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
• 
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.
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.
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 Ðìçk 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 dámņëd 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 hëll 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.