Comics are awesome.

[andersonh1]

Anderson, how do you reconcile not wanting changes to the status quo with being a fan of "JSA", a book that can only exist because of changes to an earlier status quo? At a basic level, the book makes those awful Gardner Fox comics from the 60s worth it.

Because JSA is a good book. It's well written, interesting, and I enjoy the characters. It's won me over despite the fact that I despise the cavalier way in which most of the original JSA members were written out en masse. In this case, DC has very much managed to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

It's not that I don't want change and progression, but I don't want the abrupt drastic kind of change that you seem to be advocating. I don't want to read the same plot over and over again any more than you do, but I do like to pick up a book ten years later about Batman, to pick one example, and find the character recognizable.

At a basic level, the book makes those awful Gardner Fox comics from the 60s worth it.

And that's why saying "we'll always have old books to go back and revisit old characters" doesn't always work. I often find golden and silver age comics unreadable. There are exceptions, but often the plots and dialogue are just too corny or simplistic, even if I like the characters quite a bit. At least modern comics shoot for something more.

[Dominic]

OMD on the other hand was done specifically to set Spidey to "back then" by changing continuity.

Actually, it did not change continuity. That is part of the problem. It did, but it didn't.

Are those my only two options? Because there are several points I have for defining post OMD as terrible beyond those...

No, of course not. You have many option. I was just guessing with two of the obvious ones. Please elaborate.

It's not that I don't want change and progression, but I don't want the abrupt drastic kind of change that you seem to be advocating. I don't want to read the same plot over and over again any more than you do, but I do like to pick up a book ten years later about Batman, to pick one example, and find the character recognizable.

I can accept change if I have been away from a book for some time....so long as the "change" does not look like the book did when I started reading it or sooner. For example, if I stopped reading "Captain America" in the 90s, (and who could blame me?), I do not want to pick it up in the mid-aughts and see Bucky running around.

I do not want change for the sake of change. In fact, it needs to be carefully considered before being done, especially if it is going to stick.

And that's why saying "we'll always have old books to go back and revisit old characters" doesn't always work. I often find golden and silver age comics unreadable. There are exceptions, but often the plots and dialogue are just too corny or simplistic, even if I like the characters quite a bit. At least modern comics shoot for something more.

There is a pretty good sized window of "old but good comics" though. 1970s DC was good, even if one takes "Hard Travelling Heroes" into account. The late 60s and 70s gave us O'Neil/Adams "Batman". I would never seriously argue that people look to Gardner Fox or Stan "the hack" Lee for anything other than examples of how not to write.

Astro City's probably the most successful superhero story to have a "real-time" kind of thing. Characters may come back from the dead over there, and they may get up to all the usual superhero shenanigans, but by golly, they do it while living in real times. Since Busiek does stories set in whatever decade he feels like, that place really feels like it has a past. Man, I should read more of those.

This is another solution. As O6 pointed out, there is no reason not to have stories set in-context while in the past. Instead of "Superboy: The Adventures of Superman when he was a boy", we could have "The Adventures of Barry Allen when he was alive".

Sure, you get Peter open to reprisal from villains or whatever, but y'know, cops don't go around with secret identities, they don't seem to have to worry about such things.

Residency requirements and all....

Most cops are very much against such things. As one told a friend of mine, "Never live where you work."


Dom
-needs to track down some "New Universe" and Valiant books.....

[Sparky Prime]

Actually, it did not change continuity. That is part of the problem. It did, but it didn't.

It did change continuity, there is no getting away from that fact. OMD was written specifically to undo the marriage which has firmly been a part of the continuity for the last 20 or so years. And saying just the marriage was undone and nothing else changed is foolish, there are going to be 'ripples' felt in other part of the story as a result. Again as an example, MJ's pregnancy would have been handled very different had the two not been married at the time.

And of course, OMD also made several other changes with absolutely no explanation behind them thus far.

No, of course not. You have many option. I was just guessing with two of the obvious ones. Please elaborate.

Well like I said, there are several things... I was never a fan of their decision to end the other two Spider titles and merge the creative team into rotating on ASM post-OMD. I think that makes each story arc more disjointed and doesn't really help the title. Overall, I really think the quality of work on the title has been suffering. Then there's the point that they changed so many things in OMD and they've made no attempt to explain any of them. I know the upcoming "OMIT" is supposed to give answers but it's 3 years late (and there is no guarantee it'll actually explain everything). Some of their current story moves I think have been out of character as well (such as Peter getting drunk and waking up in bed with someone). There's more faults but I think you get the general idea...

[Onslaught Six]

-needs to track down some "New Universe" and Valiant books.....

I started with Shadowman. He starts off with a *really* dumb origin story (Vampire alien lady comes out of the sky, hits on him, and then bites him, which gives him superpowers?) but a lot of the Valiant guys sort of share the same origin that way--it didn't just happen to him. Later issues do sort-of retcon it into being less shitty...and it doesn't even really feel like a retcon when it does, since they still acknowledge that bit.

Archer & Armstrong looked like it was interesting, from their couple cameos in Shadowman. Turok, I guess, only works if you like Turok, and I assume much the same for Magnus Robot Fighter. (Valiant's universe was basically split up between the current timeline and the Far Future, and I never really got into the stories involving the future guys too much. But even the future stories were consistent.)

Shadowman ends up getting a really spiffy superpower in that he, effectively, cannot die. He goes into the future very early in his series as part of the Unity crossover (and all the relevant stuff involving him is contained *within his own series!* so you can pretty much just read the individual issues and not worry about all the other stuff) and finds out that he dies in 1999. Valiant Time is linear so, no matter what, he *has* to die in 1999--meaning he can take all kinds of insane risks in the present, because he knows he won't die until '99. (This actually didn't come to pass, since they rebooted the comic with the second Shadowman in '97 or so, what with Acclaim taking over Valiant. That's the version the game is based on, and it's a lot darker and more fucked up...I think I like it more though.)

[Dominic]

It did change continuity, there is no getting away from that fact.

But, Marvel has hedged and hemmed and hawed and said that it did not change things. See, they can have it both ways...which makes things more confusing.

Again as an example, MJ's pregnancy would have been handled very different had the two not been married at the time.

Why do you say that? Peter and MJ still lived together, and likely would have been considered married in some states. (It would likely have been ~5 years or so in comic time.) Plenty of couples have and raise kids without a formal marriage.

Overall, I really think the quality of work on the title has been suffering.

Sales (?), buzz and critical reception say otherwise.

Either way, the whole point of OMD was to set the Spider-books back to yesteryear, both in content (swingin' single Spidey) and tone (bouncy and silly). Another retro-element is the length of the stories. The idea is to make the Spider-books accessible. New readers can never be more than an issue or two, (a month at most), behind. This indicates that Marvels' plan is successful, even if you do not like it.

I think have been out of character as well (such as Peter getting drunk and waking up in bed with someone).

But, he takes responsibility for his actions. He is a philanderer.


Dom
-has been meaning to drop an "I am an Avenger" joke for a while now.

[Sparky Prime]

But, Marvel has hedged and hemmed and hawed and said that it did not change things. See, they can have it both ways...which makes things more confusing.

That may have been what they said initially, but again, as the fans complained their position has shifted somewhat. And now they're writing this "OMIT" story to try and explain things.

Why do you say that? Peter and MJ still lived together, and likely would have been considered married in some states. (It would likely have been ~5 years or so in comic time.) Plenty of couples have and raise kids without a formal marriage.

You're missing the point. You need to look at the character not what plenty of other couples have done. Peter Parker was raised by his elderly Aunt and Uncle whose values are a bit more traditional, and obviously their values have heavily influenced Peter's life as he's taken the motto "With great power comes great responsibility" and turned it into something of a guiding light for his life. I can't see Peter having a kid out of wedlock. It just doesn't make sense for the type of character he is.

Sales (?), buzz and critical reception say otherwise.

I don't know what you're reading... ASM used to be consistently in the top 10, but sales for the title post-OMD have declined considerably. Buzz has been extremely spotty, aside from the "Obama issue", the "Anti-Venom" arc and the current "Shed" arc, I really haven't seen any buzz for the title at all. And the critical reception I've seen has been lackluster at best.

The idea is to make the Spider-books accessible. New readers can never be more than an issue or two, (a month at most), behind. This indicates that Marvels' plan is successful, even if you do not like it.

Their plan alienates long time fans, many of which have boycotted the title, and makes it hard for new readers to get into it with so many issues coming out per month not to mention the confusion they're faced with if they do get into it. With sales and support in the title dropping, that indicates fail, not success.

But, he takes responsibility for his actions. He is a philanderer.

The responsible thing is not to get into that situation in the first place.

[Dominic]

I have seen and heard good things about post OMD "Spiderman". I am not saying I like it. But, somebody does.

You're missing the point. You need to look at the character not what plenty of other couples have done. Peter Parker was raised by his elderly Aunt and Uncle whose values are a bit more traditional, and obviously their values have heavily influenced Peter's life as he's taken the motto "With great power comes great responsibility" and turned it into something of a guiding light for his life. I can't see Peter having a kid out of wedlock. It just doesn't make sense for the type of character he is.

So, traditional values obligate somebody to do what if they make a terrible mistake?

Do traditional values obligate Peter to give MJ $50 and a ride downtown? Do they obligate him to get married at gun point?

What are "traditional values" in this case? When was Peter, (existing in the apparently now timeless 616 universe) young?

And, thanks to JMS, we know he *could* have knocked up Gwen Stacy. Remember, his first impression when he found out about the Goblin-bastards was "whu-oh, those might be mine", not "up yours, you ain't mine, hit the bricks twerp". In other words, Peter was entirely capable of siring a kid out of wed-lick. The Gwen Stacy thing would be worse because she was just that sort of girl. Even post OMD retcon still assumes Peter and MJ lived together long enough that they might as well have been married.

The responsible thing is not to get into that situation in the first place.

But he is an Avenger! He takes responsibility by making deals with satan and destabilizing the universe. Somehow, a drunken fling does not seem so bad when you measure it against that.


Dom
-takes pride in being irresponsible.

[138 Scourge]

Oh god, the goblin twins. And yet, they still exist. I can't understand how they didn't take the opportunity to get rid of those abominations. Sigh.

It could be worse, though. If they'd been from the nineties, they probably would have gotten symbiote costumes, too.

[Sparky Prime]

I have seen and heard good things about post OMD "Spiderman". I am not saying I like it. But, somebody does.

I don't doubt that. But the fact remains the title was stronger before OMD.

So, traditional values obligate somebody to do what if they make a terrible mistake?

Do traditional values obligate Peter to give MJ $50 and a ride downtown? Do they obligate him to get married at gun point?

I'm not saying anything like that. Just that the story would have been handled differently had the two not been married at the time.

What are "traditional values" in this case? When was Peter, (existing in the apparently now timeless 616 universe) young?

Traditional values haven't changed that dramatically in the past few decades.

And, thanks to JMS, we know he *could* have knocked up Gwen Stacy. Remember, his first impression when he found out about the Goblin-bastards was "whu-oh, those might be mine", not "up yours, you ain't mine, hit the bricks twerp". In other words, Peter was entirely capable of siring a kid out of wed-lick. The Gwen Stacy thing would be worse because she was just that sort of girl. Even post OMD retcon still assumes Peter and MJ lived together long enough that they might as well have been married.

This was a drastically different situation. For starters, Peter didn't even know Gwen was pregnant until years after the fact because she had kept it secret from him. Had Peter known about it, do you really think things would have played out exactly the same? I have no doubt Peter would have married Gwen in a heartbeat had he known she was pregnant with his kids (or anyone else for that matter, he loved her that much). However, they weren't his kids, which of course further complicated the situation and was Gwen's motivation for keeping it secret from Peter in the first place, along with their accelerated development. It is worth noting JMS originally wanted them to actually be Peter's kids, but Editorial overruled him. The result was a terrible turn for Gwen Stacy, who wasn't that sort of girl until that story changed things.

And "might as well be" is not the same as actually being married.

But he is an Avenger! He takes responsibility by making deals with satan and destabilizing the universe. Somehow, a drunken fling does not seem so bad when you measure it against that.

Which again, is one of the many ways they've been portraying him out of character.

[138 Scourge]

I have seen and heard good things about post OMD "Spiderman". I am not saying I like it. But, somebody does.

I don't doubt that. But the fact remains the title was stronger before OMD.

Now see, that seems a lot more like an opinion than a fact from where I'm sitting. Just sayin'.

As for the "marrying her in a heartbeat if he knew she was pregnant", yeah, maybe. But then again, Peter wasn't always the brightest kid in the relationship department. Now I sort of want to see a "What If" wherein Peter and Gwen do get married after he finds out she's pregnant. The part where the kids are born, and the boy clearly has the Norman Osborn hair? That would be awesome.

Stupid pregnant Gwen storyline. Man, "deal with the devil" is positively brilliant compared to "Gwen Stacy knocked up by Osborn".