The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Spider-man OMD part 4 spoilers, divorce or no? The result inside.

1356733

Posts

  • BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    smokmnky wrote: »
    What's perhaps most amazing to me is that Joe Q approved the organic shooters and the reconciliation of Peter and MJ after they had already split. I don't really understand the point of either of those moves at this point.

    Kyle

    Kyle
    Stop signing your posts, we know who you are because we aren't stupid and can easily see your name to the left.

    On topic:
    I just want to know what the impact is going to be on non-spidey books. (i.e. New Avengers) Will he still be on those teams? Do those teams want a teenager running around with them?

    He's not turning back into a teenager

    Balefuego on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • smokmnkysmokmnky Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think Bendis has said that Spidey's on the team for the foreseeable future.

    And I think everyone's overreacting here. Like, a lot.

    Well that's good at least. I just wonder how he'll handle it. I hope we don't lose the awesome Hawkeye/Spider-man fight scene dialogue

    smokmnky on
  • BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I am pretty sure Bendis is going to write him almost exactly the same as he has been.

    He's still going to be Spider-Man

    Balefuego on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Geebs we should have a rule that everyone gets this out of thier system in this thread and when I start a Brand New Day thread in a couple weeks no bitching about OMD allowed

    Balefuego on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Devlin_DragonusDevlin_Dragonus Gorgeous Dallas, TXRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Guys, all i have to say is if you are disliking Joe Q right now, the Daredevil movie is a good way to vent your frustration out.

    Quesada gets killed for raping a bar maid, replace bar maid with spider-man and daredevil seeks justice for us all.

    Devlin_Dragonus on
    I got nothing for you now. Try again later.

  • DivebommahDivebommah Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Divebommah wrote: »
    I thought Marvel licensing its IP out the wazoo is what saved it from bankruptcy, plus a few well-timed and high quality movies (X-Men & Spiderman).

    You're not wrong when you say this, but that sort of thing is only a short term fix unless the publishing side gets its act together and returns to being self-sufficient.

    My understanding was that Marvel's print business was basically just advertising for their IP. So yes, the publishing side needs to keep the popularity of its heroes high, create new ones, etc., but Marvel's income from print sales probably pales in comparison to licensing.

    So I don't think the publishing side really *needs* to be self-sufficient, if its main purpose is advertising.

    Divebommah on
  • BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Divebommah wrote: »
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Divebommah wrote: »
    I thought Marvel licensing its IP out the wazoo is what saved it from bankruptcy, plus a few well-timed and high quality movies (X-Men & Spiderman).

    You're not wrong when you say this, but that sort of thing is only a short term fix unless the publishing side gets its act together and returns to being self-sufficient.

    My understanding was that Marvel's print business was basically just advertising for their IP. So yes, the publishing side needs to keep the popularity of its heroes high, create new ones, etc., but Marvel's income from print sales probably pales in comparison to licensing.

    So I don't think the publishing side really *needs* to be self-sufficient, if its main purpose is advertising.

    No, if this was true the 90s crash would have never happaned.

    Balefuego on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Divebommah wrote: »
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Divebommah wrote: »
    I thought Marvel licensing its IP out the wazoo is what saved it from bankruptcy, plus a few well-timed and high quality movies (X-Men & Spiderman).

    You're not wrong when you say this, but that sort of thing is only a short term fix unless the publishing side gets its act together and returns to being self-sufficient.

    My understanding was that Marvel's print business was basically just advertising for their IP. So yes, the publishing side needs to keep the popularity of its heroes high, create new ones, etc., but Marvel's income from print sales probably pales in comparison to licensing.

    So I don't think the publishing side really *needs* to be self-sufficient, if its main purpose is advertising.

    No, if this was true the 90s crash would have never happaned.

    Woah woah woah woah.

    I don't really have an opinion on this argument, but surely you aren't comparing the income of Marvel licenseses in the 90s to the 00s? I mean, we're talking before Spider-Man and X-Men 1. When there was no such thing as a good Marvel superhero movie.

    august on
  • BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    No, obviously they are much much much healthier now. But I think that has a lot to do with how healthy the publishing side is right now.

    The point I'm trying to make is can people objectivley say they dont see how the company has steadily improved publishing wise with Quesada at the helm?

    Balefuego on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DivebommahDivebommah Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I'll give ya that much Balefuego. :)

    Divebommah on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Yeah... I mean, I just got back into the big-two in the last couple of years. Comics from both Marvel and DC are definitely a MILLION times better from a craft standpoint than they were back in the 90s, and I'm willing to entertain the idea that JQ is at least partially responsible for that. Even if books are late and the stories themselves are kind of insane.

    august on
  • AlgertmanAlgertman Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Algertman wrote: »
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Considering Joe Q saved Marvel from bankruptcy and has done far more good than harm in his time as EiC, I'd say chances of that are pretty much nonexistant.

    No he didn't

    He's the EiC of comics, that's it. That in no way saved MARVEL at all.

    Ok you're right, I guess the fact that they went from declaring bankrupty to being in the best financial position since before the 90s crash all while he's been in charge is mere coincidence.

    Thanks to movies and merchandising, which has he has nothing to do with

    Algertman on
  • Calamity JaneCalamity Jane That Wrong Love Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Again, Joe Q. isn't the person you should be mad at, folks.

    Take a good hard look at Spider-Man for the last ten years.

    In-continuity, the only good things I could find that he's been in have been New Avengers and Marvel Knights: Spider-Man.

    If you're frustrated with the direction the book is taking, don't buy it.

    Otherwise you're just perpetuating stupid shit. The best thing I can pull from most of your reactions is the sense of surprise.

    Calamity Jane on
    twitter https://twitter.com/mperezwritesirl michelle patreon https://www.patreon.com/thatwronglove michelle's comic book from IMAGE COMICS you can order http://a.co/dn5YeUD
  • DJ EebsDJ Eebs Moderator, Administrator admin
    edited December 2007
    I can't believe so many people are upset at some of the things being taken out. I can understand the marriage and the teaching (because I liked those a lot and I'm not happy to see them go) but bitching about the webshooters? Come on.

    Also anjin I take it you never read Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man.

    DJ Eebs on
  • Calamity JaneCalamity Jane That Wrong Love Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I can't believe so many people are upset at some of the things being taken out. I can understand the marriage and the teaching (because I liked those a lot and I'm not happy to see them go) but bitching about the webshooters? Come on.

    Also anjin I take it you never read Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man.

    It wasn't that great of a title, and near the end you could see David was pretty pissed about how things turned out.
    I would say Todd Nauck's art wasn't my cup of tea. But I'm gonna look around and see if Sars_Boy is around.

    I don't want my neck snapped in half.

    Calamity Jane on
    twitter https://twitter.com/mperezwritesirl michelle patreon https://www.patreon.com/thatwronglove michelle's comic book from IMAGE COMICS you can order http://a.co/dn5YeUD
  • LBD_NytetraynLBD_Nytetrayn TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    DharmaBum wrote: »
    I don't mind getting rid of the marriage so much. I mean I know everything in comics eventually returns to a status quo. I mean Jason Todd, and Buckey are back arn't they?

    What irks me is that the Unmasking is going to be undone. Like I understand that it was gunna happen eventually, but it just seems like it happened way too soon. Sorta cheapened one of the big plot points and events of Civil War.

    At least the roles they've taken on have been more interesting. I like the Winter Soldier version of Bucky, and Jason Todd? As a twisted, jealous anti-Robin who dons the Joker's old persona? I like it, more than if they tried to make the two just sidekicks again. In these examples, it shows more growth and change.

    I preferred the Scarlet Spider version of putting the mask genie back in its bottle.
    Balefuego wrote: »
    devoir wrote: »
    I'm guessing that's the whole point. The Spider-Man movies were a big success. Therefore the best way to make the comics a big success is to make them more like the movies. Revert everything back to the start, then you can follow the movie storyline and reap the big bucks. It stands to reason that the people who saw the movies are bigger than the fanbase you're going to alienate by shitting all over their favoured medium, therefore movie audience - comic fans = cash.

    No, this is not what this is about at all. Quesada has been on record for years that he hates the fact that Spider-Man is married and thinks it's one of the biggest mistakes Marvel ever made and that if he could find a way to undo it he would. This has nothing to do with movie tie-ins.
    Dammit. Damn Joe Q. What an asshole. Power-hungry asshole.
    Balefuego wrote: »
    how does this make him "power-hungry"

    he's already Editor in Chief

    I submit in the way he seems to be dead-set on putting his own personal interests ahead of those of the people reading the books.
    Balefuego wrote: »
    From his point of view, the marriage handicaps him creativley, so he wants to get rid of it. And the guy is in charge so it's his call to make.

    Maybe he should leave it to the writers to be creative.
    Anjin-San wrote: »
    Again, Joe Q. isn't the person you should be mad at, folks.

    Take a good hard look at Spider-Man for the last ten years.

    In-continuity, the only good things I could find that he's been in have been New Avengers and Marvel Knights: Spider-Man.

    If you're frustrated with the direction the book is taking, don't buy it.

    Otherwise you're just perpetuating stupid shit. The best thing I can pull from most of your reactions is the sense of surprise.

    I've actually been happy with most stuff they've done up to this point.

    Earlier, Decimation was brought up, but I don't see it as quite the same thing. Yeah, it sort of gets us back to where mutants are a rarity, but there seems to be a more wide-open acknowledgement of what's gone on, and aftereffects and the like.

    This... what I've heard is that no one's even going to remember any of what's gone before or what happened here, almost like it never happened, except maybe MJ. Just eliminating the marriage was one thing, but undoing tons of other stuff, from new powers to unmasking to Harry to whatever else? While keeping other stuff?

    I don't know, it's all so crazy.

    Maybe if we had a clear breakdown about what changes there are and what isn't, things wouldn't seem so bad right now.

    LBD_Nytetrayn on
    qjWUWdm.gif1edr1cF.gifINPoYqL.png
    Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
  • Calamity JaneCalamity Jane That Wrong Love Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    if you've been happy with everything to this point I'd submit the opinion you have no earthly business being pissed off about one more day at all

    Calamity Jane on
    twitter https://twitter.com/mperezwritesirl michelle patreon https://www.patreon.com/thatwronglove michelle's comic book from IMAGE COMICS you can order http://a.co/dn5YeUD
  • LBD_NytetraynLBD_Nytetrayn TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    And I'd submit that I do. "Happy" might overblow it a bit, but nothing has seemed anywhere near as ridiculous as this, and I've found most of it to be acceptable, at least.

    LBD_Nytetrayn on
    qjWUWdm.gif1edr1cF.gifINPoYqL.png
    Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
  • Sars_BoySars_Boy Rest, You Are The Lightning. Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Anjin-San wrote: »
    I can't believe so many people are upset at some of the things being taken out. I can understand the marriage and the teaching (because I liked those a lot and I'm not happy to see them go) but bitching about the webshooters? Come on.

    Also anjin I take it you never read Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man.

    It wasn't that great of a title, and near the end you could see David was pretty pissed about how things turned out.
    I would say Todd Nauck's art wasn't my cup of tea. But I'm gonna look around and see if Sars_Boy is around.

    I don't want my neck snapped in half.
    imagine if you will anjin

    an entire run of Young Justice

    shoved down your throat

    or up your butt

    i'll leave that part up to you

    Sars_Boy on
  • Calamity JaneCalamity Jane That Wrong Love Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    OH SHIT

    WHICH ONE OF YOU BROUGHT HIM HERE

    Calamity Jane on
    twitter https://twitter.com/mperezwritesirl michelle patreon https://www.patreon.com/thatwronglove michelle's comic book from IMAGE COMICS you can order http://a.co/dn5YeUD
  • Sars_BoySars_Boy Rest, You Are The Lightning. Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    envision it

    all that paper

    mashing up as it fills your bowels

    fills your bowels with THE WONDERFUL ART OF A CERTAIN MR. TODD NAUCK

    Sars_Boy on
  • Calamity JaneCalamity Jane That Wrong Love Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    here comes todd nauck

    he's getting the award for worst art this year

    wait a second

    who's that running to the stage?

    oh shit howard chaykin just yanked it out of his hands and ran off!

    (i kid. nauck's non-teen characters look really odd to me)

    Calamity Jane on
    twitter https://twitter.com/mperezwritesirl michelle patreon https://www.patreon.com/thatwronglove michelle's comic book from IMAGE COMICS you can order http://a.co/dn5YeUD
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Sars_Boy wrote: »
    envision it

    all that paper

    mashing up as it fills your bowels

    fills your bowels with THE WONDERFUL ART OF A CERTAIN MR. TODD NAUCK
    So, wait. You're saying his art is shit?

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • SASA Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I've said it before on this forum and I'll say it again. I actually really liked JMS's run and thought it was the best Spider-Man we've had since the 80s... with a few glaring exceptions. (Sins Past never happened)

    I loved Ezekiel and the introduction of Morlun. I loved the identity revelation with Aunt May. I loved his relationship with the New Avengers. Theres just too much stuff to name.

    And I also agree with whoever said that the unmasking was retconned way too early and that there was alot of story potential thrown out the window.

    Oh well. I'll still buy Brand New Day, but dammit it better be fucking great.

    SA on
    WoW: Revash (Cho'Gall)
    3DS: 5241-1953-7031
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    How do you even say "Nauck?"

    deadonthestreet on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Considering Joe Q saved Marvel from bankruptcy and has done far more good than harm in his time as EiC, I'd say chances of that are pretty much nonexistant.

    Can we stop this whole "JOE Q SAVED MARVEL" thing?

    I think pretty much raping your flagship title in the ass and doing everything in your power to make sure that every big change "tears the internet in half" should at least balance it out.

    "SAVED THEM FROM BANKRUPTCY!"
    "Attempted to shove them back in the hole by pissing off fans at every turn."

    The Muffin Man on
  • Calamity JaneCalamity Jane That Wrong Love Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    conversely, a bad editorial decision does not make joe q satan incarnate

    Calamity Jane on
    twitter https://twitter.com/mperezwritesirl michelle patreon https://www.patreon.com/thatwronglove michelle's comic book from IMAGE COMICS you can order http://a.co/dn5YeUD
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Balefuego wrote: »
    I think you're splitting hairs a bit there.

    It was a massive change in status quo for the entire X-Men corner of the universe. It's not exactly the same thing no, but it's still an editorial creative choice that was polarizing to a lot fans. And it was done for the same reason.
    Also keep in mind that Devastation didn't completely nullify every X-Men comic told between an earlier point and House of M.

    The Muffin Man on
  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Wait a minute.....so if Harry never died then there's no reason for Norman to enact his super-secret grand plans so that effects Thunderbolts, Civil War, and several other things. If Pete never unmasked then that completely removes one of the three biggest plot points of Civil War. Effectively this shifts the ENTIRE MARVEL CONTINUITY and effectively removes everything I still found to be cool about Spider-Man. How is this going to work???

    Well, look on the bright-side. Maybe this retcon will undue Captain America's death! But then, of course, once this unpopular retcon is, itself, retconed away, then ole' Steve will be back to pushing daisies. :lol:

    FCD on
    Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Anjin-San wrote: »
    conversely, a bad editorial decision does not make joe q satan incarnate

    I think we can agree on a middle ground of "Joe Q should leave it up to the fans to decide what is and is not likable about Spider-man and not just fucking decide HE doesn't like Pete being married so it's done".

    Or at least that there are less retarded/hamfisted ways to handle this.

    The Muffin Man on
  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    In all seriousness, if Joe Q wanted to do a retcon of this magnitude, why didn't he just make it a company-wide event? A "Crisis on Infinite What Ifs", if you will. I mean, c'mon, if you're going to editorially decree what is and isn't continuity, then go all out, man.

    FCD on
    Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    FCD wrote: »
    In all seriousness, if Joe Q wanted to do a retcon of this magnitude, why didn't he just make it a company-wide event? A "Crisis on Infinite What Ifs", if you will. I mean, c'mon, if you're going to editorially decree what is and isn't continuity, then go all out, man.

    I mean it's not like he hasn't already altered the entire fucking universe by shifting events around.

    Because y'know.
    Spider-man has never been a big player in the Marvel universe.
    Certainly there's no way this would negatively affect other books.

    The Muffin Man on
  • FuruFuru Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Really I'm waiting to see if they actually fill in any of the ridiculous continuity blanks this is going to cause or if they'll just let Marvel history be swiss cheese.

    Furu on
  • hughtronhughtron __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    I don't read Spider-Man, so this doesn't really affect me in any way, but, uh, why is this such a big deal?

    Can't you just read old Spider-Man stories if that's what you want? Like, some of you seem furious about this turn of events. You know Spider-Man isn't some real person that this is happening to, right? I don't really understand the Asperger's-style fascination some people have with 'canon' and 'continuity.'

    INCIDENTLY: Quesada (and Jemas) are responsible for maybe the best Marvel period in the last ten years, when Morrison's New X-Men and Milligan and Allred's X-Force/X-Statix were coming out and basically these crazy british creators were just doing whatever they wanted because Marvel was desperate to recover from the crash and bankruptcy.

    hughtron on
    minisy3.gif
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    It's the same reason people hate stories that end with the main character waking up and OH IT WAS ALL A DREAM!

    a) Continuity is important when you're trying to have a character that grows and changes over time. This is one of the cores of good storytelling.
    b) It's extremely lazy. It shows that the writer isn't willing to think about the implications of the crazy shit they made up, they just want to be done and move on to the next craziness.
    c) It DOES cheapen the things that happen in the story. When you're reading a story, you should get caught up in the things that are happening, you should believe that it's going on, your disbelief suspended. When it all gets retconned/dreamed away, the little part of you that followed along with the story just gets thrown away and discarded. That makes you that much less likely to follow along so closely in the future.

    I personally HATE these kind of undos, and if I were reading spidey (which I'm not since I'm not a huge fan of spidey), I would stop reading.

    SageinaRage on
    sig.gif
  • BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Anjin-San wrote: »
    conversely, a bad editorial decision does not make joe q satan incarnate

    I think we can agree on a middle ground of "Joe Q should leave it up to the fans to decide what is and is not likable about Spider-man and not just fucking decide HE doesn't like Pete being married so it's done".

    Or at least that there are less retarded/hamfisted ways to handle this.

    I agree with your statement about finding a less lame way to do it.

    But your comment about letting the fans decide reeks of the worst kind of fanboyism. Fans vote with thier dollars. They already have the ultimate power in that regard. It's Quesada job to keep the fans buying, nowadays thats mostly done by telling good stories (as opposed to the 90s method) and he thinks that this will lead to better Spider-Man stories in the future.

    Is he right? Obviously you don't agree. I haven't decided yet because we haven't seen those stories.

    Balefuego on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Balefuego wrote: »
    I think you're splitting hairs a bit there.

    It was a massive change in status quo for the entire X-Men corner of the universe. It's not exactly the same thing no, but it's still an editorial creative choice that was polarizing to a lot fans. And it was done for the same reason.
    Also keep in mind that Devastation didn't completely nullify every X-Men comic told between an earlier point and House of M.

    Maybe I'm reading this wrong but when does it say they are undoing 20 years of comics.

    I see 3 changes

    1. No marriage
    2. Harry is alive
    3. web shooters

    Balefuego on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Balefuego wrote: »
    I think you're splitting hairs a bit there.

    It was a massive change in status quo for the entire X-Men corner of the universe. It's not exactly the same thing no, but it's still an editorial creative choice that was polarizing to a lot fans. And it was done for the same reason.
    Also keep in mind that Devastation didn't completely nullify every X-Men comic told between an earlier point and House of M.

    Maybe I'm reading this wrong but when does it say they are undoing 20 years of comics.

    I see 3 changes

    1. No marriage
    2. Harry is alive
    3. web shooters

    You forgot:
    4. Basically everything done by Spidey creators over the last few years has been nullified.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • hughtronhughtron __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    SeginaRage wrote:
    It's the same reason people hate stories that end with the main character waking up and OH IT WAS ALL A DREAM!

    a) Continuity is important when you're trying to have a character that grows and changes over time. This is one of the cores of good storytelling.
    b) It's extremely lazy. It shows that the writer isn't willing to think about the implications of the crazy shit they made up, they just want to be done and move on to the next craziness.
    c) It DOES cheapen the things that happen in the story. When you're reading a story, you should get caught up in the things that are happening, you should believe that it's going on, your disbelief suspended. When it all gets retconned/dreamed away, the little part of you that followed along with the story just gets thrown away and discarded. That makes you that much less likely to follow along so closely in the future.

    I personally HATE these kind of undos, and if I were reading spidey (which I'm not since I'm not a huge fan of spidey), I would stop reading.

    I kind of disagree with you.

    The current medium for superhero adventure stories- the 24-page monthly comic book- is specifically designed around a serial format where essentially the story never ends. Because of this it's natural for a glut of stories of varying quality to accumulate around certain characters, especially after, what, 40 years? These resets and undos sort of need to be there in order to make sense after such a long time, especially if these superhero comics want to attract new readers, which they desperately need to survive. Whether or not making Peter Parker a swinging single is the way to do this, I don't know.

    Additionally, I think superhero comics are especially suited to throwing out 'crazy shit ideas without thinking about the implications'. There's a great heritage of inventive pulp adventure that superheros have inherited, and I think that it's maybe their biggest strength. Look at how popular guys like Matt Fraction or Grant Morrison or even Warren Ellis are. Their comics are, more often than not, built around 'mad ideas' and a sort of frantic pulp pace moving the narrative forward. "Look at all these crazy ideas let's move things forward no time to wait and look around something's happening NOW!" Anyway, this has kind of gone off on a tangent. My point is, superhero comics were built on this kind of crazy crap. Give Spider-Man some kind of spider-totem super-powers? Great! Give Batman a 'gritty' make-over and some cyborg armor? Cool! Give Superman electric skin or a rocking mullet? Fantastic!

    One of my favorite parts of superhero comics is watching creators just throwing the craziest stuff up against the wall and seeing what sticks. I guess that it helps that I don't have any kind of attachment to a particular company or hero, so watching these Dramatic Retcon Changes doesn't really affect me as much.

    hughtron on
    minisy3.gif
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Balefuego wrote: »
    I think you're splitting hairs a bit there.

    It was a massive change in status quo for the entire X-Men corner of the universe. It's not exactly the same thing no, but it's still an editorial creative choice that was polarizing to a lot fans. And it was done for the same reason.
    Also keep in mind that Devastation didn't completely nullify every X-Men comic told between an earlier point and House of M.

    Maybe I'm reading this wrong but when does it say they are undoing 20 years of comics.

    I see 3 changes

    1. No marriage
    2. Harry is alive
    3. web shooters

    Yeah... but they pretty much are. Basically nothing that happened since MJ and Pete got married actually happened the way it did in the book. How did the whole Venom saga go down if he never threatened MJ, and Pete didn't have her to rely on? And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    august on
Sign In or Register to comment.