out....just one of the best books Marvel is putting out. I trust PAD and JMS to produce great stories in the aftermath. Marvel was built on changes like this...don't buy it if you don't like. Go re-read back issues or start reading Ultimate or Adventures.
"If the Marvel universe is supposed to be so "realistic" now, Mary Jane and Aunt May will need to be dead within the next 6 months (by the end of Civil War)."
Why? Lot's of heroes in the Marvel U have their identity public, and their enemies haven't wiped out their families. In addition, what about the policement, the judges, the prison wardens. You think Osborn wouldn't go after the judge who sent him to jail? Hell, that would be alot easier of a target then Spider-Man. Yet those people operate and live.
That being said, I have expect Speedball, by the end of Civil War, to somehow go back in time (maybe with new powers given to him by the explosion) kill Nuke before the incident, keeping any of this form happening.
But I'd rather see the next few years worth of stories dealing with Peter's ID being public.
"Dr. Strange does a big spell that erases Peter Parker's existance from the map of reality. instead of mindwiping everyone it's as though Peter didn't exist. This dissolves the marriage (which Joe Q seems intent on) without killing MJ or ending in divorce. She doesn't remember ever being married in the first place. Nobody remembers her ever being married. Except Spiderman.
Peter gets to agonize over whether he should pursue MJ knowing the danger he could be putting her in while introducing a new supporting cast."
Oh hell, because the last season of Smallville didn't suck enough, we should read it in the comics?
Well, I might be in the minority, but I like the idea. I really didn't think Marvel would go there, I was sure they wouldn't dare, but they did. And I'm waiting to see how long they keep daring to do stuff like this.
I started buying Civil War because I was worried that they would really kill Speedball, but #1 hooked me, and Frontline put my worries to ease, and #2 was, if a bit slow, a good hook. Just JJJ's reaction was worth the price.
I don't think May and MJ should be dead within 6 months because they do live in the Avengers Tower. They should be more careful, sure, but how many times MJ ended up in danger without villians knowing Peter's id?
In short, I can't wait to see were this is going. And I had stopped reading Spiderman completely since the Clone Wars. This makes me want to buy more than just FNSM.
"If the Marvel universe is supposed to be so "realistic" now, Mary Jane and Aunt May will need to be dead within the next 6 months (by the end of Civil War)."
Superhero federal protection program?
If it is decided to break Spidey's wedding, It would probably be interesting to persue a MJ the Ex-wife storyline. Ex-wives are an accustomed way nowadays to maintain romantic tension and conflict while keping other options open.
"I don't like the idea of Spider-Man letting the public know this identity. I liked Peter Parker as the down-on-his luck, outsider. Also, as a teenager, who kept this identity as Spider-Man a secret."
PAD Said: "Which is pretty much the status quo in both "Ultimate Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man Adventures," which I'm going to writing for a bit, by the way. So..."
I briefly purchased and read Ultimate Spider-Man for a time,but due to my budget and buying various other titles I stopped. I'm planning to pick up your run on Spider-Man Adventures though.
Honestly, I have not picked up a copy of Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. Which months ago, I had planned to pick up, only to find out that it would cross-over with MK:Spider-Man & Amazing. Along with being part of "The Other" storyline. I really wished FNSM would had been set outside continuity.
But am I missing something here? MJ and Aunt May convince Peter to "come out" and the result is MJ leaving him?
Huh?
Mike, thanks for signing on to the Dr. Strange theory; frankly I can't see Marvel changing the status quo on a permanent basis.
As a lifelong comic fan, I've really found the above discussion fascinating in the same way as I used to hang out with my friends when I was a kid and toss around the implications of the latest handful of books we just bought and passed around.
Although some of the above posts make some very good points, (Sasha, your Bugle exclusive idea is a stroke of genius), but I still can't buy into Spider-Man giving up his secret identity. This is just my own personal opinion, but there doesn't seem to have been enough narrative laying of track to contradict four decades of continuity. Aside from that, as others have pointed out, the events of Identity Crisis very skillfully demonstrated what can happen if even a D-list super-villain with a screw loose manages to get a hero's home address and show up at the door when his wife is putting a pot roast in the oven. In just one issue, Brad Meltzer managed to raise more intriguing moral and ethical considerations about being a masked hero than all of the Civil War books combined thus far. And yes I know, we're talking apples and oranges here, or Marvel and DC, but good storytelling is good storytelling.
I think the thing that bothers me most about Civil War so far is there just doesn't seem to be an awful lot of internal logic to it. As somebody pointed out earlier, why is Captain America refusing to register when everybody knows who he is? What happens now that Spider-Man has disclosed his secret identity? Doesn't that mean the notion of wearing an uncomfortable face mask is no longer necessary, other than to maybe keep the bugs off your teeth? Why is Mr. Fantastic buying into all of this nonsense when as one of the most intelligent characters in the Marvel Universe he should be able to see the implications of what he's doing? To me, these things just don't make sense.
Anyway, good discussion, and Peter, thanks for chiming in with your own thoughts. It's nice to have a bit of insight from somebody who's currently involved int he creative process.
PAD,
How long have you been in on the secret? Who else on staff were in on it (was a Marvel-wide thing or only a Spider family/Civil War staff thing)?
Was your family in on the secret or were they completely in the dark as the rest of the public?
If they weren't privy to the Spider-Reveal, did any of them declare you of illegitimate birth when they found out? :)
Thanx.
Ironman was a good choice to announce his secret identity. Although do you really want a drunk behind the wheel of nearly indestructable power suit?
I have to disagree with the spidey thing. He's a natural rebel. I thought he would be hanging with Capt. America's group.
The only way out is to do a superman/clark kent thingy where J.J. has Parker in the same room as some other bloke in a Spidey suit climbs the walls and says, "Parker just posed as me. It was a ruse to bring out my enemies. Thanks Parker!"
1"Superman teleports to the marvel universe and posions the water supply with that stuff he used in Superman II that made Lois forget his identity."
As I recall, he kissed her. So you want him to contaminate the water supply in the Marvel U with his super spit? I mean, I can see some folks at DC being all in favor of that, but...ewwww.
PAD
*****
This is when I wish PAD wasn't ignoring me
My whole life, I saw a super kiss that erased his identity from her knowledge. and everyone discussed that, whether cool, or dumb
But then one day on the byrneboard, JB says "That's not what happened he slipped her a mickey." and then him and others say he slipped something into her drink to make her forget.
I've never read the script and haven't seen the movie since then, but I am curious if there is anything to validate that. I've always seen a super kiss.
By the way, has anyone seen The Antichri....uhmm, I mean Bill Gates, quote old Peter Parker recently? ^_^
" As somebody pointed out earlier, why is Captain America refusing to register when everybody knows who he is? "
Oh god. I guess it shouldn't suprise me, but I'm guessing you haven't read Civil War #1? If that's the case, can you read it before griping about it? I know that would be a new trend, but you know... it would be nice...
And if you have read it, and that's what you came away with, then reread it. They clearly state why Cap is on the other side, and it has NOTHING to do with him registering.
The same thing with the Mister Fantastic thing. They've clearly, and repeatedly spelled out why he feels the way he does, in multiple books, not the least of which is the Illuminate Special, as well as Civil War #1.
"How long have you been in on the secret?"
I don't remember exactly when I found out. Four, maybe five months ago. "
"Who else on staff were in on it (was a Marvel-wide thing or only a Spider family/Civil War staff thing)?"
I'd think, realistically, all the creative teams, but honestly I haven't the faintest idea. When you're sworn to secrecy on something, it's not like you can start going around to other people and saying, "Hey, did you know about this?" I couldn't take a poll.
"Was your family in on the secret or were they completely in the dark as the rest of the public?"
I told Kathleen. She tends to read my scripts as I write them, so she was going to find out anyway. But if you can't trust your wife...
PAD
If they weren't privy to the Spider-Reveal, did any of them declare you of illegitimate birth when they found out? :)
I don't know...so far I am okay with it. It opens some interesting doors. And I never cared for keeping a character in the same place. I didn't when I was a kid, and I don't know...I know some people wish they were still reading Peter Parker high school everyman (though I, to this day, argue that science nerd who can design high tech web shooters and dates an endless series of hot girls is about as everyman as a millionaire who dresses like a bat)...but I am glad he's not the exact same character from when I was a kid.
I look forward to seeing what Peter (the writer) does with the opportunity presented.
I told Kathleen. She tends to read my scripts as I write them, so she was going to find out anyway. But if you can't trust your wife...
Considering your most recent blog entry, Paul McCartney might have something to say about that.
Jerry, you're right in the sense that Civil War #1 clearly demonstrates Cap's reason for being on the other side of the war, and yes, it doesn't have anything to do with registration, so apologies to everyone for getting the two issues mixed up.
That said, I did go back and look at CV#1 as well as the Illuminati Special (not Illuminate as you said in your wonderfully sarcastic response) and I still don't see anything that spells out why Mr. Fantastic is falling on this particular side of the war. I'm prepared to be challenged on this, but I think it's a matter of interpretation. In fact, Reed only has a couple of lines in CV#1, and I certainly don't see how Johnny Storm's beating in that issue would support a pro-government stance.
Again, I'm prepared to be wrong if there's an event taking place in one of the myriad CV tie-ins that I don't pick up. I may read Civil War in addition to the regular books I buy on a monthly basis, but frankly I don't give a crap about characters like She-Hulk or Ms. Marvel or the Thunderbolts, so if that puts me in a position of ignorance here, so be it.
At three or four bucks a pop, I've got more important things to spend my money on.
I am going to say this. Spider-man's reveal was a good thing. I agree with Peter on this... it's something that gets the world talking about comic books again (and not just the superhero, movie, video games, etc...) is a good thing. Hopefully it results in sales a little, but maybe I'm being a little too hopeful.
Buuuuuuttttt.... the fact that the reveal is in issue 2, (and side note... JMS really blew the whole story by the ASM story the previous week.) This just reinforced my views that alot of people are going to die. Storm and Black Panather getting married, Spider-man reveal, Hulk becoming Galdiator, it all feels like one big misdirection. I almost think that MJ will die in the end. Not necessarly Aunt May, but my money is on MJ dieing.
Personally, it's starting to feel a lot like Crisis back in the eighties. I'm starting to like it, even though I really dissapprove of Tony Stark's protrayl lately. That's what everyone should be up in arms about. Nothing makes sense with that character.
Side-side-note: Peter is writing Spider-man adventures? Finally can give my kids a marvel comic to read now! Horray! But where's my Hulk Adventures? My kids really like the Hulk.
Turning Superman into an electric smurf got people talking about comics. Anyone still think that was a good thing?
I'm most interested in seeing how supporting characters handle the news.
Bring Back Deb Whitman!
Well, I was wondering how long it would take before Civil War would drag PAD's F'N Spider-Man into the mess, and now I've got my answer.
Your writing on this book, PAD, is great as usual, but it's frustrating when the events of the rest of the MU dictate some of the stories you have to write (The Other leading to the new suit, now this). Blah.
Firstly, I don't like it. Part of being a super-hero is having the secret identity. Just look at the first ten minutes of "The Incredibles" That explains it all....
This may have already been said... but it seems the mainstream Marvel Universe is catching up with the Ultimate Universe. In there, everyone and their uncle knows that Peter Parker is Spider-Man...
Oh, I missed PAD's comment saying he's happy with the decision, which is cool by me. I'd just rather see PAD write Spidey rather than PAD write Spidey in response to how everybody else is changing Spidey. :)
What about Speedball? You know they found him alive and well, right?
Yes, that's the point.
That said, I think this can go several ways. And I frankly don't care if they undo it or not, as long as good stories are told along the way.
That's what it comes down to...the story. Trust the story, not the hype.
Honestly, the changes in Spidey's powers, manifestations, the recent "death", and the shniy new armor bugged me as a reader a lot more than the reveal.
> ... his big reason for having a secret identity has been to protect his family. Now what?
Now they are living in the specially-designed HQ of "Earth's Mightiest Heroes". If the Avengers, including the Sentry and let's not forget Jarvis, can't keep them safe, then the Gods had it in for them and they were dead anyway.
Kinda rough not being able to go down the street for a pizza, though.
First, a disclaimer: Haven't read CW yet; actually several weeks behind in my comic reading. If my questions are already answered in the printed media, feel free to ignore.
Ok.
(1) Isn't the whole "superhero registration act" meant to register heroes with the government? Plenty of people work for the government without going public. Is revealing their identities truly part of this law??
(2) I seem to recall the Avengers having a government liason (but perhaps not in the latest run; which I'm skipping due to $$-reasons), so don't Avengers members already have ties to the government?
(3) Heroes who don't register are being...what? Arrested? Imprisoned?? Yeah, that's gonna work well on Ghost Rider (for instance).
(4) The Reveal - - so, is Spidey going maskless from now on? I mean, that was the whole reason for the mask, right?? (Yeah, sure, you could make arguments that the mask acts as a filter against gas attacks and smoke and what have you - - and I suppose the lens could protect against instense light/strobe effects...)
Finally, I'll refrain from mentioning the "marriage breakup" because this sounds more like rumor (to me). I mean, splitting Peter and MJ so he can, what, hang around with other girls?? I guess they want Spider-Playboy, not Spider-MAN...
Joe Quesada has made enough noise about breaking up the marriage that such was the very first thing I thought of as the fallout of this revelation, that Joe was foreshadowing a big upheaval in Peter's life.
Let's see: two kidnappings and one near-death by being thrown off a bridge. That's what I predict for MJ in the next year, and then she'll file for divorce for her own protection.
No, wait: she's going to file for anullment. That way, the marriage never actually existed and Joe Q. doesn't have to worry about stories about "divorced Peter", he can have just stories about "unmarried Peter".
You just watch...
1Hey everyone,
This may have been said in a previous post here but I normally post on the Hulk board, so if I step on anyones toes please forgive me.
Over the last several months, I've been reading about how Civil War was coming to the Marvel Universe. At first, it seemed like the story had some serious potential however now that we are 2 issues into the story with numerous crossovers, all I can say is what the hell were they thinking? I know, I might be in the minority here, but I think this could go down as a massive blunder by Marvel. Granted it will be a huge success and sell millions of comics but the overall premise of the story is weak. Let's take the concept from the movie "The Incredibles" and change it just a tad and bang we have Civil War.
How many Marvel characters are already known by the public and by Shield already? Another annoying little tid-bit is the treatment of Captain America! This is a hero that could get any Marvel character to push stronger and fight harder no matter what the odds. A character that represents the American public, an icon of good for all heroes and civilians to look up too. Fast forward, he's a criminal on the run and Iron Man is the poster boy for Superhero Registration.
Iron Man (Tony Stark) may been the funding machine that kept the Avengers going all of those years but Captain America was the one responible for holding the spirt of the team together. To think that anyone hero would side with Stark over Captain America is completely absurd.
I'll wrap this up because I could go on and on. Last point, Reed Richards, arguably the worlds smartest scientist, is overcome with excitement over the Superhero Registration Act, on par with finding his first black hole, please! This whole dialoge should have found the black hole of a garbage can. Wasn't it just a couple issues back that the governemnt was trying to take away their son and Reed and Sue had to stand on a soapbox to prove that their son was safer with them and not in foster care? Now all of the sudden, having everyone hero reveal their identity to the government is the safest way to protect the people.
PAD I'd love to hear what you all think. If you agree or disagree? Please point out any flaws that you might see with Civil War as well?
Thanks
Harold Kayser
OK, I thought it would be fun to try and come up with story opportunities that this change might allow for. The detriments are obvious, but they always are at first. The fans originally hated it when Gwen Stacy died, too. It was the stories that came after that made fans love that story.
1) Celebrity Status. Peter's life becomes more like Brad Pitt. Well, it's Peter, so more like Sean Penn. Tabloid rumors are quite the same as the nice, direct libel the Daily Bugle has provided over the yeras.
2) More trust from the citizens of the Marvel Universe. If Spidey is talking someone out of suicide, he can take his mask off and be more personal. If the police know something, he doesn't have to hope that one cop is reasonable, he can just walk in the station and chat.
3) Family members lives change. Does Mary Jane get jealous because people keep asking her about her famous husband? Does Aunt May get mobbed at the grocery store?
4) Old characters become new again. Peter dated a *lot* of women before MJ. Not just the ones everyone knows like Betty Brant, but minor characters like Deborah Whitman. Is Deborah going to have a nervous breakdown when she finds out? What about his old neighbors Bambi, Candi, and Randi? Is one of them going to show up with an alleged Spider-Baby? That was years ago and memories get hazy, if one of them says "you got drunk at that party," will even Peter be sure that nothing happened?
If any of these people make headlines, will villains go after them, too?
5) Job impact. I liked the teaching career, but would something like that ever be possible again? Maybe it would, just not at a place with security as bad as the high school. On the other hand, maybe Mr. Parker can make more changes at a school with a little extra respect.
That's all I can think of at the moment.
"Tabloid rumors are quite the same"
That should read "Tabloid rumors are *not* quite the same"
I hate not being able to edit old posts.
"(1) Isn't the whole "superhero registration act" meant to register heroes with the government? Plenty of people work for the government without going public. Is revealing their identities truly part of this law??"
Yes, they are required to register with the government, but they are not required to go public. Spidey did that as a sign of good faith thing after encouragement from Iron-Man.
Some of the heroes are concerned that if the gov has the info, some super villain will get a hold on it sooner or later.
"(2) I seem to recall the Avengers having a government liason (but perhaps not in the latest run; which I'm skipping due to $$-reasons), so don't Avengers members already have ties to the government?"
They had a government liaison, but he didn't know their secret identities. So the government liaison had ties to the Avengers organisation, but not significant ties to the individual members.
"(3) Heroes who don't register are being...what? Arrested? Imprisoned?? Yeah, that's gonna work well on Ghost Rider (for instance)."
Arrested, yes. I don't think Ghost Rider was a terribly legal guy to begin with.
"(4) The Reveal - - so, is Spidey going maskless from now on? I mean, that was the whole reason for the mask, right?? (Yeah, sure, you could make arguments that the mask acts as a filter against gas attacks and smoke and what have you - - and I suppose the lens could protect against instense light/strobe effects...)"
Spidey's new costume will be a t-shirt and jeans. :)
The mask is just part of the costume. There might be some issues where a villain jumps out and Peter doesn't bother changing clothes before defending himself, but in general the mask is just part of his uniform.
"Finally, I'll refrain from mentioning the "marriage breakup" because this sounds more like rumor (to me)."
Good call, it is just rumor at this point. J.Q. said that there was something in the 40 year history of Spidey that he didn't like, and people went nuts. J.Q then said that divorce and erasing the last 20 years would be even worse, and people have ignored that. Go figure.
You all realize this is just one big setup for the return of Ben Riley as the real Spider-Man, and not the clone impostor, Peter Parker, right?
F N A.
I'm not a big Spider-Man fan (reading FN Spidey because of you and liked JMS' on "The Other" to keep reading Amazing), but I absolutely HATE the fact that he revealed. Personally, I was looking forward to a "Screw you all and the horses in upon which you rode!" from Spidey.
They are going to have a Guantanomo Bay type thing for those who disagree I think
The same thing with the Mister Fantastic thing. They've clearly, and repeatedly spelled out why he feels the way he does, in multiple books, not the least of which is the Illuminate Special, as well as Civil War #1.
******
I am not sure the issue is whether they spell out why so and so supports or doesn't support the law. These characters are written-they can say anything anyone wants them too. The real question is is it in character? I thought few of the heroes were written well in illiminati (including Doc Strange and Mr. Fantastic) and few now. I think Cap is being written right, but many are not, including Spider-man. The whole thing is just a mess.
"But then one day on the byrneboard, JB says "That's not what happened he slipped her a mickey." and then him and others say he slipped something into her drink to make her forget."
He did give her a "super kiss" (he also did it in Superman IV). I think the whole "slipped her a mickey" (what, a super Kryptonian mickey that erases memories?) is Byrne's fanboyish way of denying that the Superman in the movies has (gasp!) superpowers that he doesn't have in the comic book (like the finger tractor beam thing). Because, you know, movies have to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the comics.
This brings me to my other point, which is that a common argument among people who are against Spider-Man revealing his identity is that it's "not how it's been for the last 40 years." My question is this: do you really want comics to stay exactly the same, forever? If so, why on earth do you read them?
People even complain that he's married to a model and has no money problems anymore, simply because they can't "relate" to him anymore. But why would people want to read about Peter worrying about paying the rent for the rest of their lives? Sounds like some sort of Dante-esque hell to me. I prefer my characters to actually, you know, grow up. If you can only relate to Peter Parker when he was a pathetic loser, um... that's really not a good thing, so you might want to reevaluate your own life, rather than his.
My point is that change is good. It keeps things interesting. And since I consider Spider-Man to be one of the least interesting Marvel characters, any change to his status quo has to be a good thing.
'The mask is just part of the costume. There might be some issues where a villain jumps out and Peter doesn't bother changing clothes before defending himself, but in general the mask is just part of his uniform.'
I'm sorry Jason, but I have to take major exception here. If you go all the way back to Amazing Fantasy #15, the final page has a feature on Spidey's costume and mask. In The Secret of Spider-Man's Mask, one of the notes indicated, 'The white areas in Spidey's eye cut-outs on his mask are really clever plastic lenses of the two-way mirror type! He can see out very clearly, but one can see in! Therefore he can never be recognized by the color of his eyes!'
And in the section on Spidey's Costume, it notes that 'Spider-Man's colorful head-mask conceals his features and also effectively muffles his voice, making it unrecognizable!'
The above suggests to me that as far back as Spider-Man's very first appearance, Stan Lee and Steve Ditko had already taken into account how important his secret identity was.
Hmm, further research reveals that the "slipped her a mickey" thing was mentioned on the DVD audio commentary.
It's gotta be a joke.
Could super heroes afford to live the celebrity life style?
"I'm sorry Jason, but I have to take major exception here"
When I said that the mask was "just" a part of the costume, I misspoke (mistyped?). I didn't mean to say that it was a frill and nothing more. I meant to say that it was an integral part of his costume. Removing the mask would be like a police officer wearing a blue jeans instead of the black slacks. It's part of the uniform, and it won't go away.
Welp it ain't like Superman's still dead neither, so it should at least make for an interesting couple of years until they undo it. I can't wait to see JJJ's reaction. I'm hoping for splattered brains all over his office.
He did give her a "super kiss" (he also did it in Superman IV). I think the whole "slipped her a mickey" (what, a super Kryptonian mickey that erases memories?) is Byrne's fanboyish way of denying that the Superman in the movies has (gasp!) superpowers that he doesn't have in the comic book (like the finger tractor beam thing). Because, you know, movies have to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the comics.
Like you noted later, the mickey was a part of the movie (in scenes, you can kinda notice how the cup Clark gives Lois is conspicuous); I remember reading about it. The use of it in SUPES IV was just using what was assumed before and, considering the rest of the film, lousy writing.
And although there is something to ridiculous bellyaching about needing "movies [having to] be EXACTLY THE SAME as the comics", there is a legitimate point in making sure there isn't utterly illogical and radical departures from the source material, especially with someone as iconic as Superman. (That's why there was such a hue and cry over some of the earlier proposed scripts for SUPERMAN V/SUPERMAN RETURNS; they really had no respect or resemblance for the character or concept of Superman.)
What kind of mickey selectively removes memories? then again, what kind of kiss does? They should have made the mickey thing more clear, since it is a key plot point, and people have spent 20 years saying it was a super kiss.
or maybe both, who knows
I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread, so please forgive me if I repeat something someone else has already written. But I feel compelled to say that I find many of the reactions to Spider-Man's public unmasking quite ironic.
When Stan Lee proposed Spider-Man to Martin Goodman, then publisher of Marvel Comics, Goodman initially rejected the idea because, well, no one would want to read about a teen-aged super-hero with problems, right? I mean, that flew in the face of everything we knew super-heroes were supposed to be.
We all know how that worked out. Can you say "Amazing Fantasy #15?"
So now many people are up in arms over the idea of Spider-Man publicly unmasking himself, because it flies in the face of how super-heroes are supposed to be, or how Spider-Man is supposed to be. But, y'know, wasn't that what made Spider-Man popular in the first place: that he helped re-define what super-heroes could be?
Yet now many see him as part of a status quo that mustn't be upset in any significant way. And I find that ironic.
Staying true to the comics is a fine balance. Organic webshooters? That didn't bother me much for a couple of reasons.
Superman pulling the 'S' shield off his chest and throwing it out as a giant net? That still confuses me.
Of course, that wasn't so rediculous at the time. The biggest thing I liked about the Byrne revamp was that it got rid of things like "Super Hypnosis". When I saw Super Hypnosis in the comics, ever fight Superman had ever had seemed pointless.
You know, I always thought that the finger tracker beam power was something unique to the phantom zone villains, after all did Superman ever use that ability himself in the movie?
The same with the holographic Supermen and S-shield. My assumption always was that he was using his dad's holographic projector to make those images. Note that he was only able to make them in the Fortress.
As for the memory-erasing kiss. Umm, yeah, a mickey. Jeez, does this mean I have to agree with Byrne on something?
The S-Shield attack came in the streets of Metropolis. The holographic Superman didn't just work in the fortress, Supes told Lois that he used to do that in school.
1You know, I always thought that the finger tracker beam power was something unique to the phantom zone villains, after all did Superman ever use that ability himself in the movie?
The same with the holographic Supermen and S-shield. My assumption always was that he was using his dad's holographic projector to make those images. Note that he was only able to make them in the Fortress.
****
Exact same feelings. Felt the zone guys had their own reaction to the yellow sun with some power variations. and felt Superman had rigged up the Fortress so not only would he be able to use an S shield hologram, but duplicate himself as well. Figured he did that when he switched the red light from shining in that thing, to all over the fortress.
Yet now many see him as part of a status quo that mustn't be upset in any significant way. And I find that ironic.
******
I do feel they will erase this. But
(1) Spider-man has had so many "you'll never believe this" moments lately, that it gets tired and old, and at some point, you just want a 20 issue run to read that is just solid comics.
(2) revealing his identity isn't exactly pushing the envelope kind of stuff. Wally West did it years ago, once, and recently enough Iron Man has done it twice, Captain America, Daredevil and others, to the point where the rare thing is becoming the hero who does have a secret identity and one that matters. (Even when Cap had one, it was really the same as Cap. and Bruce Wayne has been mostly non-existent in the comics-he is so obsessed they are the same thing). So few heroes have a secrt identity where the secret identity matters, and has its own world. (Even Superman-his friends and Clarks friends are the same exact thing. His world and CLarks world are exactly the same). Spider-man was the one guy whose secret identity was as interesting as his alter-ego, whose identity mattered, and whose identity had its own life to it.
So I think this, if it was permanent, or semi-permanent, makes him less unique.
As far as JJJ suing Spider-Man for faking his photos:
1) Peter was long believed to be in cahoots with/partners with Spider-man, explaining why Peter got so many pictures of Spidey. Spidey would tip Peter off to action, or brgin Pete along. That scenario allowed for the possibility of Peter and Spidey faking photos, so if there was no suit then, why would there be one now?
2) As far as Peter not taking the pictures: he set up the camera; one imagines that, when safe to do so, he made sure that whatever action occured stayed within range of the camera; and he developed the pictures. Now, I know I'm overanalyzing this, but it seems to me (speaking, as is traditional on the 'net, with little to know knowledge of the subject at hand) that framing the shots (by initial positioning of the camera with respect to the relatively immobile landmarks in the area), finding adequate lighting (without which the pictures won't come out at all), and other similar tasks are at least as important as personally holding the camera and choosing when to click a button. So, again, don't see a case for fraud.
HOWEVER:
As I have pointed out before, JJJ *does* have a significant case for fraud on Peter's part, and this just nailed it down.
In Mark Millar's run on MK SPIDER-MAN, Jameson offered a reward for Spider-Man's identity. I can't remember the exact total, but I keep wanting to say $5,000,000. Peter eventually came forward and told JJJ who Spider-Man was: JJJ's son, John (currently the She-Hulk's fiance).
Peter himself wrote the scene where Jonah finds out that John is not Spider-Man. Since then, I have been somewhat disappointed that Jonah didn't at least try to put together a lawsuit against Peter for fraudulently claiming that reward (a reward that Peter gave away).
At this point, unless Jonah is written as having the whole reveal open his eyes tremendously, he's got an open-and-shut case against Peter.
I hope someone picks up on this sometime soon....
RD Francis
PAD wrote:
"One way is that Flash is the only person in NY who flat out doesn't believe it. He's figuring it's a scam while things are "hot" because of the new law. But that once things die down, Peter and Spidey will be seen in public together and that'll settle that. "
Please, please, go this way. Given that Flash retains his Silver Age memories, and Peter's been unmasked before in the Silver Age, it would be the perfect way to go. Everyone else will think Flash is in denial, but it makes perfect sense from his Silver Age perspective.
"And if a move is astoundingly unpopular, well, it's comics. I've seen fans all over the place coming up with ways that the reveal could be undone within the parameters of the existing Marvel U."
So, just to clarify... are you confirming that this is NOT a fakeout or planned reversal, and is actually a legitimate new status quo they plan to take with the character? Or are you not yet at liberty to say one way or another?
The S-Shield attack came in the streets of Metropolis. The holographic Superman didn't just work in the fortress, Supes told Lois that he used to do that in school.
No, the S-shield was definitely in the Fortress and I think he was joking about the school thing. He was an infant when he left Krypton after all.
"He was an infant when he left Krypton after all."
Who said anything about Krypton?
I was thinking last week, before news.bbc.co.uk told me what Peter Parker had done, and as far as I know, unprompted by anything in comics, what could happen narratively if a superhero was publically unmasked.
I haven't yet figured out where I'd take the story, but it sounded like it had a lot of potential. Granted, Parker's already passed the hurdle of Mary-Jane or Aunt May finding out, but there's still everyone else.
I wonder if he still has that cheque. I remember a story about a fairly early comic in which someone rich wrote a cheque to Spidey for some heroics, and Spidey not being able to cash it at a bank because he wasn't known as someone with a bank account, and the dilemma of cash vs. revealing his identity.
I alkso haven't figured out why the villains should now have an advantage in going after people Spidey cares about. If Spidey and MJ were known, then they're still known; now everyone knows Spidey's Parker, surely they're more likely to target him?
And surely there's more story ideas to roll around so long as MJ and Aunt May are still around? Killing them off is a waste of material.
Here's one thing I'd like to understand better. Why is the recurring villain theme not a bigger part of cop shows and cop movies?
I can remember seeing a few episodes of cop shows where a criminal got out of jail and went after the cop who put him away. However, it's a very, very few. That's a constant concern in superhero comics.
So what's the difference? Why do we expect every single one of Spidey's enemies to go after his family, but nobody says anything if a cop show is on the air for 7 years without that ever happening?
Don't forget that Spidey SUED JJJ for libel in She-Hulk v3, but dropped the case after he was added to the case as Parker. As I recall, they settled out of court after JJJ and Peter handed out printed apologies while dressed as chickens.
Also keep in mind that Peter was UNDER AGE when he started freelancing to the Bugle.
Of course, this probably won't matter to JJJ. We're talking about someone who left basic media ethics and law behind ages ago, the guy responsible for the creation of the Scorpion and the Spider-Slayers.
Considering what the Two-Gun Kid just did to John Jameson this week, JJJ will GO BALLISTIC.
Posted by RDFozz at June 16, 2006 06:15 PM
As far as JJJ suing Spider-Man for faking his photos:
1) Peter was long believed to be in cahoots with/partners with Spider-man, explaining why Peter got so many pictures of Spidey. Spidey would tip Peter off to action, or brgin Pete along. That scenario allowed for the possibility of Peter and Spidey faking photos, so if there was no suit then, why would there be one now?
2) As far as Peter not taking the pictures: he set up the camera; one imagines that, when safe to do so, he made sure that whatever action occured stayed within range of the camera; and he developed the pictures. Now, I know I'm overanalyzing this, but it seems to me (speaking, as is traditional on the 'net, with little to know knowledge of the subject at hand) that framing the shots (by initial positioning of the camera with respect to the relatively immobile landmarks in the area), finding adequate lighting (without which the pictures won't come out at all), and other similar tasks are at least as important as personally holding the camera and choosing when to click a button. So, again, don't see a case for fraud.
HOWEVER:
As I have pointed out before, JJJ *does* have a significant case for fraud on Peter's part, and this just nailed it down.
In Mark Millar's run on MK SPIDER-MAN, Jameson offered a reward for Spider-Man's identity. I can't remember the exact total, but I keep wanting to say $5,000,000. Peter eventually came forward and told JJJ who Spider-Man was: JJJ's son, John (currently the She-Hulk's fiance).
Peter himself wrote the scene where Jonah finds out that John is not Spider-Man. Since then, I have been somewhat disappointed that Jonah didn't at least try to put together a lawsuit against Peter for fraudulently claiming that reward (a reward that Peter gave away).
At this point, unless Jonah is written as having the whole reveal open his eyes tremendously, he's got an open-and-shut case against Peter.
I hope someone picks up on this sometime soon....
RD Francis
As for Aunt May & MJ leaving; remember that May spent most of the 90's dead, while Mary Jane has left Peter before (right after SHE was dead for a while).
Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at June 16, 2006 09:30 PM
Here's one thing I'd like to understand better. Why is the recurring villain theme not a bigger part of cop shows and cop movies?
It's not too hard to understand if you think about it a bit. Cop shows are trying to be a bit more realistic than super-hero stories (admittedly, cop shows aren't entirely realistic, but they're a bit more down-to-earth than super-hero stories).
People don't escape from prison very often, and when they do, they're more likely to want to avoid the cops than to seek revenge. Moreover, individual cops are part of a larger system, and I'm betting criminals see the badge rather than the individual behind it.
The idea of a recurring nemesis makes more sense in the context of super-heroic fiction than in most other genres. After all, most super-heroes are distinctive, with costumes and code-names that make them easily recognizable and memorable. Plus, super-villains can escape from prison using super-powers or super-tricks that criminals in the real world don't have at their disposal. Finally, the best villains are equally distinctive, and have an appeal that makes them worth bringing back time and again, whereas seeing the same criminals pop up time and again on a cop show would grow tiresome, at least for me.
Deb Whitman, hadn't heard that name in a long time. My guess.. she writes a book, "I Dated Spider-Man." Heck, Jonah can write a book, "How I put a roof over Spider-Man's Head.
Jonah's whole problem with people like Spider-Man was that they were doing the hero thing outside the law and kept their identity secret. In keeping with that.. he should support the Super-Hero registration act and the heroes that step forward. He should do what sells papers and that would be a "Who is Peter Parker?" edition and he can have it put out the quickest. Of course his longtime grudge with Spiderman might prevent that from happening.
**I'm most interested in seeing how supporting **characters handle the news.
**
**Bring Back Deb Whitman!
That's funny! I was thinking about what her reaction would be (and others Betty Brant, Flash Thompson, etc.) right as I read your post.
It got me thinking that there was an issue right around the time PAD wrote his first ASM. I believe it was #262, where a photographer snapped a quick shot of Peter changing into (or from) Spider-Man. The rest of the issue Peter tracks him down to get the film before he can sell it. At the end of the issue the guy wonders if he'll ever be able to recognize Peter's face in a city of X million people. I'm always a big fan of nods to the past. It might interested to to a page or two within one of the reg. Spider-Man books showing reactions of folks like these.
In fact, PAD, one of your first Spidey stories featured 3 college guys who, I believe, set out to prove who Spider-Man was, correct? Or was it to defeat him as kind of a mind of muscle type thing. They (or rather, you) created that Blaze character. Did they ever find out who he was in the issue? It's been so long since I've read it. PPSSM #103, right?
Bring on Spider-Man Visionaries: Peter David!
G
People don't escape from prison often, but it happens enough to be supported in fiction. Also, murderers do get out of prison normally (sometimes in only a few years, despite the severity of the crime) and it's certainly not unheard of for criminals to get off on technicalities.
Recurring villains happen less in crime shows, but they do happen. If a criminal is shown getting off on a technicality, his second story usually isn't a revenge story. It's usually him committing another crime and the same detective tracking him down again.
I think you're right, that it is realism that makes the crime shows do it this way. I think real criminals are much less concerned with the people who caught them than super villains. I think that's a more recent thing. It seems like golden age villains were more concerned with committing their next crime than they were with getting revenge.
Modern villains spend a lot of time getting revenge, even when they originally just wanted to rob a bank here and there. If some of Spidey's villains just kept on committing crimes without ever going after Peter Parker, that would probably be believable.
Jonah's whole problem with people like Spider-Man was that they were doing the hero thing outside the law and kept their identity secret. In keeping with that.. he should support the Super-Hero registration act and the heroes that step forward. He should do what sells papers and that would be a "Who is Peter Parker?" edition and he can have it put out the quickest. Of course his longtime grudge with Spiderman might prevent that from happening.
That's Jonah's rationalization, not his real reason. Look back in a book like Amazing Spider-Man #10 or so, when Jonah admits to himself that Spider-Man is ten times the man that JJJ himself is. It is JJJ's jealousy of Spider-Man that drives his feud. He might feel less strongly about heroes who do it and get paid (most of the Avengers for much of Marvel history) or for those who reap some personal glory (non-secret ID characters like the FF), but never mistake Jonah for a reasonable, respectable man. His choices over the years have proven that any system of morals he might claim as his own is flimsy at best.
Eric
There are some stories where serial killer or smart killer types do have a game they play with a certain officer who either busted them long ago, or else failed to and they mock them for it.
The supervillains are often looney-tunes, super pridful individuals, or guys who play games for games sake.
They also are super cool characters-so we want them to come back, so they keep getting busted by the same guy, so revenge makes sense.
In a cop show, the villains aren't particularly memorable-the cop is, and the process is. But there's always some new nameless thug next week, committing different crimes, so the police can solve that crime.
OK, here's another possible angle on JJJ. Not necessarily something that has to happen, just something that occurs to me.
I've known some people who had fairly prejudiced opinions about people of different races, religions, sexualities. Some of them hung onto these feelings forever.
However, some of them became much more reasonable after they actually got to know someone that they were prejudiced against. When it was someone they cared about, their opinions had to shift to account for the fact that they wanted what was best for that person.
A classic example of this in a public figure is Dick Cheney. Looking at every other opinion he has, he *should* hate homosexuals and care nothing about gay rights. However, that's not how he is, because someone he cares about is gay, so he has to accept them.
JJJ has always had a different relationship with Peter Parker than he's had with Spider-Man. It's been gruff, but there have also been times when he's been very supportive of Peter. I don't expect him to throw his arms open and give Spidey a hug. However, it would be very interesting if they had a meeting in the near future that wasn't filled with the predictable anger.
Does JJJ look at the situation as Peter Parker revealing he's Spider-Man, or as Spider-Man revealing he's Peter Parker? They were two people before, which one does he see when he looks at Peter now? A part of me thinks that JJJ has some degree of fatherly feelings towards Peter.
I was really surprised to read some of these comments, in that I thought it was incredibly obvious that this is what Marvel was going to do.
Aunt May knows, she's not going to have a heart attack. his family lives in a fortress, so no fear of reprisals, plus marvel's new strategem is breaking the old rules. (Tell wolverine's origin, bring back Bucky, etc.)
All the press leading up to this story was telegraphing this moment.
Why the shock?
Who said anything about Krypton?
What? You think he was throwing giant S-shields around the Smallville High practice field?
Peter Parker's photos of Spider Man are legitimate from a photographic point of view. He took them, and usually at real events. There is an ethical problem from a journalistic point of view since he is like a reporter who creates his own news. If he belongs to a guild he might be criticized. But I thik there are other reporters who got involved in their own stories.
It's gotta be a joke. >>
As far as I know there hasn't yet been a DVD release with an audio commentary. The release of Superman II a few years back had no extras including no audio commentary. There's a version coming out later this year that will have an audio commentary, is that what you're referring to? That version will also have the original "Donner" cut of the film, it's possible that cut may have the Micky, but what was release in the theathers and what's currently on video and DVD does not have it.
My feeling on Reed's support of the SRA is that it does make sense for him, because he's a reasonable man. If you were to come to him, with a system that seemed to be a reasonable way of dealing with a situation like this, a system of rules and regulations for super-heroes, he'd see it as a good idea--and any concerns with it could be rationally, reasonably discussed. Security of the system? Reed can work around that. Autonomy of the heroes? Just needs a good system of checks and balances, that's all. All of these things can be worked out rationally, and the basic idea is sound.
And if people weren't willing to see reason, if they just said, "No, this is a bad idea on principle and I'm going to fight it..." Well, you'd need to stop them. After all, they're going against the rule of law, they're behaving irrationally, and they're threatening to undermine what could be a major and fundamental improvement to the way heroes work...and all on some point of principle that they're not even willing to discuss. It's a shame, but it's necessary.
Of course, I predict this will allll change once Sue gets involved. Reed's not emotional about very much, but he's emotional about his wife.
I think it is a dumb idea.
I like a kind of realism in my comics, but if I want to read "realistic" superheroes, I read a book like Watchman. At least it had a definite end and closure. Which is impossible in a serial like Spider-Man or Superman. At the end of the day there will be the next issue - as long at it sells.
Also it rather violates the rules of the genre. I am not saying you can´t do this, of course you can, but what is the point? Secret identities are a vital part of the mythos, it is an important fantasy for the reader. Part of the appeal was - and is IMHO - that the costumed hero could be everyone. It is a fantasy appealing to the kid in us - how cool would it be to put on a mask and do things you couldn´t do in your everyday life. Why killing the sense of wonder this concepts have? Does anybody really think that this kind of literature would have last this long without the duality of Superman/Clark Kent or Batman/Bruce Wayne?
Now unmasking Peter Parker and making him what - a celebrity hero? - is an idea I have frankly read too often to work up any interest for. Been there, done that. Some goes for the idea with the superhero-registration. From X-Men to Watchman. In the first it was pointless, as it never got resolved, in the second it made an uncomfortable ending. And an ending is a thing, which just isn´t possible in superhero comics.
Posted by: Andy at June 17, 2006 01:40 PM
I think it is a dumb idea.
Martin Goodman, former publisher of Marvel Comics, thought Spider-Man was a dumb idea. He nixed it, and it wouldn't have seen the light of day if Stan Lee hadn't snuck it into the final issue of Amazing Fantasy, a comic that was being cancelled due to low sales.
I like a kind of realism in my comics, but if I want to read "realistic" superheroes, I read a book like Watchman. At least it had a definite end and closure. Which is impossible in a serial like Spider-Man or Superman. At the end of the day there will be the next issue - as long at it sells.
Why does Spider-Man's unmasking inject a level of realism into the book that wasn't there before? Is "unmasking" an issue for people in the real world?
Also it rather violates the rules of the genre. I am not saying you can´t do this, of course you can, but what is the point? Secret identities are a vital part of the mythos, it is an important fantasy for the reader. Part of the appeal was - and is IMHO - that the costumed hero could be everyone. It is a fantasy appealing to the kid in us - how cool would it be to put on a mask and do things you couldn´t do in your everyday life. Why killing the sense of wonder this concepts have? Does anybody really think that this kind of literature would have last this long without the duality of Superman/Clark Kent or Batman/Bruce Wayne?
How can you not see the irony of your argument? Martin Goodman told Stan Lee that Spider-Man would never work because it violated conventions of the genre that were vital. Goodman believed that teen-agers had to be side-kicks and that no one wanted to read about super-heroes that had problems like you and I.
He was wrong. Spider-Man succeeded despite being different.
Yet here we are, with people asserting that Spider-Man, a character whose creation changed the status quo, now represents a status quo that should remain inviolate. How can you not see the irony?
And before anyone else bothers to point out that Spidey's unmasking is not groundbreaking, please don't -- I know that, and it's irrelevant. The point is that some people are arguing that Spider-Man's essential formula must remain intact, even though Spider-Man's creation violated the super-hero formula that existed at the time.
Painfully, painfully ironic.
Now unmasking Peter Parker and making him what - a celebrity hero? - is an idea I have frankly read too often to work up any interest for. Been there, done that. Some goes for the idea with the superhero-registration. From X-Men to Watchman. In the first it was pointless, as it never got resolved, in the second it made an uncomfortable ending. And an ending is a thing, which just isn´t possible in superhero comics.
Huh? Individual story arcs within super-hero comic book series end all the time. You're confusing the idea of an "ending" with complete closure, which isn't possible or even desirable in serialized fiction like this.
As far as "uncomfortable endings" go, I like fiction that makes me uncomfortable and challenges me. Otherwise I get bored. But I think that falls under the "different strokes" category. If you like "comfortable" fiction, well, the world's big enough for both you and I.
I for one, am kind of digging the reveal. Peter's in a completely new place in his professional and superhero career. He is more able now than ever to keep his family safe. Why not step up, put his money where his mouth is, and support what he thinks is best for his world?
1Martin Goodman, former publisher of Marvel Comics, thought Spider-Man was a dumb idea.
*****
So what? because one person at one time thought an idea was dumb, no one else can say an idea is dumb, there are no dumb ideas?
This won't last anyway. I'd be shocked if it lasted more than a year or two. But as a lasting idea, a fundamental change to the status quo of this character is a horrible way to break the character for future generations to enjoy-especially a character who has remained popular througout the years. The fact that spider-man changed the rules for superheroes has nothing to do with changing some rules that exist for Spider-man-especially the secret identity thing which is not only played out with other heroes, but when Spider-man has the most interesting other identity there is. There was always Spider-man and Peter Parker, different dynamic, and different reasons for reading the book-you read for both. The cool thing was, his identity mattered unlike Captain America, his identity was fully formed and different from the superhero, unlike Bruce Wayne over the last few years whose a sham, and iunlike Clark Kent, he had a different life as peter then as Spider-man-whereas Clark and Superman had the exact same friends in his own book.
Joe Quesada once chided DC for being unable to sell Superman-the most recognizable character in the world. Tney had to do stunt after stunt after stunt, until no one cared anymore. Unfortuantely, Marvel can no longer sell their flagship character in any great numbers without stunt after stunt-in a time when population keeps increasing, and he has two $400 mil movies, they are lucky to sell 70,000 of his comic. So they try stunt after stunt-Spider-totem, Aunt may knows worked for awhile, Sins Past blew up in their faces, you got House of M. now The Other ans knew powers and a cosutume sell mpre, even as JQ and JMS admit The Other was botched, and before there is even a breather, now Civil War and the reveal. And eventually people burn out and the stunts won't work. THere seems to be a lack of long time thinking. Spider-man always attracted a lot of casual comic fans and he always sold well when he had a good artist and solid written stories, whether he had stunts or not.
I hope long term this completely blows up in their faces, frankly. We need new blood in there, JMS is shot, Joe Quesada has fallen victim to his own success, and some new blood is needed. The Clone Saga was a change in the status quo too "The spider-,man for the last 20 years isn't the real deal" That worked well-once it was clear that was the direction, loyal and casual fans fled, and Spidey still hasn't recovered. Plus, the next hyped event has to be even more to match or surpass the last-having changed his powers, had an eyeball eaten, gotten a change to his origin, new costume again, and now revealed his identity, what next shocing thing can we do? Give him cancer? Have MJ raped and burnt to a crisp? Perhaps Spider-man will reveal that he is gay now that he is out of the closet with his identity-whatever will get the attention of the press for a short term boost and to get mainstream attention which is mostly useless because people can't even find comics anymore?
I don't believe this is even semi-permanent, but even then, then it just becomes mindless hype. If it is, it just becomes another thing to count down for the retcon-the only question is it undone in a couple of years like the clone, or 10 years like Hal Jordan.
Get some good writers and artists, maybe some young blood, tell some good stories, make Spidey fun to read about (when did he become completely miserable all the time, in the suit or out?), make Peter Parker a fun, but worried individual, bulk up the supporting cast, give the married couple some other couples to hang with, and let it go. It will sell.
Bill Myers said:
"How can you not see the irony of your argument? Martin Goodman told Stan Lee that Spider-Man would never work because it violated conventions of the genre that were vital. Goodman believed that teen-agers had to be side-kicks and that no one wanted to read about super-heroes that had problems like you and I.
He was wrong. Spider-Man succeeded despite being different."
Ah, yes, the classic 'they laughed at the Wright Brothers' argument. "People said Great Idea A was bad, and it was good; people are saying this idea is bad, therefore it must be good." It's an obvious error to anyone who thinks about it for any length of time.
Or, as they say, 'Remember, they laughed at the Marx Brothers too'.
He was wrong. Spider-Man succeeded despite being different."
Ah, yes, the classic 'they laughed at the Wright Brothers' argument. "People said Great Idea A was bad, and it was good; people are saying this idea is bad, therefore it must be good." It's an obvious error to anyone who thinks about it for any length of time."
I don't see anyone saying that except you.
Part of it stems from the fact that Spider-Man didn't succeed "despite" being different. He succeeded BECAUSE he was different. The problem is that, whenever people are presented with something that's different, oftentimes the initial reaction is to respond with disbelief or skepticism or an attitude of "That will never work." Audiences CLAIM they want more of the same, but what makes the biggest splash and is the most successful is that which is measurably different.
I'm not saying it's a good idea BECAUSE it's different. No one is. Instead I think the simple observation is that the kneejerk reaction is that different=bad, and that isn't necessarily the case.
PAD
You have a problem whatever you do.
Keep things the same, you bore the old readers and not really attract new ones.
Gimicky kind of changes followed by a quick backpaddle to safety, get's eveybody's attention, but after a while gets people annoyed, while harming the integrity and credibility of the writing.
Making long term changes and you risk loosing long term but conservative audiences while at the same time offering new readers a story too complicated and too distant from the original template.
+ comics already seem to be drawing smaller audiences. Apparently less people want to get into a universe with such a complicated history.
I personaly like a growing and changing story. But it is always a risk.
But look at the bright side. Since you're damned what ever you do, it is worth persuing this twist in the Spiderman mythology and see where it takes you. It may end like Spidy's marriage or the clone, who knows? There are surely some good stories to tell taking place in this new scenario.
I'm no Spiderman expert. But I don't think this change will destroy either of Spiderman's persona's or their appeal. And the awkwardness of the two worlds meeting wil be worth a few good stories.
I liked the other Green Lantern and was sorry t see him go. Was the return to Hal Jordan because of pressure by fans or because writers wanted to write stories about him rather than the new guy?
I think each side is misrepresenting the other. You have one side claiming that the other has no sense of the character whatsoever, and is basically saying "anything goes". And you have the other side saying that those opposed are against all change.
Can't we all just agree that some of us think this particular development has potential, and some of us think this particular development is a bad idea?
"comics already seem to be drawing smaller audiences. Apparently less people want to get into a universe with such a complicated history."
I see this sentiment a lot, but I don't think it tracks when one realizes that publishing, as a whole, is a depressed industry. Fewer Americans are reading fewer things, period. It's hardly limited to comics.
PAD
I wonder if there are more choices now than ever before in terms of reading? I see so many magazines on some many obscure topics, I wonder if you added them up, even if any individual one is falling, they would add up more than before. I think the population has more than doubled since FDR's time, but then there are much more competition now-television, video games, technology, etc. Plus, I believe I've seen it demonstrated that at least since the 70s, comics at least have gone up much more than inflation. I also think there is a lot less "there" there, and so not only are prices up, but content down. It may have taken 20 minutes to read a comic ten years ago, and in many cases, 5 minutes today. and yeah you can look at the art again, but often there is so little story, you can't revisit it as much as in the old days. Sure, PAD is an exception to that, and there are others, but I find that to be largely true.
Instead I think the simple observation is that the kneejerk reaction is that different=bad, and that isn't necessarily the case
****
I think that is equally a misrepresentation. No one is saying that iyt is bad because it is different, but are articulating reasons they think it is bad-including that it takes away something core about the character that they not only find interesting, but essential. Juts because it is different, does not mean it is bad, and just because it is different, does not mean it is good. I'm not against all change-heck I support the marriage, don't have a problem per se with Aunt May knowing (wouldn't have a problem if she didn't know either), I liked the Spider-totem at first until it degenerated into mystical mumbo jumbo and many other things. If this were "permanent", yes, I think this makes Peter Parker/Spider-man a less interesting character with less interesting stories to tell. It takes away some of the reasons, I for one, enjoyed about the character, and identified with the character. I believe in general, Spider-man is a character whom many of its readers have a real identification with, explaining his appeal,and encouraged by Marvel "the everyman" the "superhero who could be you" and there are a lot of emotions when some of that appeal is messed with. At some point, it really isn't Spider-man anymore. However, i expect this to be pretty short term.
I liked the other Green Lantern and was sorry t see him go.
But he hasn't gone. In fact, he has his own series as well. So Hal fans have Hal and Kyle fans have Kyle. It'll be interesting to see which one ultimately draws more readers.
Posted by: John Seavey at June 17, 2006 06:15 PM
Ah, yes, the classic 'they laughed at the Wright Brothers' argument. "People said Great Idea A was bad, and it was good; people are saying this idea is bad, therefore it must be good." It's an obvious error to anyone who thinks about it for any length of time.
I'm risking the appearance of beating up on you, as Peter David already addressed this. Since it was my argument you were distorting, though, I think I have cause to respond as well. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that said distortion was inadvertant and based on a simple misunderstanding.)
Your argument is a classic example of the "straw man" fallacy. In case you're unfamiliar, it's a fallacy whereby you create a weak argument and erroneously attribute it to the person with whom you're arguing. I never said that the unmasking of Spider-Man would work. In fact, I never expressed an opinion about whether or not it would work. Your inference has no basis in what I wrote.
What I said was quite simple. I pointed out that Martin Goodman, former publisher of Marvel, said that Spider-Man would never work because he violated conventions of the super-hero genre. Yet Spider-Man resonated well with readers. I then pointed out that you are criticizing the "Spider-Man unmasks" storyline for exactly the same reasons that Martin Goodman initially nixed Spider-Man. And I pointed out the inescapable irony.
Spider-Man's unmasking may be a soaring success or it may hit the ground with a dull thud, or something in between. But the idea that something can't possibly be good because it violates genre conventions is just silly. The very success of Spider-Man proves that.
That's all that I'm saying, OK?
The secret got blown for me by a Dynamic Forces e-mail. (I haven't even seen Civil War #1 yet, so there was no way for me to know what was coming in #2.) So first of all, it sucks that I don't get the shot in the chest that the creators intended. Secondly, from the paragraph summary I read, with no context to put it in, the unmasking seems like a remarkably bad idea. Clone Saga bad, my friends. I know Joe Quesada and J. Michael Straczynski think that Spider-Man as a character isn't working right now, but man alive there are nearly countless options for reinvigorating characters, and it seems like Marvel went for a cheap shock instead. (By the way, I take a weird comic book geek pride in the fact that I didn't have to look up the spelling of either of those names.)
The worst thing about the unmasking is this - it's been done before, most recently by Brian Michael Bendis on his great Daredevil run. That was handled very well and took into consideration the character's history, so the story flowed naturally. This just smacks of a gimmick, and knowing what's coming is going to make it harder to judge the book on its own merits. But make no mistake, I am buying the series because it captured my interest before it was released, and now I HAVE to know what happens.Posted by: Matt Adler at June 17, 2006 07:16 PM
I think each side is misrepresenting the other. You have one side claiming that the other has no sense of the character whatsoever, and is basically saying "anything goes". And you have the other side saying that those opposed are against all change.
Matt, I appreciate you trying to smooth things out, but you're missing the mark. I, for one, never misrepresented anyone. John Seavey said he didn't like the change because it violates a convention that is "vital" to the genre. It's the same kind of argument Martin Goodman used to nix Spider-Man (at least it is according to Stan Lee, and I'll take his word for it as he was there and I wasn't). I'm always a bit surprised when people get so upset as a result of someone pointing something out that is, well, undeniably true.
Can't we all just agree that some of us think this particular development has potential, and some of us think this particular development is a bad idea?
I'm afraid you're reading content into my posts that isn't there in any way, shape, nor form. I never said that I couldn't accept that some people find this to be a bad idea. I never told anyone they were obligated to like the change.
Whoops! I just said that John Seavey criticized the unmasking because it violates genre conventions. But that was Andy. Sorry, John.
He didn't say it vilated a genre convention-he explained exactly why the super hero secret identity was vital to the genre, and why people respond, as well as gave a couple of other reasons.
Goodman was wrong-spiders aren't icky to kids, and teenagers responded to a character young who made mistakes. Plus, his cotumes and powers were just plain cool.
The fact that Goodman was wrong has nothing to do with whether secret identities are vital, particularly to Spider-man or whether that secret identity is unique and part of the appeal of the character. Goodman started with a false premise-and therefore got it wrong. It sounds like the typical middle aged man who really doesn't understand kids/teens. It has nothing to do with an argument that the loss of his secret identity would ruin Peter Parker/Spider-man as a character, any more than someone saying superpowers or a costume are vital to Spider-man and someone saying "But don't you get it-Spider-man was created as someone different. Having no powers, no costumes, no villains is different. Don't you see how ironic it is?"
As for the realism issue-that is something injected as pro-no identity argument. It isn;t realistic that Peter could avoid detection in this modern age. It's real that he should do this, because cops and fireman and prosecutors all are public-the argument put forth in the book-and that registraion is necessary because doctors register-an argument put forth by the creators. I would assume when someone is saying "I don't want this kind of realism in my comics" that this is what they are responding too. Because a pediatrican has to regiuster and be tested, Spider-man should too. Because cops face risks to their family, Spider-man should be willing to do it too.
So what? If they don't like it, Spidey can borrow the Infinity Gauntlet and change it back. (Of course, the Infinity Gauntlet belongs to Danny Phantom over on Nickelodeon, but still...)
But frankly, whether it stays or not, it should be fun. At the very least, Peter Parker would have one hell of a tell-all book. He could embarass Jameson out of the business. And for once, if he wrote about his heartbreak, lonliness and outright despair, he might engender some of the public sympathy and support he's needed all these years.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 17, 2006 10:47 PM
He didn't say it vilated a genre convention-he explained exactly why the super hero secret identity was vital to the genre, and why people respond, as well as gave a couple of other reasons.
Saying that Spider-Man's unmasking will remove something "vital to the genre" is the same as saying it "violates a genre convention." The wording is slightly different, but the underlying meaning is the same.
Goodman was wrong-spiders aren't icky to kids, and teenagers responded to a character young who made mistakes. Plus, his cotumes and powers were just plain cool.
The fact that Goodman was wrong has nothing to do with whether secret identities are vital, particularly to Spider-man or whether that secret identity is unique and part of the appeal of the character. Goodman started with a false premise-and therefore got it wrong. It sounds like the typical middle aged man who really doesn't understand kids/teens. It has nothing to do with an argument that the loss of his secret identity would ruin Peter Parker/Spider-man as a character, any more than someone saying superpowers or a costume are vital to Spider-man and someone saying "But don't you get it-Spider-man was created as someone different. Having no powers, no costumes, no villains is different. Don't you see how ironic it is?"
You're not seeing the forest for the trees. Martin Goodman's reasoning was exactly the same as Andy's: that an idea wouldn't work because it flies in the face of what we "know" about what makes the genre work. You can say it's not until you're blue in the face, but you'll be on ground about as solid as someone who denies the existence of gravity.
As for the realism issue-that is something injected as pro-no identity argument. It isn;t realistic that Peter could avoid detection in this modern age. It's real that he should do this, because cops and fireman and prosecutors all are public-the argument put forth in the book-and that registraion is necessary because doctors register-an argument put forth by the creators. I would assume when someone is saying "I don't want this kind of realism in my comics" that this is what they are responding too. Because a pediatrican has to regiuster and be tested, Spider-man should too. Because cops face risks to their family, Spider-man should be willing to do it too.
How many cops have enemies that go after them personally? I'm betting it happens far less to real-life cops then it does to a fictitious super-hero. So, no, "realism" doesn't apply.
Oh, and by the way, that rhetorical question you asked me about "dumb" ideas had nothing to do with anything I said.
I am just too tired/drunk to read all these comments. So, could someone please tell me when Wanda-Scarlet Witch/Dr. Strange/Watcher/whoever....changes everything back to the status quo?
PP reveals his ID "not bloody likely"
"But frankly, whether it stays or not, it should be fun. At the very least, Peter Parker would have one hell of a tell-all book. He could embarass Jameson out of the business. And for once, if he wrote about his heartbreak, lonliness and outright despair, he might engender some of the public sympathy and support he's needed all these years."
Petyer and Mary Jane Parker tonight on Oprah, discussing his book 'My secreet Identity.'?
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 17, 2006 10:47 PM
He didn't say it vilated a genre convention-he explained exactly why the super hero secret identity was vital to the genre, and why people respond, as well as gave a couple of other reasons.
You know, this morning I re-read Andy's post, and remembered that he in fact said almost exactly that:
"Also it rather violates the rules of the genre."
I merely substituted the word "conventions" for "rules." But the meaning is virtually the same. Asserting that he didn't say what he said is like asserting that day is night, or asserting 2 + 2 is 5.
And how about this little gem from you:
"So what? because one person at one time thought an idea was dumb, no one else can say an idea is dumb, there are no dumb ideas?"
That rhetorical question is a non-sequitur, pure and simple. It's a paralogistic inference that has no basis in anything that I wrote.
My observation is simple:
1. Martin Goodman initially rejected Stan Lee's Spider-Man proposal with a knee-jerk response of different=bad.
2. Some fans are reacting to Spider-Man's unmasking with a knee-jerk reaction of different=bad.
3. This is ironic.
The above is not a distortion of anyone's argument. The assertion that Spider-Man's unmasking "violates rules of the genre" is tantamount to saying different=bad. Denying that is, again, like adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 5.
I never said the unmasking was going to be a commercial or creative success. There is no logical reason to draw that inference.
You can attempt to dismiss my observation by asking, "So what?" But, frankly, I believe the significance of some fans are using the same argument that Martin Goodman once used to nix Spider-Man is self-evident, and a worthwhile observation. As Peter pointed out, many fans will tell you that they don't want anything different. Except that they often do want something different, as the success of Spider-Man proved.
Again, I'm not saying that something is good just because it's different. I'm just saying it isn't automatically bad. And I have no idea why the hell that's proving to be such a controversial thing to say.
1So, no, "realism" doesn't apply.
****
It's the people in favor of him revealing his identity, many of them, who say it does.
The above is not a distortion of anyone's argument. The assertion that Spider-Man's unmasking "violates rules of the genre" is tantamount to saying different=bad.
****
No it isn't. I left out the word "just". He isn;t just saying "because it violates this genre convention" it is bad and virtually no one else is either-they are specifically given their reasons why in general, and most of them to this specific case, why such violation is bad. Not just it is different so it is bad, but it is different and this is why in this case that is bad. Martin Goodman may or may not have meant it is bad just because it is different-he had specific reasons too. His reasons were wrong-because he had false assumptions about kids in relation to young heroes and spiders. The arguments as to why it is bad for heroes in general and Spider-man in particular to reveal his identity may be right or wrong, but they are right or wrong based on the arguments made, as they are not simply saying "anything different is bad" but giving a reason why this genre convention's violation in this case is wrong (depending on the poster how specific to Spider-man this is). martin goodman has nothing to do with it. His reasons stood or feel on their own merits, as do these arguments. Their response isn't knee-jerk. and even Goodman's wasn't necessarily knee-jerk. It was wrong, it was based on wrong assumptions, it was based on his experience in the business for 20 years, but it may, or may not have been knee-jerk. We simply do not have the information from Stan's stories. But here, we do have people setting forth reasons for why they feel what they do beyong just "it is different so it is bad." it is a distortion of their arguements and intellectually dishonest. They aren't saying they don't want anything different-but saying, we don't want this specific difference, and here is why
The more obnoxious your posts get doesn't make it any more right.
Bill Myers wrote: Saying that Spider-Man's unmasking will remove something "vital to the genre" is the same as saying it "violates a genre convention." The wording is slightly different, but the underlying meaning is the same.
English is a second language for me, so maybe something was off, for which I apologize.
Just a few words:
"Individual story arcs within super-hero comic book series end all the time. You're confusing the idea of an "ending" with complete closure, which isn't possible or even desirable in serialized fiction like this."
No, I am not confusing this. Unfortunatly in serial fiction story arcs ends more often than not badly. (Which is a matter of taste, I know.) But the inability of serial fiction - especially in comics - to deliver closure, to go through with the consequences, is a problem both for readers - who I guess often feel cheated - and writers.
"How can you not see the irony of your argument? Martin Goodman told Stan Lee that Spider-Man would never work because it violated conventions of the genre that were vital"
Sorry, but these are different things. Lee never proposed a hero without the superhero-trademarks, i.e. some sort of super-abilities, a mask, a secret identity. All within the established genre-parameters. He never said lets make, say, a western without horses and guns. That Goodman couldn´t see the appeal of a superhero-comic with soap-opera elements was short-sighted, yes.
Of course you can change the status quo. But only up to a point. Then the character will become indeed something other (no pun intended) and you risk that the audience is leaving the house.
It's been said (elsewhere) that readers can identify with Spiderman, among other reasons, because under the mask Spiderman could be anybody.
The secret identity has benefits: no-one identified Parker as being Spiderman, so he got to live a life where his powers weren't a big deal, and so his family wouldn't be identified with anything Spiderman did.
On the other hand, he's unable to take credit for his successes, and there's the general awkwardness when he has to try and explain away his absences.
Now, Parker is known to be Spiderman. He doesn't have to hide what he's been doing while New York was in danger, his family get to support him publicly, he doesn't get to hide the costume when Spiderman's unpopular any more - he's come out.
I think a coming out story is still entirely everyman, it's well within the Spiderman concept, it'd be a shame if it didn't get told.
Posted by: Andy at June 18, 2006 09:02 AM
English is a second language for me, so maybe something was off, for which I apologize.
Actually, I think you use the English language very well. If you hadn't told me it was a second language for you, I'd not have known. There are people who grew up with English as their first language who don't write as well as you.
No, I am not confusing this. Unfortunatly in serial fiction story arcs ends more often than not badly. (Which is a matter of taste, I know.) But the inability of serial fiction - especially in comics - to deliver closure, to go through with the consequences, is a problem both for readers - who I guess often feel cheated - and writers.
I see your point. And you're right, some of it does come down to individual tastes. As I said, the world's big enough for us all.
Sorry, but these are different things. Lee never proposed a hero without the superhero-trademarks, i.e. some sort of super-abilities, a mask, a secret identity. All within the established genre-parameters. He never said lets make, say, a western without horses and guns. That Goodman couldn´t see the appeal of a superhero-comic with soap-opera elements was short-sighted, yes.
I'm afraid you're wrong. These are the same things.
Goodman asserted (according to Stan Lee) that there were certain elements of the super-hero genre that mustn't be violated: that a super-hero had to be an adult and couldn't have real-world problems. You are saying that there are certain elements of the super-hero genre that mustn't be violated: that super-heroes have secret identities. It doesn't matter that the genre conventions being discussed in each case are different. The underlying reasoning is the same.
Of course you can change the status quo. But only up to a point. Then the character will become indeed something other (no pun intended) and you risk that the audience is leaving the house.
Well, yeah, but at the same time, if you are too afraid to alter a character's status quo, readers will become bored. Why read another Spider-Man story if it's exactly like every other one you've ever read?
Peter was right. Spider-Man succeeded because he was different. But Spidey's been around for a few decades. He's no longer "different." He's now the "old guard." If Marvel is afraid to try to refresh the character a bit, they risk him becoming uninteresting and irrelevant to many of today's readers.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 18, 2006 08:50 AM
The more obnoxious your posts get doesn't make it any more right.
spiderrob8, I almost fell into your trap. I wrote a very lengthy post responding to you, only to realize that I'd be giving you the satisfaction of engaging in the very fights that you so crave to provoke.
During my days as the worst kind of troll, I'd've taken the bait in a heartbeat. But I now realize life is too short.
I was allowing you to ruin my enjoyment of this forum, until I realized that I could do the same thing Peter has done: ignore you.
Good day.
It's ok. 2 + 2= 5, said repeatedly, sounded pretty obnoxious to me when it was hardly as clear cut as you said.
When every post of yours is talking down to someone, trying to show "I am so much smarter than you" it is pretty annoying-but thanks for the defintion of straw man by the way.
Do what you want. You ignoring me has no impact on my life whatsoever.
I hold the belief that each readers’ choice of favorite comic book character is a deeply personal one, that mirrors who that reader is. And it also reveals who that person wants to be. Captain America, Superman, and Wonder Woman are icons who represent the best that humanity has to offer. Batman is dark, damaged, and driven. The Green Lanterns are fearless. Hulk is strong enough to never be bullied. The X-men reveal the dangers of prejudice. Spider-man is the determined underdog, the most mainstream “everyman” in the superhero world.
Or at least that is who Spider-man was. I enjoyed reading Spider-man because he had problems I could relate to. Crazy heroics and radiation aside, I could understand who he was. He felt like someone I could have known in high school. He had problems with bills, personal obligations, with being the type of person that would let him sleep at night. Yet he always stood up despite the odds, and gave it his best chance. While I was onboard for most of the changes in recent years, the changes are starting to alter who he is and what he stands for.
Between the suit, joining the avenger, having money, the unmasking, and the possible dissolution of his marriage, he no longer is at the same place I am. I don’t feel the same kinship that I once did. The bottom line is: this is not the Spider-man I wanted to be when I was 10 years old.
Posted by: dan at June 18, 2006 12:10 PM
I hold the belief that each readers’ choice of favorite comic book character is a deeply personal one, that mirrors who that reader is. And it also reveals who that person wants to be. Captain America, Superman, and Wonder Woman are icons who represent the best that humanity has to offer. Batman is dark, damaged, and driven. The Green Lanterns are fearless. Hulk is strong enough to never be bullied. The X-men reveal the dangers of prejudice. Spider-man is the determined underdog, the most mainstream “everyman” in the superhero world.
Wow. You know how to say a lot in very few words. Are you a writer by trade?
Or at least that is who Spider-man was. I enjoyed reading Spider-man because he had problems I could relate to. Crazy heroics and radiation aside, I could understand who he was. He felt like someone I could have known in high school. He had problems with bills, personal obligations, with being the type of person that would let him sleep at night. Yet he always stood up despite the odds, and gave it his best chance. While I was onboard for most of the changes in recent years, the changes are starting to alter who he is and what he stands for.
Between the suit, joining the avenger, having money, the unmasking, and the possible dissolution of his marriage, he no longer is at the same place I am. I don’t feel the same kinship that I once did. The bottom line is: this is not the Spider-man I wanted to be when I was 10 years old.
Believe it or not, I don't disagree with you. Marvel has been making a lot of changes to Spider-Man: introducing a totemic explanation for his powers, for example. If the unmasking sticks (no pun intended!), it will be another radical departure for the character. I can see how that might alienate someone who fell in love with the character as he was originally portrayed.
That said, only time will tell whether or not these changes will resonate with the fans en masse. I don't usually put a lot of stock in the Internet buzz, because those of us who post a lot on the Internet are more opinionated than the average reader, IMHO. (And yes, I'm including myself in that super-opinionated crowd.)
The unmasking story did get me to pick up ASM, a book I hadn't read in years. Whether I'll stick with it or not is another thing.
But you're right: what you do or don't like in entertainment is a deeply personal thing.
How many cops have enemies that go after them personally? I'm betting it happens far less to real-life cops then it does to a fictitious super-hero. So, no, "realism" doesn't apply.
That's an interesting point and it could lead to some interesting stories.
When the mob was at its strongest there was no doubt who the good guys and bad guys were but it's my impression that very few families of honest cops and judges lived in fear of their lives. There was always an unspoken assumption that if anyone were to drag civilians into the conflict the ramifications would be severe.
Suppose a supervillian--most of whom have known identities due to years in prison--DOES go after Spidey's family. I'm not saying that Peter would retaliate against the bad guy's kids...but might not the Punisher? Or some low level anti-hero who has a very harsh idea of justice?
In fact, wouldn't it be likely that the super villians themselves might take care of anyone who strays that far off the resrvation? (The movie M comes to mind.)
It's a point that movies have explored often--even evil people believe themselves to be honorable, in their own definition of the word. For many, though not all, killing a girlfriend/wife/child or an enemy would be dishonorable. And quite likely counterproductive.
(One of my all time favorite comic book bits was when Joe Chill relaized that HE was the guy who killed Batman's parents, making him Batman and when he told his criminal buddies about it they shot him dead.)
(And yeah, they realized right after they did it that they should have asked him who Batman was. Criminals are not very bright.)
Wouldn't Spiderman inherant 'everyman' personality remain the same even after being unmasked? Or maybe part of the story wil be keeping the same peronality under new circumstances?
"How many cops have enemies that go after them personally?"
In 21 years as an officer, my father only ever had one small group of people make a court room threat that, when they busted out of jail, anybody took as legit. I've never even had the threats made to me in my six years on the force. But I don't think that it's quite the same thing.
The level at which most super hero/super villain feuds are written is so over the top that I don't think the cop thing really stands up. Most cops don't have life and death fights with the same guy 10 or 15 times a year. Also, most heroes have at least one story in their book where their main bad guy or new bad guy on the block has learned who they're close to and kidnapped that person. Hell, the idea is so mainstream that it only took about five minutes for the Green Goblin to do it in the Spidey film.
When the mob was at its strongest there was no doubt who the good guys and bad guys were but it's my impression that very few families of honest cops and judges lived in fear of their lives. There was always an unspoken assumption that if anyone were to drag civilians into the conflict the ramifications would be severe.
While that has been historically true in the US, it has not been the case in countries like Colombia, where the drug cartels have routinelly attacked judges and police in their homes.
"Also it rather violates the rules of the genre."
I don't understand this statement, since Marvel comics were founded upon superheroes who have no secret identities -- the Fantastic Four. And since there pretty much are no secret identities left in the MU, and many DC characters are abandoning them, as well (or else simply not treating it as an issue in the first place, like Hawkman and Hawkgirl, for instance), I'd hardly call it a rule.
You know, I've decided that I owe an apology to everyone who's been reading this thread. I allowed myself to get a bit annoyed by a couple of people and as a result began declaring things to be "self-evident," "undeniably true," etc.
I'm sorry.
In my defense, I got quite annoyed when John Seavey responded to my observation by saying, "'People said Great Idea A was bad, and it was good; people are saying this idea is bad, therefore it must be good.' It's an obvious error to anyone who thinks about it for any length of time."
And John, if my response to you struck you as condescending, I am sorry. But I got irritated by what I perceived to be the condescending tone of your post. That irritation was made all the worse by the fact that I hadn't said anything remotely like that which you were attributing to me.
That said, I should give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean to be condescending. And while I stand by the assertion that you erroneously attributed something to me, well, I'd like to think you did it without malice. And I make errors too.
Point is, I shouldn't have reacted as I did.
It was that irritation that led me to start slinging about terms like "undeniable" and "self-evident." So, if anyone read my posts and was offended by the tone I took, I'm sorry.
It's odd, because as I've said before, I used to be a horrible little troll. Now people in Peter's blog have actually complimented me for my behavior here. I don't feel like I've earned the praise, and every time I let some irritation slip like I did here, I feel like I'm letting someone down.
And this is probably going to sound incredibly petty, but my apology extends to everyone but spiderrob8, who I think of as the new X-Ray. I don't know if he replied to my last post and I won't know if he replies to this one; I really am sticking to my vow to ignore him. But I feel a need to explicitly exempt him from the apology. Because, frankly, he came in here with an insulting an arrogant tone, and then childishly pretended to be the wounded party after going out of his way to provoke me into giving that tone right back to him.
That said, I shouldn't have taken his bait and descended to his level. Because other people besides him are reading my posts and may well have taken offense. If I did offend anyone, I regret it.
While that has been historically true in the US, it has not been the case in countries like Colombia, where the drug cartels have routinelly attacked judges and police in their homes.
True, and it's the fact that as the Mob got increasingly into the drug trade they began to adopt the methods of the drug lords that ultimately helped destroy the Cosa Nostra as we knew it.
One thing that always got me about Spidey--how really hard would it be for someone to figure out his id? He lives in NYC for heaven's sake. How easy is it really to find a place to change costumes? Of course, that's true for all of them, an intrepid reporter could just follow the Batmobile until it either entered the secret cave entrance or ran out of gas. It might take some camping out but they'd catch them all eventually. How many high speed car chases end with the guy getting away?
But if I wanted reality I'd read Newsweek.
Bill, the more you talk about your sordid troll past the more I'm tempted to look it up and see just how bad you really were...but I won't because I like you and all. It's just that you seem so non-trollish to me. Maybe a little quick to rise to the bait but, coff, coff, I'm hardly in a position to judge.
And spiderrob8 may not be your favorite posetr but calling him the new x-ray...that's cold, man. X-ray was in a class all by himself...well, himself and the other identities he/she used. Even other trolls used to read xray and think, "jeeze, get a life."
Anyway...someone told me that there's a rumor that the Hatemonger is behind the whole Civil War plotline. The Hatemonger! Adolph Hitler's clone! God, I hope that's just famboy wanking nonsense, it would be the first major crossover to die by Godwin's Law.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 18, 2006 04:13 PM
Bill, the more you talk about your sordid troll past the more I'm tempted to look it up and see just how bad you really were...but I won't because I like you and all. It's just that you seem so non-trollish to me. Maybe a little quick to rise to the bait but, coff, coff, I'm hardly in a position to judge.
Thanks.
And spiderrob8 may not be your favorite posetr but calling him the new x-ray...that's cold, man. X-ray was in a class all by himself...well, himself and the other identities he/she used. Even other trolls used to read xray and think, "jeeze, get a life."
I only know X-Ray by reputation. So that may have been unfair.
And you know what? The more I think about it, the more I think my feud with spiderrob8 is petty and stupid. He's entitled to dislike me if he wishes. A grown man like me should move on.
So, movin' on...
Anyway...someone told me that there's a rumor that the Hatemonger is behind the whole Civil War plotline. The Hatemonger! Adolph Hitler's clone! God, I hope that's just famboy wanking nonsense, it would be the first major crossover to die by Godwin's Law.
Technically, Godwin's Law doesn't kill threads. Godwin's Law simply states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
So when people say that a poster has violated Godwin's Law, what they actually mean is that someone has invoked it. The only way to violate Godwin's Law is with an infinitely long thread that never mentions you-know-what.
I dunno about you, but I don't want to try to create an infinitely long thread. Getting to infinity would take, like, forever.
Bill, I would like to think that people understand that different people have different temprament at different circumstances, and that even when peopletalk sarcastically, or with irony, or harshness, or in other ways do not talk with complete calm and decorum, it is just because they are only human, and not out of malice. We all have done it. And I also think that the best way to avoid conflict is not to look for malice in the words of others. Sometimes not being offended is the first step to not offending others.
Using phrases like self-evident are, evidently, rhetorical devices. They are not always the best, although I personaly like them, but they are hardly offensive, except for someone who is looking to be offended. If we understand that the issues we discuss are ones that may evoke emotion, but never malice, we can all avoid taking offence when it is not justified, and, you lnow what, even if it is.
A last word of advice. Sometimes you try to correct people who have lost their cool by refering to your alleged days of trolling, (of which I have no corroberation). I suspect some may find it offensive; trolls for example, there is no reason to perpetuate a stereotype against a whole species. I also suspect that the only ones who can really benefit from your advice are those who do not require it. On the others it is probably wasted.
On a partially related topic. Isn't one of the reasons orgaized crime and criminals in general refrain, in the US, from hitting cops, because they know there will be a harsh retaliation? I don't know how many comic villeins have a stake in stability the way organized crime does. In general they seem more petty, more emotional, more megalomaniac, and sometimes more crazy. They may resent being opposed by people who volunteer to do it. Maybe, if super villeins know that attacks against family members wil have the whole super hero community after them they will hesitate to overstep the limit?
There have been a few judges targeted recently, but it is still rare. Troublesome enough that some judges have given speeches about it recently but rare.
Anyway, we'll see how this works out. Have a feeling it isn't permanent, but who knows.
I think it's a bad idea. But you can't blame the writers, you have to blame the editors for going along with it
You know, I can't believe it: nobody brought up the fact that Reed Richards has a CD on a table labelled "42" and that he tells Sue it's classified information? ;)
You know, in retrospect, I'd like to apologize to Bill for getting off on the wrong foot with him on two boards. I was more antagonstic than I had to be, and I'd like to wipe the slate clean. THe problem is I am being ignored, but if he does see this, I'll try to be more civil from now on.
Posted by: Micha at June 18, 2006 07:34 PM
I suspect some may find it offensive; trolls for example, there is no reason to perpetuate a stereotype against a whole species.
Shit, have I offended trolls, now? Man, it was bad enough fielding complaints from Ogres, Living Lawn Gnomes, anthropomorphic trees, and my family.
On a partially related topic. Isn't one of the reasons orgaized crime and criminals in general refrain, in the US, from hitting cops, because they know there will be a harsh retaliation? I don't know how many comic villeins have a stake in stability the way organized crime does. In general they seem more petty, more emotional, more megalomaniac, and sometimes more crazy. They may resent being opposed by people who volunteer to do it. Maybe, if super villeins know that attacks against family members wil have the whole super hero community after them they will hesitate to overstep the limit?
On the one hand, I believe the concept of the super-villain with a grudge against a particular super-hero has produced some wonderful stories. As a kid, I remember a chill going up my spine every time the FF went toe-to-toe with Doctor Doom. And Roger Stern's Hobgoblin story arc was one of the best Spidey stories ever, IMHO.
That said, the device can be, and in my estimation has been, overused. When a hero is nothing more than a target for super-villains wanting revenge, the hero begins to look less heroic to me.
In my own writing (which is admittedly on an amateur level for the time being, though I hope to change that), I find myself preferring to write about villains whose motivations are based in something other than a personal hatred of my protagonist. But those are my sensibilities at work. Your mileage may vary.
Speaking of which, I just read ASM #532, the prelude to Spidey's unmasking. J. Michael Straczynski has been the target of much Internet trash-talking, and frankly I don't know why his writing draws so much ire from certain circles.
I mean, Peter Parker's internal struggle vis-a-vis unmasking was consistent with his character, and deftly written by JMS. I daresay it's one of the most powerful Spidey stories I've ever read. And frankly, if this is a stunt, it's head-and-shoulders above a lot of the other stunts I've seen in the Spidey books in the last 10 years.
I've no idea whether this move will resonate well with fandom over the long term. But I do know that I'm intrigued.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 18, 2006 09:43 PM
You know, in retrospect, I'd like to apologize to Bill for getting off on the wrong foot with him on two boards. I was more antagonstic than I had to be, and I'd like to wipe the slate clean. THe problem is I am being ignored, but if he does see this, I'll try to be more civil from now on.
spiderrob8, I accept your apology and offer my own apology in return. It takes two to tango and I certainly could have been less confrontational as well. If you're willing to try to wipe the slate clean, I'm willing to do the same.
In that spirit, I would mention that you made an observation about Spidey's unmasking that was, in my view, quite valid. Specifically, the fact that it is hard to get excited about an "earth-shattering" event in Spidey's life when there have been so many in the last 10-15 years. I can see where you're coming from.
That said, I find myself far more riveted by this latest ballyhoo than I have about any of the others (the death of Aunt May, the Clone Saga, the revelation of the totemic nature of Spidey's powers, his organic webshooters, the "Other" saga, etc.). Granted, I haven't read much of Spider-Man over the last several years, aside from the JMS/JR Jr run and PAD's wonderful FNSM. But I'm intrigued.
Others think it's a dumb idea. Personally, I think it's too early to call it. But, y'know, to each his or her own.
And while I have yet to scarf up a copy of the all-ages Spidey book PAD is writing, I understand that one portrays the "traditional" Spider-Man most of us grew up with. So, to me, we've got the best of both worlds. People like me who like to see creators go out on a limb have the option of reading the Spidey portrayed in the "mainstream Marvel U." Others can read the all-ages book for the Spidey they remember.
Or, if you're like me, you may read both.
"In my own writing (which is admittedly on an amateur level for the time being, though I hope to change that), I find myself preferring to write about villains whose motivations are based in something other than a personal hatred of my protagonist. But those are my sensibilities at work. Your mileage may vary."
I agree.
Is it possible to read just one of the spidy titles without reading all the rest? I currently read 7 comics per month and I may add one, but not 4.
Trolls are sensitive, but they have a weak lobby.
"And this is probably going to sound incredibly petty, but my apology extends to everyone but spiderrob8, who I think of as the new X-Ray."
No way, and I can say that with authority. I simply decided to ignore him because someone whose default position is to cry "Nazis" repeatedly is just not worth my time. But X-Ray was just a whack job.
PAD
A place I used to work had an interesting unofficial rule. The first person to mention Nazis automatically lost any argument.
I think one time I cried "nazi" just so the argument would end sooner.
I sitll don't understand how a major event like increased strength, organic webbing and hearing insects can be ignored (in Spectacular Spider-man disassembled).I mean, if no one wanted to do it, and the writer was leaving anyway, you'd think that the editor just would have said no.
There's just this odd dynamic where JMS and others ignore things done in the other book, and everyone else seems to ignore Spider-totem.
I don't think peter made a decision keeping with himself, but I do agree JMS wrote it well how he deliberated and worried over it. I generally find he writes a good marriage too. I didn't think Aunt May was paritcularly logical in her thoughts and in her statements, though she has changed a lot under JMS.
I also think that PAD's spider-man has been very good but I would have liked to have seen 12 issues or so not crossing over into anything else.
PAD pointed out something that everyone has pretty much missed up to this point:
PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT SPIDERMAN!!! NON-COMIC FANS.
My cousins visited today and were all excited, asking me about what was going on in the comic world and why Peter Parker went public. My cousins are teenage girls who don't read comics. This is a very good thing: its all over the news. Unlike the death of Superman I hope it stays permanent, and I even hope it gets brought into the movie universe. Its time Spidey's character developed.
Death of Superman is actually a very interesting thing to mention. The Death story itself actually wasn't a very good story. However, the stories that came after *were* really good. Stories about how the other heroes dealt with his loss, what Superman meant to the DC world, how hard it was to replace him.
The death of Gwen Stacy was hated at the time, but since then it has become beloved by fans. I think that's also because of the stories that came afterward. Peter thinking about his the girl he lost, Spidey fighting harder sometimes to make sure that he never lost anyone else, the way Gwen's death affected later romances.
Perhaps that's the real measure of whether or not an "event" story succeeds. Maybe it's not the quality of the story itself, but the quality of the stories that come afterwards.
Posted by: Peter David at June 18, 2006 10:52 PM
No way, and I can say that with authority. I simply decided to ignore him because someone whose default position is to cry "Nazis" repeatedly is just not worth my time. But X-Ray was just a whack job.
Yeah. You can say that with authority, and I couldn't, because X-Ray was before my time here. I spoke out of anger and was reaching for anything I could use as a metaphorical bludgeon. Unfortunately, it seems I chose my foot and then put it in my mouth.
I'm glad I never had the "pleasure" of encountering X-Ray.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 19, 2006 12:36 AM
I sitll don't understand how a major event like increased strength, organic webbing and hearing insects can be ignored (in Spectacular Spider-man disassembled).I mean, if no one wanted to do it, and the writer was leaving anyway, you'd think that the editor just would have said no.
There's just this odd dynamic where JMS and others ignore things done in the other book, and everyone else seems to ignore Spider-totem.
You have me at a disadvantage here. I was reading ASM, and no other Spidey books, during the JMS/JR Jr run. I dropped it after JR Jr left. Only recently did I re-connect with Spidey when I began reading FNSM.
I don't think peter made a decision keeping with himself, but I do agree JMS wrote it well how he deliberated and worried over it. I generally find he writes a good marriage too. I didn't think Aunt May was paritcularly logical in her thoughts and in her statements, though she has changed a lot under JMS.
I'm curious -- why don't you think Peter's decision was in keeping with his character? (That's not a challenge, by the way. We're probably not going to agree on this -- it's a matter of taste, I think -- but I'm always interested in learning where other people are coming from.)
I also think that PAD's spider-man has been very good but I would have liked to have seen 12 issues or so not crossing over into anything else.
And once again, you and I agree. I would love to read a Spidey book by PAD with no cross-overs. But if cross-overs come with the territory, well, it's a price I'm willing to pay to read PAD's take on Spidey.
And thanks for being willing to mend fences, spiderrob8. That was real big of you. Seriously.
Bill wrote: J. Michael Straczynski has been the target of much Internet trash-talking, and frankly I don't know why his writing draws so much ire from certain circles.
I was and still am in parts a big fan of JMS, loved his B5 - except the last season, but that´s another topic - and bought Spider-Man for the first time in years when he became the writer.
And I left the book rather fast when this totem-stuff was developed.
JMS is a terrific writer. But some of his ideas are - IMHO, this IS a matter of taste if there ever was - better than others.
I always came again on board for an issue or two, but no, I just don´t like it. "Sin´s past" was an awful idea, not because the Gwen-has-children stuff, but because the Gwen-has-children-with-old Osborn stuff. Some things I just don´t believe :-) I can believe that Galactus eats planets, but I can´t believe that. Lol.
So I can understand why some fans can´t stand his stuff. I cannot understand why they buy it regardless, but that is their problem.
I personally think that JMS would be sometimes better suited working with an good editor. Or an editor who does more than traffic-control. (I don´t of course know how it is at Marvel, so I could be miles off here, but it seems from the outside that he can pretty much do what he wants conceptwise.) In my opinion a writer, who is his own editor, is a bit like the lawyer who defends himself.
Marvel had this time way back when writers were their own editors. It produced some of the most memorable work of its time, but also some terrible misfires. Marv Wolfman comes to mind, his TOD was great reading, maybe even ahead of its time, but some storylines were terrible. And not terrible per se, but terrible in a sense that you as a reader could see where it went on the wrong track.
JMS is - just IMHO - such a writer. Great ideas, but a lot of others which he had better slept a night over it.
Oh, and thanks for the language compliment, Bill. :-)
I don't like it.
It's for good potential on the short run, but on the long run.....
On our board we had a bit of a brainwave. Debra Whitman (waaaay back in the old Peter Parker run: ish 74) had serious problems with her delusions (or so she thought) concerning Peter Parker and Spider-man. We thought it interesting to see a story how she'd react to the fact she was right all along. What's more, we thought it was the type of story suited for PAD. How say you?
hmmm.. should have read this thread in full as I'm obviously not alone in this train of thought... my apologies.
So, from many people's comments here, I suppose I'm alone in remembering that 'Jack of Hearts' mini, where it was revealed he was half-alien, and Deb Whitman was also an alien, sent to find him to help thier planet, or something. (No, I'm not kidding..)
Yeah, I thought so....
Hi. I've never posted here before.
Just wondering: With the Ultimates titles being the "young, new Marvel Universe" and the main Marvel U stories really shaking up or discarding old cliches, do you think we'll see a DC, pre-Crisis-like "Marvel Earth One/Marvel Earth Two" kind of thing develop?
Like the Ultimates line continuing to be the line they try to draw new readers in with, and the main Marvel U becomes "Earth Two" and our heroes start to grow significantly older, to reflect the passage of time since the Sliver Age?
Quote of Patrick: Deb Whitman was also an alien, sent to find him to help thier planet
You're confused with another of Peter's friends: Marcy Kane. She was a Contraxian like Jack of Hearts.
I read the issue the other night.
Unbelievable!
It seems that Marvel as a whole should just do away with the concepts of masks and what they represent.
This irritated me enough that all Spider-Man and Marvel titles are now off the pull list.
By the way, loved your Captain Marvel series. Hated what was done to the character in Thunderbolts for no good reason.
I’ll be back when Captain Marvel comes back and PAD is writing him.
I really liked B5 and the spider-totem storyarc didn't bother me. It was an interesting story idea, but can be easily discounted by future writers if they didn't want to reference it.
However, I found his later issues of AMS to be really slow and drawn out and didn't like the Gwen Stacy's kids arc at all. I also found Supreme Power to be tedious and a too derivative of Watchmen.
So, eh, I don't dislike JMS all that much, but his name isn't going to get me to buy a comic right away they way it might have at one time.
This is only tangentially related to the discussion above, but Civil War writer Mark Millar is starting up a series of auctions to raise money to battle Crohn's Disease, which is an ailment he himself suffers from. Sounds like a very worthy cause, particularly when according to Millar, they're actually quite close to a vaccine that could make life so much easier for millions of people. I think the link I've provided is correct, and this is going to be an ongoing series of auctions. Millar has basically talked to lots of people from Joss Whedon to folks on Doctor Who and Lost, all of whom are kicking in cool stuff. I love the idea that fandom can actually turn some of that disposable income to a worthy cause and come out of it with something cool.
http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/CivilWar/MillarCrohnsAuction.html
Someone asked if I am a writer by trade, and the answer is no. I can't often say what I want to so I keep going over the words in my head. When I try to write something I end up hating it because the words are never perfect. I don't really speak my mind, and have never really posted anywhere about anything. This instance just happens to be personal enough that I have something to say.
I guess I am trying to formulate my offical response to Marvel. I don't want to write an angry rant that will be ignored. I want to be more than a statistical loss in sales. I want them to understand who I am, and why I cannot go where they want to go. I might send a letter to Wizards or Marvel, but I have to get the letter right first. A physical letter has more weight than 100 posts, and I really want them to hear me.
Here is a post that I wrote on the CBG board. It is a more evolved version of my earlier post. I would like to hear everyone's critiques. I am most worried about my internal logic ::::
I resent the notion that anyone who is not enticed by this new version of Spider-man is a grumpy old man. I'm in my mid-20's and have been hooked on Spider-man since I was about 9 or 10. I am not into what is going on lately because an increasing number of his core concepts are being rewritten. I do not mind change in comics, but it should not revoke the essence of the character.
This is not the same version of Spider-man that I read after a crappy day at school. When I read him then my problems seemed more universal, and I was less alone. Now I simply cannot relate to his situation in the slightest.
Most of us choose our heros (super or otherwise) early in life, based on who we are. And I also suspect there is a strong element of "who we want to be" involved as well. Superman, Wonder Woman, and Captain America represent the best that humanity has to offer. Batman is dark, damaged, and driven. The Green Lanterns are fearless. Hulk is so strong that no one bullies him. I could have chosen any one of those heroes to be my favorite, because they all represent important ideals. Instead I went with the underdog, who faced his everyday and superhero problems no matter the odds. I went with Spider-man. While I would never suggest that anyone live their life according to a comic book, symbols have power that we all need.
I did not understand it at the time, but I had a relatively mild case of agorophobia when I was younger. To be honest, it has never really left me. Even though I can hold a job that involves working with a crowd, there are always those moments. And it's in those moments, when there is nothing between me and my inner demons, that I want some reminder of who I can be. Spider-man has long served as one of my reminders.
I have been a huge JMS fan and enjoy much of his writing. I also liked many of the changes that JQ made when he took over at Marvel. Both men have considerable talent, and I am not sure that I would say that I am upset with them directly. I am however saddened that under this new direction I cannot connect to my idol in the same way.
I don't currently read Spiderman, and I have not read him for long periods of time, so I probably do not have the right and cannot asses proparly the effect of this change or the previous changes on Spiderman. It is also partially a subjectuve feeling whether the Spiderman read today is true to the one of your childhood, and whether it is desirable that he should be. But I have to ask, does the recent change really alter the Spiderman character so he is no longer the underdog, everyman you grew up with?
Her is a list of the concerns by Dan:
"Between the suit, joining the avenger, having money, the unmasking, and the possible dissolution of his marriage, he no longer is at the same place I am. I don’t feel the same kinship that I once did. The bottom line is: this is not the Spider-man I wanted to be when I was 10 years old."
Suit. I understand the suit has some new features. But is it such a drastic change? Has it changed his personality or behavior? The way he moves inside the marvel universe both physically and mentally?
Avenger. I recently started reading New Avengers. I belueve it was partly because of Spiderman. I found that I enjoyed the group dynamic as a result of the interaction between Spiderman's ironic everyman personality, and the different personalities of Captain America, Iron Man, Wolverine. So to me, with my limited understanding of Spiderman, it seems that his becoming an avenger is only a new take on the same personality.
having money. I can't comment on that. Although I can't think of at least one good story that was based on the premise of an everyman coming into money. I don't know if that is the case here. But again it could be just another take on spiderman's core personality. Maybe it is not the fact that he had bills to pay that makes Spiderman who he is, as much as the way he payed them, the attitude. Again, ut is subjective, I don't know. It is also up to the writers to come up with the right way to tell the stories.
possible dissolution of his marriage. I should think that this aspect would be considered the most humanizing story about Spiderman as a regular guy, considering how common divorce is? I can't judge of course, but I find this direction interesting forthis reason. I briefly read Spiderman at a point when Mary Jane died/vanished, and I didn't like it very much because it didn't feel real. But Here it sounds like a very personal story that could be quite interesting and effective [artially because this marriage (like real marriages) has been an important part of his (and our) lives for so long.
I understand there was something about a totem which I'm not clear about.
The unmasking itself offers many opportunities for stories based on the effect it would have on a guy like Spiderman and on his life as Peter. The biggest downside in this idea seem to me to be that it is difficult to revoke if there is a wish to return to exploring Secret Identity based stories. Any change will probably involve a ridiculuos mindsweep that wil reduce readers' confidence in the integrity of the Marvel Universe. But considering Marvel has been down that road, it might be worth the risk in order to explore new storyline options. Maybe?
Dan, your words are certainly heartfelt, but it basically boils down to the same argument everyone else is making: that this is not the Spider-Man you read as a kid.
I don't get it. 40 years of Spider-Man comics, at least half a dozen different series, most of which have been reprinted in one form or another... with all that wealth of Spider-Man stories to read or re-read, why complain that the ones currently being written aren't the same as when you were a kid? Of course they're not. No comic is the same that it was ten, twenty years ago (and thank Zod for that). If this isn't the Spider-Man you read as a kid, there are many, many more comics that do have what you're looking for than don't.
Or maybe I just don't get the whole "connecting to my idol" thing. I've never idolized a comic book hero or looked to them for inspiration. As a kid, I never latched onto a particular character like that. I never wanted to be them (well, I wanted to be a mutant, but that's neither here nor there). I read them for entertainment, nothing more. The characters I read now aren't, for the most part, the ones I read as a kid. So to say that there's something wrong with the character just because you can't relate to him anymore seems silly to me. I don't want to relate to comic characters. I love Layla Miller, but I can't relate to her in the slightest. I just think she's a great character. And the same goes for all my favorite characters.
I guess it just comes down to what it is we look for in a comic. I don't, however, see the point of complaining to Marvel, as though your inability to relate to Spider-Man is a flaw in the writing rather than your own personal hang-up.
Then again, I haven't read Spider-Man comics since the late '80s, so what do I know?
I think if you have a problem with the way Spider-man is written, or developments in the books, you should definitely write a letter and stop buying.
It is the only way you can make a difference.
I can definitely understand hpow you feel-like many I related to and identified with Peter Parker. He was like me, only cooler.
I still care a lot for him, but sometimes I feel they are doing everything in their power to make him less unique than he was, and less identifiable-which was a large part of his appeal. Surprising, considering the movies mostly kept to the early characterizations, with some differences.
From Bernard: You're confused with another of Peter's friends: Marcy Kane. She was a Contraxian like Jack of Hearts.
Really? I could have sworn it was Deb Whitman, I even remember thinking how it made no sense for the character to be alien, as it seemed to go against the plot the character had had in Spidey's book. And I thought it was the Deb Whitman breakdown. Though I could be wrong, and Marcy could have had her own storyline that made the alien thing make no sense. *g*
I'll take your word for it, as it would be easy enough to check. Keeping in line with my life philosiphy of doing as little as possible when possible, though, I will not do so. *g*
Though I am tempted to look up Marcy Kane simply because I don't remember her at all, even vaguely, and I thought I remembered that period of Spidey pretty well. Then again, it was about 20 years ago I was reading those storylines, so... *g*
Ok, now I feel old, and must go lie down. Provided I can find my walker so I can make it from the computer to the couch...
Aside from my comment that I think Joey Q is on crack, I have to say that I KNOW they will blow this. It will be like the Clone saga, only less embraced. It could potentially open up some doors, but I think it will close much more.
It seems those two guys (JMS and Joey the Q) don't seem to know what to do with this character. He's a magical Spider-guy that dies comes back to life with new powers they don't explain (cuz I don't feel they had much confidence in the idea after they were done with it). He has two costumes he wheres for no apparent reason. Pick one. He has two jobs I guess, one a school teacher which he doesn't need as he works for Stark as his new lacky(the new Rhodey). The EIC doesn't like the marriage, I get that, but let the writers do something with them.
I'm not sure who this guy is supposed to be anymore. If they can't figure that out, I don't see how they are going to be able to pull something cool out of this story.
Bruce Willis is really dead in that movie with the kid who sees dead people.
He's his father.
It was his sled.
She's got a wang.
Spider-Man having money? Good thing there's the Avengers' stipend (does it still exist?) because Peter is likely going to be out of a job soon.
Can you imagine ANY school board wanting Peter in a class full of kids, knowing the Rhino or some other nutjob may be coming stomping through looking for payback? Honestly?
To answer Den's electric Smurf question about Superman--well, I thought it was a cool idea and I liked the stories. But hey, I liked Voyager and Enterprise, too, so my taste can be questioned by some people. characters have to be dynamic or they suffer from the ho-hum factor.
have to be dynamic or they suffer from the ho-hum factor.
And yet you liked Voyager??? Those characters were about as dynamic as a pet rock.
Patrick,
It was indeed Marcy Kane that got alienized in the Jack of Hearts mini-series. You are, however, correct that what they did with Marcy seemed so out of it to me that I remember wondering what drugs the author was on.
Marcy was a fellow grad student at ESU. She had an abrasive personality, but was smart and could make cutting remarks. I remember one storyline where she starts wearing all sorts of stuff covering her hair (scarf, hat, etc.) and it turns out that Marcy has been bleaching her hair blond since it started to darken when she was a girl. Unfortunately, she couldn't do it anymore without ruining her hair. It was a very humanizing moment and made some great points about how our culture is obsessed with certain types of appearance.
Enter the JoH mini. Marcy is revealed to by an alien and half her body is blue. She's been using some method of concealing this. Am I supposed to believe that she could change the color of half her body but she couldn't maintain her hair color? Was that touching story that I read supposed to just be a scam on her part to develop "back-story" for her role on Earth.
Final point: I never read anything with Jack of Hearts before he appeared in an early Rom, so I pretty much in the dark about his early history. It was my impression that Jack knowing Marcy was established in the mini that revealed they were both aliens. Given that, they could have created a new alien chick out of whole cloth for the mini, so I concluded at the time that they were using a semi-limboed ex-supporting cast character because she had a connection to Spider-Man as a lame attempt to get a boost in sales. What it accomplished was trash my willing suspension of disbelief. Things went downhill from there...
Micha: "Peter and Mary Jane Parker tonight on Oprah, discussing his book My Secret Identity.'?"
I think that I'd pay $ 30.00 Cdn. or so to read such a book, written as if from Peter and MJ's POV. Gladly.
As for the charge of violating genre conventions...genre conventions are what we choose to make them. Personally, I have no problem with this development, and I'm looking forward to seeing what's next.
If they do end up doing some kind of "clever takeback", that's when I'll be PO'ed.
I think its long, long overdue to shake up the same o' same o' of the cape and longjohn scene.
I in fact have stopped buying comic books because comics in general havent changed much.
They need to take chances.
And it seems that Marvel Comics has finally decided to do that.
Bravo! I may even return to buying Spider-Man again and see how this pans out.
Who knows, maybe this kind of thing will catch on...
Superman will lose one of his friends to a sudden death and he'll have to live on knowing he is immortal and cannot die.
Some other major character will be killed in action and that death will be felt throughout that universe.
Life in the comicbook world has long been pretty stagnant. Maybe this will not only start the contriversy that it did, but it might bring readers back into the comic book stores which will increase sales which will be good for all.
I hope.
I hope you don't mind if I put my opinions of what would happen here.
Spider-man has become a person just like any other, a person whose every action either in costume or without will have tremendous reprocussions in his life.
Very few individuals liked Spider-Man/Peter Parker due to the Bugle, and so as people rejected him with the mask they may reject him with it. Peter Parker/Spider-Man has taken the on accountability in all its forms.
There is the chance that the government or shield would harass him due to his powers.
One can say that this chance seemed to have been inevitable ever since shield unmasked him earlier. But now that the SRA has been passed, what would prevent the government from making even more laws that would further bind the hands of super-humans? Would there be one day where all super-humans would have be branded, or micro chipped so the government could keep tabs on them? Would there come a time where all these super-humans would be forced to work under the military as pathetic mindless dogs ready to run into there own deaths? Peter Parker/Spider-Man has trusted the government that might betray him in more ways than one. Is that a mark of stupidity, innocence or patriotism, who knows? But when these troubles come, I hope Peter Parker/Spider-Man is ready for them.
But it won’t only be the organization that might betray Peter Parker/Spider-Man, what would truly hurt would be the rejection from individual people themselves.
STUDENT: “Hello there Mr. Peter Parker I don’t want to study in your classes no more”
PETER: “How come”
STUDENT: “Being with you is dangerous; a lot of bad people are after you”
But you know there is still a chance that Peter/ Spider-Man would accept that because:
In Gwen’s grave;
PETER: Hello there Gwen, been a while. I’ve just come to tell you that I’ve just revealed my secret identity to everyone.
GWEN’S GHOST: How come?
PETER: So that people will now what dangers they are getting themselves into when they get close to me.
GWEN’S GHOST: Couldn’t you’ve done that a few years earlier; before someone dropped me of a very high bridge to my imminent death?
Or how about this:
POLICE: Mr. Parker also known as Spider-Man, you are under arrest.
PETER: How come?
POLICE: For snapping an innocent girls neck when you tried to save her with your webbing.
We cannot also forget the fact that many people would actually want to try to sue Peter-Parker/Spider-Man for damage to their property, such as the people who owned the cars that were used to sandwich Mister Vibranium-Man A.K.A Charlie Weiderman a few issues back.
Forget the glamour forget the celebrity status, Peter Parker/ Spider-Man may have taken the ultimate sacrifice, the ultimate risk,the ultimate form of trust in unmasking; opening himself up to the public. The question is: whatwill the public want next? If you believe that God was Jesus and Jesus was God, have you ever wondered how awkward it is that people praised and worshipped God when he was transcended and showed no fact to them, yet when he came down with a face of a man, a smile of a man and the speech of a man they quickly got the nearest tree and crucified him on it? The same thing can happen to Spider-Man/ Peter Parker. When he seemed to be beyond man, beyond human comprehension he was untouchable, but when he shows human emotion, human weakness, he becomes someone to be exploited, hurt and crushed. Human nature can be sometimes like that. Behind all those faces that clicked there cameras during the unmasking, in their minds, how many do you think were looking for the nearest tree to crucify Spider-Man/ Peter Parker on?
Of course we can’t forget the chance that the school janitor wouldn’t be coming by to take Peter/ Spider-Man out with a sniper rifle before any of these happen. “Spider-Man, in what direction does your Spider-sense tingle now?” Bang!
The marvel universe has indeed become far more dangerous now. Now the list of those people hate not only includes mutants but all other super humans as well. “They’ve run out of one animal to slaughter; now they are just going for everything else. It’s a good thing Spider-Man got rid of the blue from his costume; in that way it will blend more with his blood, sweat and tears.
To me, Spider-Man is still an every-day man, but right now he is an every-day man trapped in some of the most tragic scenarios that can ever befall a person. Would you still dare to read? Yes.
I don't think we need to worry. Peter didn't reveal that he was indeed Spider-Man. The clone did it. They'll find a way to work the clone back in, and Peter will wind up doing damage control for the next umpteen years to convince people that it wasn't him.
I wan't to see proof of the strength of the everyday man to overcome even some of the most terrible scenarios in life. So that if our hero is able to overcome even the worst situations maybe we can also. I think that what may happen now to Peter is a way to do that. I want to see what will happen next.
philioteria21: "Speaking of comics yesterday, did anyone else read the newest issue of Ms. Marvel? Carol has to go into hiding, and is told to check into a room under the name Linda Danvers, because no one would be interested in that name.
I miss Supergirl."
You aren't the only one. Linda is my favorite comic book character of all time.
"Personally, I was looking forward to a 'Screw you all and the horses in upon which you rode!' from Spidey."
THAT is in character for Spidey....
"Spider-Man has always wanted to be liked..." yeesh!
"My feeling on Reed's support of the SRA is that it does make sense for him, because he's a reasonable man. If you were to come to him, with a system that seemed to be a reasonable way of dealing with a situation like this, a system of rules and regulations for super-heroes, he'd see it as a good idea--and any concerns with it could be rationally, reasonably discussed. Security of the system? Reed can work around that. Autonomy of the heroes? Just needs a good system of checks and balances, that's all. All of these things can be worked out rationally, and the basic idea is sound."
My knowledge of Reed's attitudes/thoughts about a Superhuman Registration Act stem from an old story arc in the Fantastic Four issues of the Acts of Vengence crossover. Reed Richards was against and went before a special Congressoinal Committee to testify against it.
For a lot of people, that doesn't matter. It shouldn't really matter if you are writing the story and the majority of the audience didn't read those old (good) comics. Guess what? I have. The knowledge damages my willing suspension of disbelief for THIS comic. I am not the audience. I won't be buying.
"Ironman was a good choice to announce his secret identity. Although do you really want a drunk behind the wheel of nearly indestructable power suit?"
Iron Man is not a drunk. He's an alcoholic who has been sober for a long long time. Unless the writer changes. Morons. Moronic writers.
"I have to disagree with the spidey thing. He's a natural rebel. I thought he would be hanging with Capt. America's group."
Spider-Man has the most natural tendency to tell people to "screw off" when things don't quite make sense for him. See The Amazing Spider-Man vol. 1 no. 1.
See that issue of the Avengers were Captain America offers him a membership position but the government liason throws a panic attack on the whole thing.... Captain America even offers to go to the POTUS, and Spidey was polite to Cap about not going out of his way, but was basically.... "up yours" to the liason, Sikorsky.
"(3) Heroes who don't register are being...what? Arrested? Imprisoned?? Yeah, that's gonna work well on Ghost Rider (for instance)."
The Dan Ketch version of Ghost Rider could only transform is A. the need for vengence arose and B. he touched the magic thing on his bike. So imprisoning Dan Ketch would have been easy.
"(4) The Reveal - - so, is Spidey going maskless from now on? I mean, that was the whole reason for the mask, right??"
Spidey, if comics were all well-written, could simply wear the mask for the same reason I call myself the Blue Spider while online. I could go without it and there would not be a difference. Glenn or PAD could contact my ISP and lie (or tell the truth even) about my activities here and find out my real name. Or they could google me. Or click the link to my blog. Point being: the costume is an affectation.
"They are going to have a Guantanomo Bay type thing for those who disagree I think"
I believe you and I think that it is stupid. Gitmo's current purpose in the real world is to house people with assumed malicious intent. Spidey and company are/were vigilantes.
Honestly what the story should be is that these vigilantes were accepted by authorities because of tradition. Then someone changes his mind, the goverment moves and it is decided that vigilantes are vigilantes or they register. Does anyone know what they do with vigilantes in real life? They jail them. They do not put them in internment camps.
CIVIL LIBERTIES?! Does anyone have the civil liberty to swing around in a costume and beat people's heads in? no. Do people have civil liberties to run around not expect costumed jerks from jumping about and beating on them?
"I don't understand this statement, since Marvel comics were founded upon superheroes who have no secret identities -- the Fantastic Four."
The FF are not and have never been super-heroes, any more than Rip Hunter, Cave Carson, Blackhawk (ignore that storyline!), the Challengers of the Unknown, Fox Mulder, or Captain Krik and the Crew of the Starship Enterprise have been.
"Spider-Man having money? Good thing there's the Avengers' stipend (does it still exist?) because Peter is likely going to be out of a job soon."
I don't know where or when there is a story in the past two years where Peter Parker "has money" to the extent that it's no longer an issue. The Avengers stipend, however, was in the seventies and early eighties $1000 per week and at the time those Avengers which took it drew their paycheck from the Maria Stark Foundation. With inflation I imagine the numbers in the stipend would be higher in the nineties, without growing in value.
The New Avengers don't have the same connection to the Maria Stark Foundation, thanks to Brian Bendis. In the issue of New Avengers where Steve recruits Peter (I believe it was issue #3) Cap told him that the Avengers' stipend was no more as a response to Pete's declaration that the additional money wouldn't hurt. Peter's reply? Something to that effect of 'that's just my luck'.
In a later story, a later issue, Peter moved his family into Avengers Tower.
Keep in mind that at least twice in the character's history Peter Parker lived in a high-end living space for free because his best friend was Harry Osborn.
"So far, I enjoy it a lot. Reading such a political, thought provoking comic story in Marvel is not something I am used to and also in the context with the ongoing 'war against terror' and related topics, you can`t help to make some comparisons."
I still don't get that. They're vigilantes. Or they're liscensed, registered, sanctioned officers. If you can find a civil libery dispute in that, I really want to know what rights that costumed fun-lovers have that I don't.
"Peter ALWAYS wanted to be liked - he was an outsider, a geek, a victim when he was growing up."
He was shunned and mocked, but hardly victimized. If he wanted to be liked so much, he probably should have done less of his own thing (going to obscure exhibitions on radioactivity) and more hanging with the guys on their terms. He executed interest in his own stuff at the expense of his relationships with others.
"That's why when he 1st got his powers he went the showbusines route, he wanted the fame, the glamour, the adulation - to compensate for how he was never loved (outside of his home)when growing up."
That explains the mask and secret identity when he went on the Ed Sullivan Show!
weeee! rants!
"It just seems like someone (cough, Warren Ellis, cough) who doesn't get either character decided that Steve and Tony have to be on opposite sides of every issue."
Back in the Armor Wars Tony Stark represented a Libertarian point of view and Steve Rogers (whom ironically was on the outs with the American government at the time) was opposing him, taking a law-and-order standpoint.
"I know some people wish they were still reading Peter Parker high school everyman (though I, to this day, argue that science nerd who can design high tech web shooters and dates an endless series of hot girls is about as everyman as a millionaire who dresses like a bat)..."
I've felt this forever and have been making this argument for about six months now. He created a formula that reverses a mutation that turned a man into a telepath super-lizard humanoid. He did this from scratch. He figured that the Vulture flies because of magnetism and built a magnetic inverter. He did that from scratch. That stuff was in the first six issues of the comic. He re-installed a crucial fragment on a falling space pod. He built his own equipment and sewed his own costume. While there are things that Spidey should and shouldn't be, that he should and should not do... he is not the everyman.
"Now they are living in the specially-designed HQ of 'Earth's Mightiest Heroes'. If the Avengers, including the Sentry and let's not forget Jarvis, can't keep them safe, then the Gods had it in for them and they were dead anyway."
I remember when the Masters of Evil broke into Avengers Mansion, tied up Captain America and the Black Knight like damsels-in-distress, beat Hercules (strong as the Hulk) into a coma, and then tortured Jarvis in front of Cap just for kicks (and to hurt Cap, of course). The Sentry better be really stinking powerful, because if he isn't omnipresent and the writer feels like it... living in Avengers Mansion is as much bait for harm as it is protection from it.
Also keep in mind that the Avengers West Compound was under attack almost every story. Spider-Woman Julia Carpenter realized that keeping her child on the grounds for residential purposes was not a great way to keep her safe.
I think the bottom line on the secret identity revealed for Spider-Man is that change is good, but revealing his ID is not original change. It's been done enough already in comics. It has been done successfully in the Flash. The Other storyline was change that was good and original. The organic webshooters was change that was not good (I think that more says that the industry thinks little of the comic audience that they want the comic to reflect the film, that someone couldn't figure out why the comic was different than the film for his powers). Daredevil did the reveal ID and I personally don't like that storyline (actually I haven't like much of the new run of DD (volume two), except for the five issue story arc by Bob Gale. I think the ID reveal storyline will serve immediate shock value, but it will take very good writing to keep it from feeling like everyone did after the Clone Saga.