For local fans, I’ll be doing a signing (along with Clifford Meth) at Midtown Comics in NYC this Thursday from 5 to 7 PM.
Also, at 1 PM EST, the Freedom Clock finally drops below 1000. The end is…well, not near…but nearer. Unless, of course, the GOP congress tries to do away with that pesky two-term-limit thing. But that doesn’t seem terribly likely.
PAD
• 
I seem to remember the term limit issue coming up when Clinton was in office, and if my memory is correct (no guarantee there), the President signing the bill would not be able to take advantage of it. It would only apply to future presidents.
I don’t know how this might apply to a former president or if the current one could come back four years later and run again.
Not that I think it matters. I don’t believe it will pass AND be found Constitutionally valid. Possible, but not likely.
I just don’t want anyone with the last name “Clinton” anywhere near the White House again. Him or her. There are many good Democrats AND Republicans who could do a good job for the country. The Clintons just care about doing a good job for the Clintons. Nothing else. (I know that they are not the only politicians like this, but they are very good at marketing themselves.) I’m not saying that they are evil. But within their own moral framework (however they have defined what’s OK and not OK), I really believe that they only care about themselves.
But I digress…in the important news…WHAT?!?!? Please, Marvel! Do NOT mess with Mary Jane and Peter! Please! Please!
“Realistically speaking, what they need is an out-of-continuity, rebooted Spider-Man title aimed towards the 10-13 age market, one that doesn’t get so hung up on continuity and assumes that once kids get older, they’ll “graduate” to the title for grown-ups and so they don’t feel such a strong need to have big life-changing events in the book every eight months.”
Yeah, that would be “Marvel Adventures Spider-Man.” I’m writing eight issues of it. It is largely and roundly ignored by the majority of fans–even though it features the exact kinds of stories they claim they want to see–in favor of the mainline titles which feature the exact kinds of stories they endlessly bìŧçh about.
Funny how that works.
PAD
“Realistically speaking, what they need is an out-of-continuity, rebooted Spider-Man title aimed towards the 10-13 age market, one that doesn’t get so hung up on continuity and assumes that once kids get older, they’ll “graduate” to the title for grown-ups and so they don’t feel such a strong need to have big life-changing events in the book every eight months. (Then once they do that, they can introduce one for every other Marvel title that has the same problem.)”
There’s already a young, single Spider-Man in Ultimate books. Plus then there are Marvel Adventures comics. I don’t understand why Quesada has to ruin the original one. And it’s especially disappointing that JMS is participating this, I’d like to think that Spidey writers with any integrity would rather quit in protest.
Because then Clinton will run again. And he would beat Bush Jr. like a red-headed stepchild same as his daddy.
Hmmm, I think in this case the third party candidate would trounce them both.
If there are any changes to be made it is far far more likely that we would end up with a one term 6 year amendment.
Because then Clinton will run again. And he would beat Bush Jr. like a red-headed stepchild same as his daddy.
Hmmm, I think in this case the third party candidate would trounce them both.
If there are any changes to be made it is far far more likely that we would end up with a one term 6 year amendment.
Okay…
Am I missing something? The comment Peter (and Jason A, for that matter) quoted — where did that come from?
Sorry for the double post–I must have misunderstood the anti-spam thing.
Huh. I just noticed that another comment of PAD’s is missing as well. Wassup?
We had some spam problems that seem to be sorted out but I think some comments got clogged in the drain and flushed with the junk.
Well, considering that poll numbers at the end of his eight years in office showed that President Clinton would have won election to a third term if the option had been available, I’d personally be kinda surprised if he were “trounced” by a third party candidate….
As for Senator Clinton – even with my pro-Democrat bias, it was hard not to be at least a little dubious at her suddenly moving to our state to become our senator. But, she has worked impressively hard for New York as one of our senators. Now, people can fill in their own opinions for her motivation; but she has generally gotten very good marks for her work as a senator.
Say “Hi” to Clifford for me. I donated a piece of art for the recent “Heroes and Villains” benefit sketchbook he and Neal Adams put together for William Messner-Loebs. Hope it helped!
9 hundred and 99 days to go, 9 hundred and 99 days. Take one away …
Well, considering that poll numbers at the end of his eight years in office showed that President Clinton would have won election to a third term if the option had been available, I’d personally be kinda surprised if he were “trounced” by a third party candidate….
Maybe…then again, he never once cracked 50% in either of his elections.
If the third party candidate were McCain it would not even be close. Not sure if any Democrat could beat him, though it would be fascinating to see the New Angry Gore take him on.
But all this is as likely as a cloned Lincoln…
Proposals to repeal the 22nd Amendment –
H.R. Res. 24
H.R. Res. 9
http://icreport.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD(FLD001+@4(Term+limits))
The only way for a President to serve more than two terms would be for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment. I doubt you’d get much support in the state houses.
PAD said (in response to a comment of mine that got chewed up):
“Yeah, that would be “Marvel Adventures Spider-Man.” I’m writing eight issues of it. It is largely and roundly ignored by the majority of fans–even though it features the exact kinds of stories they claim they want to see–in favor of the mainline titles which feature the exact kinds of stories they endlessly bìŧçh about.
Funny how that works.”
Not funny at all, really, because I’m not ignoring it–I didn’t really have much awareness of it at all. I’ve never seen a copy. I’m certainly not ignoring it in favor of the mainline titles, because I don’t go into comics stores very often anymore. I got tired of…well, of grim, gritty, continuity-heavy mope-n-death fests. I wanted to use that entertainment money for things that entertained, so I stopped buying comics. I’ll occasionally pick up a trade paperback if I like the writer, but I just don’t make the effort to get into a comics store every week and see what’s out.
Which is why Peter is absolutely right that I forgot something in my description of “what Spider-Man needs”. In addition to being continuity-light, aimed at 10-13 year olds, and entertaining, it also needs to be aggressively promoted beyond the direct market, as its target audience (people who aren’t regular comics readers) probably won’t be setting foot in a comics store.
So there’s your answer, Peter. Put it in a drugstore, or a supermarket, give it an eye-catching cover, and that’ll go miles towards getting someone like me back into comics again. (But don’t tell Marvel that, OK? I kind of like having this much spare cash. 🙂 )
“We had some spam problems that seem to be sorted out but I think some comments got clogged in the drain and flushed with the junk.”
I hope that means that my now-MIA post was one that got ‘clogged in the drain’ and wasn’t just considered junk… 😉
Heh. For a second, I read that name as “Crystal Meth”.
“Not funny at all, really, because I’m not ignoring it–I didn’t really have much awareness of it at all. I’ve never seen a copy.”
I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to any number of fans who dismiss “Marvel Adventures” out of hand as “the kiddie” Spider-Man title. They won’t touch it with a ten meter cattle prod. Probably part of the reason you’ve never seen it is that many retailers either don’t carry it at all or carry minimal quantities.
“In addition to being continuity-light, aimed at 10-13 year olds, and entertaining, it also needs to be aggressively promoted beyond the direct market, as its target audience (people who aren’t regular comics readers) probably won’t be setting foot in a comics store.”
Got that covered too. What keeps MASM going is the secondary market: Four issues at a time are collected in trade form and do quite well in bookstores and such.
PAD
I read the first 4 issues of Marvel Age Spidey. Someone at work had them.
I hated the art. Odd proportions and Captain America looked like a fluffy newborn chick in one issue.
I didn’t like the writing of the first three. I don’t remember why exactly, but I really didn’t like the stories. The fourth one was awesome. It was the one where Spidey teams up with Johnny Storm to deal with a giant monster that Johnny had warped in from another dimension. That issue was absolutely hilarious.
If the other issues that I read had been more like that one, I would have had a higher opinion of the series. I’m glad to hear that PAD’s getting 8 issues, instead of the musical writers approach that the first issues had.
Posted by Peter David at April 27, 2006 01:29 AM
I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to any number of fans who dismiss “Marvel Adventures” out of hand as “the kiddie” Spider-Man title. They won’t touch it with a ten meter cattle prod. Probably part of the reason you’ve never seen it is that many retailers either don’t carry it at all or carry minimal quantities.
I sampled the Marvel “Adventures” books years ago and didn’t care for them — OTOH, the various “Adventures” incarnations of Batman (up till the current one) were, in my opinion, some of the finest Batman writing in the entire run of the character — in particular, the story in which Harley almost kills Joker with a portable typewriter (“…and this is because you never really loved me!”), and, of course, Harley’s own origin in “Mad Love” are simply some of the best character-driven writing i’ve ever seen in comics.
And the final issue’s resolution of their version of Poison Ivy was almostheart-breaking.
H.R. Res. 24
H.R. Res. 9
A year ago, both were referred to subcommittee.
Nothing has happened with either resolution since.
I’m not saying I know exactly how this works, but if there was any interest beyond the initial sponsors in carrying this forward, I suspect more action would have been taken.
My post was lost, so I’ll recap.
The other attempt at an out-of continuity Spider-Man reboot was Ultimate Spider-Man, which I understand is quite successfully, including in book stores. Though most of the Ultimate line have strayed from the “10-13 year olds.”
But according to Quesada, that the “teen-age loner” is now part of the world’s greatest superhero team, lives in Avengers Tower surrounded by wealth and Tony Stark at his side to bail him out isn’t keeping young readers from relating to Peter Parker, it’s that he’s married. Ah.
Breaking up Peter and MJ is a colossally bad idea. Their relationship is one of the best parts of the Spidey story. When JMS brought them together, it got me back to reading Spider-Man again. And with all the problems of JMS’ last few story arcs (a topic of another post), his writing of Peter and MJ is the one thing he gets right. It surprises me that he’d be part of this alleged breaking up.
In Ultimate, Bendis brought Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship in very early, even having her learn he’s Spider-Man. That’s also the best part of that title.
If you kill MJ off, that puts a crimp in the Mary Jane young adult franchise and eliminates of the Marvel Universe’s most interesting female characters. If you have them divorce, you can’t have them slowly build the relationship again (a la Ross and Rachel), otherwise why break them up?
Maybe there is some different better way to break this up that will be true to character and really help the story, but with how JMS and Quesada manhandled Gwen Stacey, I’m not optimistic.
Looking forward to your run on Marvel Adventures, though, PAD.
I think a lot of readers think that the Marvel Adventures books aren’t “real” because they aren’t the current versions of the characters, which of course makes no sense, but people do think that way.
But according to Quesada
Characters should never grow, even if they’ve been around for 40 years.
He’s saying anybody in the last 40 years who’s actually grown up with Peter Parker should be SOL because they had the misfortune, like everybody else in the world, of having to grow up.
And he’s wrong.
Crap. I was in NYC a few weeks ago on a school trip with my son. We toured all the things tourist are required by law to tour. However, it wasn’t until we started leaving that I saw Midtown Comics. We walked all around it but didn’t see it until it was too late. Oppurtunity missed.
On the term-limits thing: I remember it being discussed when Reagan’s second term was winding down, and again when Clinton’s was. I’ve always figured that the biggest obstacle to repeal of the 22nd amendment was the fact that it would apply to the NEXT President, not to the CURRENT one. There were a lot of people in the GOP who would have loved to have Reagan on the ticket again in 1988, but that would only have worked if repeal had happened during the Carter administration.
Never mind that there’s been speculation that Reagan was already in the early stages of Alzheimer’s while in office, and a third term would have had him in office until 1993 (he publicly announced his illness in 1994).
There were probably quite a lot of people who would have gladly voted for Clinton in 2000, given the opportunity, but again, repeal would have had to happen during Bush I’s term (and doesn’t HE look better every day by comparison to W?) for that to be a possibility.
I, frankly, don’t think it’ll ever happen, simply because nobody wants to potentially hand the office to a member of the opposing party for twelve or sixteen or even twenty years.
It’s funny…I have a couple friends for whom, the only Spider-Man they know is “Married Spider-Man”. So to them, making Peter single radically changes something that draws them to the character. As a single person, I never had trouble relating to a married Peter Parker (although, I did get tripped up by the whole “sticking to walls” thing).
Ok I know that we wish to talk Marvel Universe mainly here, but isn’t Superman married these days?
Seems to me that Batman is one of the last of the single heroes left.
I keep confusing the Marvel Adventures new stuff with the reprint flipbooks. And with the recent attempt to take the original scripts of FF (and Spidey?) and redraw them with hideous new art. Thus burying what may be good under piles of either crap or things I didn’t buy the first time around.
Oh, and the grammar of the first sentence of the post parses out to PAD doing Clifford Meth. 🙂
My post was lost too and there is not a lot I can add to what Jeff Suess wrote.
I also started reading Spider-Man again after a very long time because JMS brought Peter and MJ back together. I think Spider-Man has never been more interesting and that he is supposedly part of the movement that might lead to breaking them up – again – surprises me a lot.
Speaking for myself, should that happen there is a very good chance that I will drop all Spider-Man titles again.
If this decision is aimed at the young male audience I am curious: Is it really so off-putting to them to read a comic book in which the hero has a wife, maybe even a family? Are only singles with short-lived love affairs attractive?
Being female, I always loved stories in which a strong male and a strong female character are working together. This hasn`t changed since I was a teenager. For example, I am a big New Frontier fan.
But I digress…in the important news…WHAT?!?!? Please, Marvel! Do NOT mess with Mary Jane and Peter! Please! Please!
What’s this about? I thought they did away with all this nonsense already.
Can someone point me to the place that says if the 22nd amendment is repealed it won’t apply to the sitting President at the time of repeal?
I can perfectly understand that due to the length of time it likely would take to amend the constitution the president at the end of the process is very likely to be different from the president at the beginning of the process. But that’s a different statement.
Once it jumps all the hurdles, and goes into effect…then the current president (and for that matter, every living ex-president) should, I would think, be able to run for a third term. (Since terms don’t have to be consecutive.)
To quote a recent Newsarama interview
“JQ: Are you saying that the genie has something to do with Peter and MJ because I didn’t say that. But if it did, divorce would never be an option. Aside from the fact that having a divorced Spider-Man is just kind of icky, what kind of message do we send to young readers about love and marriage? It’s not someplace I would like to go. So, sorry, I can’t help you with that one, but keep pitching kid, maybe someday you’ll make it.”
I think he’s pretty clear there.
Can someone point me to the place that says if the 22nd amendment is repealed it won’t apply to the sitting President at the time of repeal?
A repealment of the 22nd Amendment would have to be done with *drum roll* another Constitutional Amendment.
Just like Prohibition.
The thing is, I can’t think of a reason why any repealment would discount the sitting or any previous president from running again. All it would take is language saying as much.
I think the reason fans don’t like the “Adventures” style title I described is because, well…it’s not for them. It’s for people who haven’t read many comics, who are coming at it from other angles, et cetera. Tailoring a comic to comic fans is a big part of the problem, in my mind…it’s pre-eliminating a big chunk of sales.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the Direct Market and the rise of comic stores, while a short-term boon, is proving to be a long-term bane because comics have disappeared from public visibility. You don’t see comics anymore unless you go into comic stores. That’s a bad way to get more people reading comics.
(I wrote a post about this just yesterday on my blog: (http://fraggmented.blogspot.com) and while I’m loathe to stand up and plug my own blog, I think I said it there better than I’m saying it here, so it’s probably best to point it out and save people arguing with my later, sloppier reiteration of the point.)
Craig, I think the reason it would end up not applying to current office holders is that it’s the only way it would pass. Otherwise it would look like a power grab by the guy in power. Plus, who would vote for such a possibility? Certainly not the guys in the Senate, all of whom look in the mirror every morning and see the face of the guy who SHOULD be president.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at April 27, 2006 07:44 PM
Can someone point me to the place that says if the 22nd amendment is repealed it won’t apply to the sitting President at the time of repeal?
A repealment of the 22nd Amendment would have to be done with *drum roll* another Constitutional Amendment.
Just like Prohibition.
The thing is, I can’t think of a reason why any repealment would discount the sitting or any previous president from running again. All it would take is language saying as much.
It wouldn’t apply to the sitting President because it wuld be written not to, just as Congressional pay raises don’t apply to thosde Congresscritters currently sitting, at least until after the next election.
It’s a matter of preventing the appearance — if not the actual poccurence == of conflict of interest.
So far as i know, there sin’t any reason the language couldn’t alloe the then-Prez to come back after one term out of office.
(My Dad used to say that the Republicans shoved Presidential term limits through because of FDR’s multiple terms and fear that Truman was popular enough to do the same — and then wound up electing Ike, who probably could have been a multi-term President himself…)
“Ok I know that we wish to talk Marvel Universe mainly here, but isn’t Superman married these days?
Seems to me that Batman is one of the last of the single heroes left.”
There are very, very few married super heroes.
Seems to me that Batman is one of the last of the single heroes left.
Actually, according to Son of the Demon, Batman is actually married to Talia, since in Ra’s al Ghul’s (unnamed) homeland, only the bride’s consent is necessary. Of course, given his actions since then, I’s say it’s doubtful that he still considers it binding.
-Rex Hondo-
This thread, containing both comics commentary and a favorite headline – namely, “Counting down from 1000” (finally!) – seemed as good a place as any to mention my new favorite headline. One of the sub-headlines currently on AOL’s News page: “Daredevil Arrested Atop Skyscraper”. Man, Matt Murdock NEVER gets a break… 😉
Craig, I think the reason it would end up not applying to current office holders is that it’s the only way it would pass.
Most likely that’s true.
But theoretically… 🙂
The only way this would ever happen anyways is if one party became so overwhelming in power over the other. And even then, the states could and probably would block it from ever happening.
“Are you saying that the genie has something to do with Peter and MJ because I didn’t say that. But if it did, divorce would never be an option. Aside from the fact that having a divorced Spider-Man is just kind of icky, what kind of message do we send to young readers about love and marriage? It’s not someplace I would like to go.”
Would that he’ll remember those words. Count me in on those who feel Peter & MJ together is one of things which got me back reading the book(s).
Although I do admit May & Jarvis is an interesting development, too.
I don’t know what Quesada is really planning but I’d seriously stop reading all Marvel books if they’re going to mess with the Spidey marriage again. JMS got them back together and it’s the reason why I started reading Spidey again after Byrne had killed my interest.
Hopefully this is just Quesada talking trash again. Can you comment on this PAD?
-Sam
Why would I want to comment? Joe’s comments got people talking. If I say the speculation is false, that stops the talking. If I say the speculation is true, it sends the talking off in a specified direction. I’d rather they just keep talking about all aspects and possibilities. Besides, after all my recent comments about how I hate people blowing future developments one way or the other, why would I want to go and do exactly that?
PAD
Posted by Jason M. Bryant at April 28, 2006 03:41 AM
There are very, very few married super heroes.
Even fewer than there were before they began that stupid “Identity Crisis” thing.
“Why would I want to comment? Joe’s comments got people talking. If I say the speculation is false, that stops the talking. If I say the speculation is true, it sends the talking off in a specified direction. I’d rather they just keep talking about all aspects and possibilities.”
Okay, I can see your point. However, I don’t think scaring off fans is always such a good tactic, even if it generates discussion.
At least I will stop reading Spider-Man until I’ll see how this plays out, if nothing bad happens I can easily catch up with TPBs. If JoeyQ indeed has decided to destroy the marriage I’d feel foolish for continuing to buy the comics. I rather err on the side of caution.
(Plus I remember you saying at Newsarama during the “Other” storyline that you didn’t know if there were any plans to get rid of the Spidey marriage, I guess things have changed now :-p)
I hoped that part of the reason Ultimate Spidey existed is to have a teenage-accessible Peter Parker without having to torpedo Spider-Man 618.
Swear to God, if they end up screwing around with Peter & MJ (again!), I will quit the book with more speed and vehemence than I did when it was revealed that the Peter Parker I’d been reading about since whenever was actually a clone.
Heh, Quesada’s Newsarama interview is hilarious.
Here are some pearls of wisdom from the mighty EIC of Marvel:
“Remember, at this point in time in Spidey continuity Peter and MJ weren’t even dating, AS A MATTER OF FACT SHE WASN’T EVEN LIVING IN NEW YORK. So, within a matter of issues, she was back in his life, engaged instantly, and married just as quickly.”
Quesada is wrong. Mary Jane did live in New York (Roger Stern had returned her years earlier) and during this time she and Peter had grown alot closer and she had learned his secret identity.
And then another gem:
“There is no denying that during the classic heyday of Spider-Man soap opera played an important part in the telling of his stories. Remember, he had A BUNCH OF GIRLFRIENDS BEFORE EVEN MEETING MJ, GWEN, BETTY AND LIZ.”
Suuuure. I wonder if Quesada can name the many girlfriends Peter had before Betty Brant. Even one of them.
And the fate of Peter and Mary Jane is in the hands of this ignorant…uh person. It’s a scary thought.
Yeah, you can count me in on the people who are dropping Spidey books because of this.
“Remember, he had A BUNCH OF GIRLFRIENDS BEFORE EVEN MEETING MJ, GWEN, BETTY AND LIZ.”
Suuuure. I wonder if Quesada can name the many girlfriends Peter had before Betty Brant. Even one of them.”
I’m pretty sure there was supposed to be a colon after MJ, rather than a comma.
I didn’t know Liz was ever his girlfriend.
“At least I will stop reading Spider-Man until I’ll see how this plays out, if nothing bad happens I can easily catch up with TPBs”
Why? If you’re enjoying the comics, why stop reading them because something *might* happen? There is never a time where something bad *can’t* happen, so basing your current actions on such vague fears is very self defeating.
Everybody really should stop panicking. Another thing that Quesada said in the Newsrama interview was that as much as he didn’t like the quickie marriage, killing off MJ or a divorce would be 1000% worse.