TF Views

You are a bigot, an intolerant fanboy in this matter. Aside from the abuse of exclamation points, and let's face it, that was just the STYLE! OF! THE! TIME!, there's nothing wrong with how The Hulk is written there

There is more wrong with that writing than the exclammation points. The whole damned thing reads like a clumsy infodump.

Yeah, it was the style of the time. It is also base level writing and it recieves an undue amount of praise for being "classic" or some such. If calling out bad writing as bad writing makes me a bigot, then book me a trial at the Hague.

The Fanboys love Lee for being Stan Lee.

The Cabal isn't some street lowlifes meeting under a warlord, this is seriously world-shifting stuff and Normie's clearly not up to the task, yet they still act like he is for no apparent reason.

Osborn not being up to the job is kind of the point. He rushes in to save Doom (as per the deal they made), and the clear implication is that Doom probably could have sorted things out on his own. Half the Cabal (and no small number of others) are waiting for Osborn to fail, and they know he will. But, initially, Norman is large and in charge. When he is listening to his people (such as Hand or others), he actually does pretty well.

Wait, you had some familiarity with Secret Invasion and don't count that as foundation?!?

"Secret Invasion" was an event-driven event book with lots of stuff happening. I did not even know who some of the characters were....and it did not matter. The important characters in "Dark Avengers" are Osborn and Sentry. And, the important stuff about them is covered over the course of the series and "the Siege".

And if they're not grown-ups?

The fans who complain the loudest are old enough to be called on that.

Seriously, you are regurgitating arguments I've been hearing in comic shops for as long as I can remember, at least 35 years (my mom's been a comic book fan since before I was born). You are just as bad as those who follow blindly their characters, you allow your perception of others' beliefs color your own world, and you react vehemently and even - on the page - violently from that.

The difference is that I do not howl and rage when the big two are "mean to the characters" or when something in a book changes from its "classic" state. I follow writers that usually deliver the goods. And, when the writer stops doing that, I stop following them.

The Superior Spider-Man #9
This being ‘the big one’, apparently. After the events of last issue, Otto is aware that the Spectacular Spider-Ghost is in his head, so he uses high-end brain-scanning technology (which pointedly WAS used for a logical, world-advancing medical application last issue) to go in there after him. Peter pulls the tired old cliché of ‘summoning the memories of my friends and family to fight you in my brain’, but gets countered when Otto pulls the slightly-less tired cliché of ‘summoning the memories of all your enemies to KILL your friends and family in your brain’! Then they get down to brass tacks themselves, there’s a truly brilliant visual subversion of the ‘ripping off the mask to reveal the true identity underneath’ visual cue for both of them, we get that Amazing vs. Superior fight everyone wants (even if it only takes place in Imaginationland) and the only-mildly-shocking resolution of it all is that

Spoiler

Otto kills Peter. Again. Spider-Ghost is gone.

Throughout the whole thing though, Slott uses the opportunity to ask some pretty damning questions, not just about Spider-Man, but about how we prefer our superheroes in general. A hero that makes an effort to be ‘likeable’ (or is written as such) may not actually be the most effective at their job, in either the real world or the comic universe they inhabit. By putting so much effort into staying to a likeable moral code, to being the Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, the funny guy, Peter may have been undermining his entire mission of ‘great responsibility’. Is it really ‘responsible’ to dismiss the support of the cops and public leadership in the name of maintaining your ‘likeable’ profile, even if that ends up getting innocent people killed in the long run, and putting others in danger? People may find it more ‘fun’ to read about, but is ‘likeability’ really so important that it’s worth putting people in danger when they don’t need to be? Is discarding that element all it takes to become ‘Superior’?

I gotta say, it’s a heavy point, but one that I had to admit needed to be asked once I finished this issue. The questions Slott is asking the audience here could be applied to Batman or Superman or any other hero as much as they can to Spider-Man; at what point does the personality of a hero as conceived by a writer to make them more appealing or marketable undermine the stated mission they have of actually BEING a hero? Simply put, which is more preferable: A likeable hero, or an effective hero? With

Spoiler

Ghost-Peter no longer around to influence his actions or hold him back

we’ll see in the coming issues if Otto can live up to his big talk and actually prove that his approach is ‘Superior’…

Having only flipped through Slott's run, the most uncomfortable thing about it is that it probably could be good if there was any chance of it sticking past Slott's time on the book.

I get the high concept. But, ultimately, I have to wonder if the final answer Marvel gives to the question of "what makes for a good hero" is going to have more to do with resetting the book than with any logical thought process.

--------

-edit:

I just came up with a better way to frame my arguement from yesterday.

Like it or not, comics are an event driven medium. The stories are usually pitched based on the events and such. But, the events really do not mean anything, even on page. How many times has Tony Stark lost his shirt and everything else? How many times has a given city been more or less flattened. (As far as I know, Bludhaven and Star City are the only two major comic cities to *stay* destroyed. And, I am not even sure that Bludhaven still counts after "Flashpoint".)

It is beyond me how anybody can just be on board for a comic that is "about these guys and they are doing stuff" when none of the stuff they do or the stuff that happens matters on the page. This is what I mean when I ask if somebody would rather have bad comics featuring a given character or good comics unrelated to a given character.

If they writer does not seem to have any ideas beyond "the adventures of dippy the dwarf and his forest friends", why the hell is Dippy the Dwarf worth reading about? Along the same lines, if the series is just "these guys doing stuff" (as many Silver Age comics tend to be), why the hell would I want to read it in the tedious writing style of the 1960s (where each panel generally consisted of a block of text telling the reader what was happening, a character narrating the scene....and a crudely drawn illustration of the thing that had already been described twice in words)?

If the comic does not have much in they way of ideas beyond "stuff what happens to characters you know", why is it worth reading if the stuff what happens is more or less the same damned thing depicted in the same way it has been before? "Age of Ultron" is not great comics. But, I give Bendis points for using a non-conventional structure. (Ultron does not even show up, and may well not. The series shows the aftermath of his attack from the perspective of people who have no chance of getting to him.)

"Earth 2" is almost entirely event driven. But, there is a sense that "anything can happen" and (more importantly) that the stuff that happens is going to stick. The status quo of the book will change. If somebody starts reading with a later issue, they might find the relevant back-issues that impacted the status quo of the later issues. If "Earth 2" loses the sense that anything can happen, I am dropping the book. If the book gets cancelled and a few of the characters migrate to another book written by a writer who has never impressed and that is probably not going to feature actual changes over time, I am not going to follow them because they characters are not likely to do anything worth reading about.


Dom
-has not found any compelling reason to buy in to 616 "Spider-Man" for about 20 years.

Dominic wrote:Having only flipped through Slott's run, the most uncomfortable thing about it is that it probably could be good if there was any chance of it sticking past Slott's time on the book.

I admit that Slott's point would probably stand better were this story told in a 'Watchmen' or 'Supreme' type situation, with a non-canon 'totally not Spider-Man' character being the one driving it, to illustrate the idea of how a former villain would function after having the role of hero foisted on them, and what direction they take truly makes them 'Superior'. As-is, I haven't read any of the Spider-Man comics that led up to this, and I certainly don't plan on sticking around after it's all over and Slott's gone on to other things, so it basically does stand alone for me, but I can see your point.

I get the high concept. But, ultimately, I have to wonder if the final answer Marvel gives to the question of "what makes for a good hero" is going to have more to do with resetting the book than with any logical thought process.

The very first page inside the comic is actually an ad for Spider-Man birthday cake, which I think says everything we need to know about what Marvel thinks about likeable characters and marketability as they relate to being a hero.

That said, even if the answers we're given don't pan out with what I'd like to see, I still admire Slott for having the balls to ask the questions in the first place, especially in a medium as over-obsessed with 'likeability' as superhero comics.

Dom
-not sure why Marvel is pushing this as such a big deal that will "change everything".

Are they pushing it that way? It seems more like they've really just been pushing it as "It's different and it will probably piss you off".

I would expect this to be undone before Slott leaves, so the next writer can pick up a nice and clean "new" book.

Slott should probably consider either producting a creator owned book that plays out the "better hero" idea or pitching a series using a new/obscure character to one of the big two.

Thematic sequels are not unheard of, such as DeMatteis' "Spider-Man: Kraven's Last Hunt" and "Batman: Going Sane".


Dom
-notes that "Kraven's Last Hunt" is only partially sullied by Kraven later coming back.

How many people want Slott's changes to stick? Do we really want have seen Peter Parker struggling to be a hero for 50 years (real time) only to die in the end, his body and identity hijacked by Doctor Octopus? Really? Obviously Dom does, since "changes that stick" are what counts to him, but to everyone else, is that how Spider Man's story should end?

I suspect most people want to see the hero/protagonist of a book win in the end, not give it their all for years only to lose and lose badly. I don't read Spider Man and don't really have a dog in the hunt here, but I'd hate to think the character was so ill-served as to have his body stolen and his mind erased, and that's it. That's a terrible finale for a character like Peter Parker. What does that say about being a hero?

Having said all that, BWProwl's reviews make it sound like an interesting story, and I was certainly tempted to pick up the issue at the comic shop today. I'll probably check out the trade at some point, just to see how this thing plays out.

andersonh1 wrote:Did you see the ad Shatner did for a new Star Trek video game, where he's sitting on the couch with a Gorn, and the two of them get into a fight that mimics the fight from Arena, only for Shatner to run out of breath and declare "we're too old for this"? It's hilarious. I'll have to dig up a link to the ad and post it if you haven't seen it, it's awesome.

Edit: here it is: http://www.startrek.com/article/shatner ... ther-again

I hadn't seen that, thanks for the link. Pretty funny, although the directing, camera work, editing, all kinda sloppy. Also I hear the game is utterly awful.

Absolutely. But the thing about franchises is that there will always be new writers or producers or actors down the line who will do something different, so there's always a chance for a revival of quality. 2009's Star Trek was a movie I enjoyed, but it was a badly-plotted mindless action movie in a lot of ways, and the characters are shallow as they can be compared to the originals. Watching seasons one and two of the old series very recently then watching the movie for comparison demonstrates just how well the old show was often written, and just how well Shatner, Nimoy and the others brought those characters to life. But I'll still be going to see Into Darkness, because I enjoy Star Trek in general, and because even the flawed 2009 movie had some good stuff in it, and there's plenty of potential for the sequel.

Not always, Babylon 5 tried once with The Lost Tales, Warner Bros saw enough sales that they wanted more, but JMS passed, didn't feel the love. Farscape finished itself off with a TV movie, doesn't seem to be trying to go other ways. These examples are some ways where a franchise stops because it should.

And New Coke Trek was exceptionally hollow compared to the original, that's an example where they should have stopped. Or made better choices, Doctor Who is starting to look like that too.

Doctor Who has had lapses in quality before. I thought the writing during most of Sylvester McCoy's time was terrible, as if they'd completely forgotten even the basics of plotting and dialogue. It's almost painful to watch some of the episodes produced at the time. And a lot of the NAs and EDAs were really dreary and dismal and I quite reading them after a couple really made me feel like I'd just wasted a couple of hours of my life. But I still enjoy the character and the franchise, even if some dire things have been produced with the Doctor Who logo on them. There's more than enough quality in the majority of existing material to keep me interested.

The series used to be safer to make mistakes though, it cost a lot less, it had much less competition, it was aiming at a smaller audience, and there were more episodes overall. Now it's got more weight on its shoulders, so it aims for these "big epic hollywood episodes" that just aren't hitting.

Dom wrote:There is more wrong with that writing than the exclammation points. The whole damned thing reads like a clumsy infodump.

How can you call it an infodump without seeing it on the page? There's twice the panel to balloon ratio there as there is in Dark Avengers, and the story keeps moving along. It's a comic book, not a comic drawing.

Yeah, it was the style of the time. It is also base level writing and it recieves an undue amount of praise for being "classic" or some such. If calling out bad writing as bad writing makes me a bigot, then book me a trial at the Hague.

The Fanboys love Lee for being Stan Lee.

I don't care who wrote it, it's entertaining and fun, and the fact that you bash it and scramble to justify makes you look pretty fannish.

The fans who complain the loudest are old enough to be called on that.

So cater the argument to the complainer, not to the problem? Weak sauce.

Like it or not, comics are an event driven medium. The stories are usually pitched based on the events and such. But, the events really do not mean anything, even on page. How many times has Tony Stark lost his shirt and everything else? How many times has a given city been more or less flattened. (As far as I know, Bludhaven and Star City are the only two major comic cities to *stay* destroyed. And, I am not even sure that Bludhaven still counts after "Flashpoint".)

The medium isn't event-driven, the big publishers are event-addicted, there's a huge difference. One is foundational, the other is a symptom of a problem.

The publishers cater to the complainers by keeping the same characters in more or less the same place year after year after year....

andersonh1 wrote:How many people want Slott's changes to stick? Do we really want have seen Peter Parker struggling to be a hero for 50 years (real time) only to die in the end, his body and identity hijacked by Doctor Octopus? Really? Obviously Dom does, since "changes that stick" are what counts to him, but to everyone else, is that how Spider Man's story should end?

I suspect most people want to see the hero/protagonist of a book win in the end, not give it their all for years only to lose and lose badly. I don't read Spider Man and don't really have a dog in the hunt here, but I'd hate to think the character was so ill-served as to have his body stolen and his mind erased, and that's it. That's a terrible finale for a character like Peter Parker. What does that say about being a hero?

I generally agree with this point, in fact I tacitly made the same point way back in my review of ASM #700. I've been going on about resolution and satisfying endings in this thread for like three pages now, and I'll certainly rail against a story that *doesn't* stick the landing (the ending of Gunsmith Cats stings me to this day).

But the other thing is, if anyone actually thinks that that was the end, that that is seriously all for Peter Parker and his story is over and he's really gone forever, then they haven't read that many comics. I mean, just look at where we are now, what was ASM #700's big selling point? "Peter Parker dies for realsies!" And now, just nine issues later, what was the selling point of this 'big' issue? "Peter Parker dies for realsies no seriously we mean it this time!" Pretty much anyone who can pick up on these things should realize that this is all paving the road for a 'triumphant' return by Pete at the end of all this craziness, that the dissatisfying 'ending' for the character is largely there to accentuate how much more satisfying his new beginning will be.

Having said all that, BWProwl's reviews make it sound like an interesting story, and I was certainly tempted to pick up the issue at the comic shop today. I'll probably check out the trade at some point, just to see how this thing plays out.

Well I'm glad someone's getting something out of it. I actually failed to review #8, and shame on me for that since it was a good one. Basically, remember how I mentioned in the review of the issue before that Cardiac using Doc Ock's technology for good, medical purposes when he just wanted to steal it back for selfish reasons highlighted flaws in his motives and actual heroism? Well in #8, Otto realizes this and actually DOES use his technology and medical expertise with it to help people, particularly a little girl who he had hurt with one of his previous schemes as Doc Ock. Not bad at all.

The concept that started out driving the book remains a stupid idea as ever, and it certainly gets a bit hokey at times, but the core ideas illustrated here and the points it makes are just so good that I can't simply write the book off as something to read purely for trainwreck value.

The fact that nobody reasonably expects OctoParker to stick is part of the problem. Marvel builds it up as a big damn deal. Fans act like it is big deal (and that it might actually stick) on the basis that Marvel is "being mean to Peter Parker" or some foolishness. Even putting aside the fact that Peter Parker has neither feelings nor rights, the big problem will go away inside of a year of real time (maybe a few weeks of page time).


Anderson talked about the "drama" of "Knightfall" not too long ago. But, consider the potential drama of a big event story if there was a chance that one of the big changes would stick. The main problem might get solved, but there would be legitimate fall-out. In the case of "Knightfall", how much *better* could the story have been (at a purely event-driven level) if Bruce Wayne's injuries did not heal enough for him to become Batman. The escapees from Arkham Asylum would be rounded up, but Bruce would stay broken and a replacement would be needed. The writers could still throw in character moments showing Bruce adjusting to a role as a mentor/strategist and his replacement adjusting to being the new Batman. New characters=new stories=new drama.

When "Knightfall" came out (about 20 years ago), I was thinking that Bruce might stay down. Superman did not stay dead. But, my reasoning with Bruce Wayne staying down was that the character was still around, so DC might be able to pull something off. I was relatively new to DC at the time, and memories of "Crisis on Infinite Earths" (with the Flash's death being a prominent example of many changes), "A Death in the Family" and even "Armageddon: 2001" (which seemed to permanently change Hawk and Dove) were fresh enough that I thought "maybe". I was not wholly suprised when Bruce retook the bat-mantle. But, I was disappointed.

A more recent example of this would be "Avengers v/s X-Men". Even putting aside the likely reboot after "Age of Ultron", does anybody expect Professor X to stay dead? (This is not even the first time that he has died.) How much more of an impact would the end of AvX have had if anybody over the age of 10 could reasonably expect Professor X to stay dead?

Like or hate "Emerald Twilight", the impact of Hal's last fight with Sinestro and the destruction of the main power battery had an impact. I had been reading "Green Lantern" on and off for a few years at that point. When Hal went nuts, destoyed the main power battery, I was floored. I even asked the guy at the shop (also a GL fan) if he thought DC was serious about it. The guy thought that DC was serious, and was curious about what was going to happen next. I had to agree with him. Hal had a good run. But, when Hal flew off into space, I was not thinking "how are they going to bring back Hal?" so much as "what are they gonna do now?!?!?!?" and it really seemed like"Green Lantern" would "never be the same again".

Linear story-telling that allowed for changes would feed idea driven stories along with adding to narrative drama, as writers would be able to build on existing concepts and carry scenarios to logical conclusions outside of a self-contained "What if...?" or "Elseworlds" format. (This can sometimes work. But, "Red Son" is exceptionally good in this regard, and hardly representative of the norm.)


Dom