252 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

I’m glad you love this book. It’s been one of my favorite comics lately, but I worry that its premise makes it inaccessible.

ReplyReply
mygif
Elijah Fly said on July 23rd, 2013 at 10:58 am

I just find the ‘freaky friday’ trope to be just the hackiest, but then, I haven’t read a spider-man book since OMD. Nor do I plan to.

ReplyReply
mygif

It’s a book and an approach I wanted to hate (much like the post-OMD status quo), but one that people were consistently telling me was great in spite of all that. Might have to add it to the pull list.

ReplyReply
mygif

I’ve only got the first trade (and Dying Wish), but it has proven to be a really good story so far.

ReplyReply
mygif
magnuskn said on July 23rd, 2013 at 11:47 am

Well, I guess since Brian Bendis now has great influence at Marvel (seriously, did he miss a single Marvel panel at SDCC?), this would make a lot of sense, if only because he wants to stick it to the people who gave him shit over introducing Miles Morales.

I’m still more than a bit miffed over him killing off Ultimate Peter Parker (because Peter was a great character and I miss him), but if Bendis takes the opportunity to transport over Ultimate Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane, Aunt May and, most importantly, Ultimate Spiderwoman, then all is forgiven.

I still want to punch the guy in the neck one time for killing off Peter ( and Gwen, before bringing her back years later ), but that’s just an old grudge by now which I simply have difficulty in letting go.

ReplyReply
mygif

I just hope marvel bring Peter back and that he’s the one defeating Ock cause the way I see the story’s about how only Peter Parker can carry such responsibility (being Spider-Man). Have Miles stay in his universe though I’ve really had enough with other characters taking over the Spidey mantle.

ReplyReply
mygif
William Kendall said on July 23rd, 2013 at 1:25 pm

I can only assume that at some point, around the time of the next movie, Peter’s soul will work its way out of the limbo Ock left him in during that second go-around.

I haven’t picked up the core title since OMD. These days, it’s not the writing- Slott’s writing is by most sources very good.

It’s the awful art from Ramos, who persists in hanging around and handles arcs here and there on a rotating basis. The man is incapable of drawing anything that remotely looks human. He’s the worst artist working in comics today.

ReplyReply
mygif
MrFroggie said on July 23rd, 2013 at 1:34 pm

I’ve enjoyed bit and pieces of what I’ve read of it but I can’t get fully on board because I have problems with the fact that none of Spidey’s friends have seemed to notice. Mostly they take note of his acting more dickish than usual and move on. It just doesn’t ring true to me that he could go undetected for so long in a world where crap like this happening is believable. Especially when he’s on the Avengers. It makes everyone look like they’re carrying the idiot ball.

ReplyReply
mygif
Sisyphus said on July 23rd, 2013 at 1:52 pm

“I still want to punch the guy in the neck one time for killing off Peter” as magnuskn said. This I agree with a thousand times. He killed off the only likable, heroic character in the Ultimate universe. Everyone else there is, apparently, just terrible, most to the point of being basically sociopaths. Even Cap is pretty much a “Might makes right,” kind of guy.

It would have been cool if they’d made Pete a black kid from the start. That would have been an awesome way to do the Ultimate version, I think. But as a personality, Peter Parker is the only person in all the Ultimate line who I think you can make a legitimate case for being a hero in the best sense of that word.

Though keep in mind, I stopped reading the entire Ultimate line just before they killed him, because I sort of said, “Oh, the hell with that.”

ReplyReply
mygif
SIlverHammerMan said on July 23rd, 2013 at 2:20 pm

I keep hearing positive things about this, I guess I might have to try it when I get a chance. That said, I’m with Elijah Fly on freaky Friday plots basically being the hackiest, it’s a trope that I just cannot stand.

I’ve avoided this book from the start because I thought it was quite frankly kind of a gross and unpleasant premise, and at this point I feel like it’s just gone on too long. 3 or 4 issues of this I could take, but they’re like 12 in at this point and it’s just so not something that appeals to me.

Plus Marvel’s insistence that this is here to stay is just annoying. I kind of wish publishers would just be like “Here’s this thing, it’ll last for ten issues, if you don’t like it you can check in after that.”

ReplyReply
mygif

I think one of the reasons it’s worked so well is that for so long, Spiderman has been established as a “weird guy” for other heroes.

Whether you think that’s fair or not, for the longest time he’s been portrayed as strange or off-putting to others, not because of anything he does, but because of the full-body costume combined with the unconventional abilities. Yeah, he has friends among the heroes, but so many would probably go “Spider-man? Really?” if you suggested bringing him in. A lot of that comes from a person who came into it as a teenager without the guidance a mutant could theoretically get from the X-men, juggling multiple personal responsibilities along with trying to save lives, and actively putting on a persona of being a confident, wise-cracking man instead of a boy figuring it out as he goes along.

Enough of that lingered even after Peter was actually an adult that this change could be seen by other characters not as “My God, something is terribly wrong with Spider-man,” but “Man, he’s really changed his approach. Guess he realized this is serious business and stopped cracking jokes all the time.” Some of them might miss that more humorous, light-hearted version of Spider-man, but only after it’s gone, while others will see it as an improvement without thinking through the possible consequences.

Which just underlines the idea of it being a knowing look at how fans interact with superheroes. “Hey, wish you had a Spider-man who kills bad guys and is badass all the time? Now you do! It just involved Peter Parker having his mind violated and telepathically murdered by one of his greatest enemies. Enjoy!”

ReplyReply
mygif
magnuskn said on July 23rd, 2013 at 3:08 pm

You know, I think the amount of people who want “heroes” to kill off their opponents is vastly overestimated.

ReplyReply
mygif

As one of the guys who asked for your opinion on SSM, I’m really glad you’re enjoying it. I’m a longtime Spider-Man fan, and apparent one of the few that wasn’t upset with the BND status quo. (OMD was ridiculous, and they could’ve handled it better, but I’m not inherently opposed to a single Peter – especially when they’re bound to bring MJ back eventually.)

All I can say to the people who haven’t picked up Superior is that you should. Everything MGK says is spot on and it’s proving to be a very funny and enjoyable book. Ock is fun, but eventually Peter will be back, and with any luck he’ll have Miles in the 616′verse to be the Kate Bishop to his Clint Barton, sort of, maybe.

ReplyReply
mygif
SIlverHammerMan said on July 23rd, 2013 at 4:40 pm

I think what makes other characters not realizing what’s up with Spidey so dumb is that in a lot of ways he isn’t just acting more serious. I don’t know about the main SSM book, but I know that in Avenging and Avengers he’s been running around calling dudes “impudent whelps” and basically talking in the most supervillain-y way imaginable. I mean, it’s completely up to the writer if they think that’s more fun to read, and I find it is, but it definitely makes the other superheroes look dumb. Do they think Spidey’s just doing a bit or something?

ReplyReply
mygif

Well, to be fair, they have addressed Spider-Man acting out of character to the other heroes at this point; they captured him, did a full brain scan for foreign influences, and found him clean. A run-in with one of the X-Men’s telepaths would probably mean bad things for Doc-Ock, but short of that, he just appears to be a fairly weird guy acting out a different kind of weird, like Tales to Enrage said.

ReplyReply
mygif

No one has mentioned Dan Slott!!! Dan Slott is the man! His “Thing” series was great. His “She-Hulk” was batter-fried awesome-sauce. Remember Spidey in court saying J Jonah hates him ’cause he’s black!?! Brilliant! He also wrote one of my favorite Batman mini’s “Arkham Asylum: Living Hell.” I trust Dan Slott to do a good job. People seem to forget how story-telling works. It’s not an everything up front Who’s Who entry. Just take the ride and revel in Dan Slott’s Slottyness.

ReplyReply
mygif
SIlverHammerMan said on July 23rd, 2013 at 5:58 pm

I still think it’s kind of weird that the Avengers didn’t call in one of the X-Men telepaths, since I though we were supposed to be in an age of Avengers/X-Men cooperation.

I mean, it’s just what it takes to make the story work, but it’s weird.

ReplyReply
mygif
Energy-Puking Boy said on July 23rd, 2013 at 9:35 pm

@Gaming really hit the nail on the head I think. :-)

ReplyReply
mygif

he’s been running around calling dudes “impudent whelps” and basically talking in the most supervillain-y way imaginable…Do they think Spidey’s just doing a bit or something?

The thing is it’s pretty much canon that nobody else likes Spidey’s jokes except Spidey. They’re used to him saying annoying, irreverent things all the time. It’s believable to me that most of them can’t tell the difference.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 23rd, 2013 at 9:45 pm

“All I can say to the people who haven’t picked up Superior is that you should.”

I haven’t been buying it, but I’ve been reading it, and all I can say is, boy, was I wrong when I thought that OMD, BND and OMIT were the worst Spider-Man stories that could possibly be told.

I despise literally every last one of the defining traits of the premise and execution of this temporary-pretending-to-be-permanent status quo.

I detest how Dan Slott forced Peter to job to Otto on every level possible, not only by constantly having Otto show up Peter’s scientific and crime-fighting skills, but also by turning Peter into an irritatingly impotent whiner as a ghost, and then even going so far as to try and give Otto the moral high ground by revealing that Peter would have let a little girl die to save his own life.

I loathe how Slott wrote Otto plotting to bed Mary Jane for three issues as wacky romantic comedy hijinks that we were only supposed to find disturbing because Peter didn’t like the idea of Otto “touching his stuff,” and I abhor how we were supposed to gloss over Otto plotting to commit the rape-by-fraud of Mary Jane because he suddenly had a last-minute deus ex machina change of heart that led to him, yet again, being held up as morally superior to Peter because he recognized that any relationship between any Spider-Man and Mary Jane supposedly could never work.

I despair of how Slott’s irredeemable ineptitude as a writer is passed onto characters who should be competent, when it takes Otto-as-Peter not only talking and acting like a panto villain in his civilian life, but also brutalizing and killing his opponents as a superhero, for anyone to suspect that there’s anything even slightly off about him, after which they either get distracted and forget their misgivings immediately, or else try to verify them via methods that even the characters themselves admit are incompetent, such as having a brain-scan of Otto-as-Peter run by the Avengers WITHOUT any of the super-scientists who could make proper sense of the readings.

Slott’s versions of the Black Widow and Carlie Cooper are especially egregious in that regard, the Black Widow for Slott stealing one of the lines that Joss Whedon wrote for her in the Avengers film, in order to show her tacitly approving of Otto’s more brutal methods, which misses the whole point of the onscreen scene between her and Loki, and Carlie Cooper for refusing to warn Mary Jane that the man she’s dating again, however briefly, is actually a mass-murdering supervillain who’s simply wearing that man’s body and memories like a flesh-suit, but then again, that would require Slott to acknowledge a) the inherently rapey implications of the romance he was teasing between Otto-as-Peter and Mary Jane to tweak the fans, and b) the fact that, even if there hadn’t just recently been an invasion of Earth by an entire race of shape-shifting aliens, who raised humanity’s paranoia levels by impersonating countless well-connected people with apparently remarkable accuracy, Mary Jane has already seen through the Chameleon and Venom and literally more clones of Peter than even Marvel bothered to keep track of during the height of the “Clone Saga,” so there’s no reason that Mary Jane should be this blind to Otto’s deceptions, nor should anyone in the 616 Marvel Universe be even the slightest bit incredulous toward being told that a supervillain has hijacked the life of his sworn archenemy and is impersonating him, but then again, expecting internally consistent logic from Slott’s stories is like expecting him to pen non-hackneyed dialogue that sounds anything like how any actual human being has ever spoken.

And is it even worth pointing out that, in his most recently completed story arc, Slott has reduced J. Jonah Jameson to such a one-dimensional caricature that even the version of the character who commissioned the original Spider-Slayer during the Lee-and-Ditko days would think that the modern Jonah is a cartoonishly buffoonish caricature? Not only can Slott not be bothered to acknowledge that any of these characters have already been shown growing and evolving on the printed pages of the comics that have been published ever since the 1960s, but he can’t even live up to the nuances of Stan Lee’s bombastic portrayals of them back then, so I suppose it’s no wonder that it was too much effort for Slott to spend all of five seconds on Wikipedia to figure out exactly what it is that a mayor can and can NOT do (hint: He can NOT order the execution of a prisoner in a state that does not have the death penalty, and he can NOT order the decommissioning of a prison that falls under the purview of S.H.I.E.L.D. Not even BLOOMBERG could get away with doing that).

But as much as anything else, what I really hate about this whole exercise is that, far from being new or daring or in any way whatsoever creative or innovative, the Superior Spider-Man is simply yet another painful extension of the evolutionary dead end that was already marked out by Civil War and Dark Reign, in which we’re asked to seriously consider that maybe the merciless and sociopathic villains who want to rule humanity might actually be in the right, because Mark Millar and Tom Brevoort flatly stated that the end of Civil War proved the Pro-Reg side to be morally right, after which Brian Michael Bendis defended Norman Osborn being handed the keys to the kingdom in Dark Reign by arguing that Norman’s ruthlessness and insanity made him a more effective superhero than Spider-Man or Captain America, because apparently what Tony Stark did wrong after Civil War was not engaging in enough torture or imprisonment without due process or violations of basic human rights, and now, here’s Dan Slott, insisting in interviews that Otto-as-Peter has just as much right to be regarded as a hero as Wolverine and the Punisher (which ignores the fact that Wolverine and the Punisher have always been anti-heroes, even at their moral best, but I digress), and yes, of course Peter will be brought back, but I will bet you five PayPal dollars that Otto’s hijacking of his life will be used to restore him to his Lee-and-Ditko status quo of being hated and feared by the police and public as Spider-Man, and scorned as a disappointing, unreliable failure even by those closest to him as Peter Parker, and when Peter finally takes back his life from Otto, it will be as truncated, unconvincing and unsatisfying as when Norman Osborn was finally brought down at the end of Dark Reign, because that’s what happens when you have generations of fans, “creators” included, who grew up reading Frank Miller’s “Born Again” arc on Daredevil, and getting excited over the utter destruction of the hero’s life, and then getting bored with the hero rebuilding himself from his own ashes, because modern Marvel and DC alike are made by and for slavish lovers of nihilism as its own form of pornography, which is one of the rare forms of pornography that even I find morally offensive.

TL;DR: People who wholeheartedly enjoy the Superior Spider-Man masturbate to Dick Cheney’s ideology and the Villain Sue fanfics of short-sighted small minds who are emotionally frozen in the most self-centered yet totally non-self-aware aspects of adolescence.

ReplyReply
mygif

I detest how Dan Slott forced Peter to job to Otto on every level possible, not only by constantly having Otto show up Peter’s scientific and crime-fighting skills, but also by turning Peter into an irritatingly impotent whiner as a ghost, and then even going so far as to try and give Otto the moral high ground by revealing that Peter would have let a little girl die to save his own life.

The point is that that wasn’t Peter. It was Otto’s final visualization of Peter. Peter is, by all accounts, quite dead.

ReplyReply
mygif

You know, I think the amount of people who want “heroes” to kill off their opponents is vastly overestimated.

And pretty much all of them go to the comics shop owned by the Our Valued Customers guy (http://ourvaluedcustomers.blogspot.com/)

ReplyReply
mygif
Deltarno said on July 23rd, 2013 at 9:58 pm

Going to have to agree with K-Box here, putting villainous traits on display like this and then expecting us to enjoy them never really did well for me. DC’s reboot may have turned their people into jerks, but Marvel seems to be embracing evil as the new way to go. Wolverine in particular seems to have gone off the deep end.
Also found the the description of SpOck as “flesh-suit” hilarious for some reason.
A situation like this, where the villain continues his scheme (not a traditional evil scheme as MGK pointed out, but still jamming all the ‘evil is cool and efficient and gets all the girls’ buttons as hard as they can) only exists if the other heroes are holding the idiot ball. How I imagine it would look if the heroes had their act together?
http://magickmaker.deviantart.com/art/Superior-Spider-Man-Mind-Games-353192547

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 23rd, 2013 at 10:09 pm

“The point is that that wasn’t Peter. It was Otto’s final visualization of Peter. Peter is, by all accounts, quite dead.”

According to Slott and Wacker and Brevoort, not only are we meant to accept that the mental ghost version of Peter is an entirely accurate representation of his true character, flaws and all, but they’ve vehemently argued that anyone who believes otherwise is not a “true fan” of Spider-Man, because their contention is that portraying Peter as being BETTER than that is, in their own words, a) boring and b) a misreading of his established character on the printed page. So, according to the writer and editors of this story, not only is your defense of their story inaccurate, but as far as they’re concerned, it makes you a bad fan to boot.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 23rd, 2013 at 10:32 pm

… And it’s pretty telling that you couldn’t counter any of my other arguments.

ReplyReply
mygif
Mox Ruby said on July 23rd, 2013 at 10:39 pm

Way to kill the discussion. Anyone who didn’t want to slog through that huge rant and reply to it is automatically wrong?

Meh.

Comics everybody!

For the record, I appreciated the original post and Tales’ post.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 23rd, 2013 at 10:49 pm

“Anyone who didn’t want to slog through that huge rant and reply to it is automatically wrong?”

If you’re not willing to engage with any of the points that I’ve raised, then yes, you have indeed automatically lost the debate. That’s how debates work. You actually have to argue in favor of your own perspective, and argue against the opinions that you disagree with, rather than just throwing up your hands and saying, “Nuh-uh!”

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 23rd, 2013 at 11:01 pm

Deltarno: I am going to post that comic EVERYWHERE. :)

ReplyReply
mygif
Archie 5 said on July 23rd, 2013 at 11:14 pm

Oh K-Box, I knew you couldn’t resist. :)

ReplyReply
mygif
Deltarno said on July 24th, 2013 at 12:10 am

K-Box: Magickmaker is great at that sort of thing, check out the deviantart page!

ReplyReply
mygif
Ian Austin said on July 24th, 2013 at 1:46 am

K-Box – or it could be no one takes your rants as anything other than opinion, and doesn’t see a point in arguing opinion with opinion.

ReplyReply
mygif

K-Box,

Wow. Your reading of this is very different from mine. You seem to think this is all about people wanting a Spider-Man who kills. That’s not it. Killing folk, that’s all Doc Ock. I didn’t think this was all that subtle. And all the rape-y stuff. In the situation the story describes, this would come up! Being an all-ages book, it was resolved sans rape-y. I admit, Doc Ock has been uncommonly lucky in not being found out, but comics. Peter is acting irrationally. When hasn’t he? It is a good thing there’s no telepath in the Avengers. Is there one? Otherwise Ock would just need to stay out of Westchester County. Peter’s ghost being a bit selfish for a brief moment is completely in character. The whole point of Peter Parker is that one selfish moment at the beginning of his career playing out from time to time. It is a character flaw he is in constant battle with, even as a ghost. It is his tragedy writ across the breadth of his life. This doesn’t make him less heroic. It actually makes him more heroic. Overcoming his own crap as well as the crap the world throws at him is what makes Peter Peter. But that’s just my read. So Doc Ock seems more successful at Peter’s life than Peter doesn’t mean he’s doing it right. Like MGK said so eloquently above, therein lays the tragedy of Doc Ock. He is given the ultimate second chance, youth, friends, good family, and all the rest yet he still solves problems like a super villain. Please re-read MGK’s third to last paragraph above. It is a commentary, a critical commentary on the type of comics you say you hate. That whole ends justifies the means mindset that permeates our culture. Also, Peter’s coming back. Did you think Captain America was going to stay dead. Bucky Cap was Cap for quite some time. Sorry I can’t comment on everything you posted and I do not deny your read on this is your read, I just have to say I disagree.
I gotta speak to your closing thoughts. Dick Cheney power fantasies seem more up the alley of those whose fictions are pure black and white adolescent in aspect and function. There only to reinforce that those special mommy and daddy safe-time feelings remain. Peter Parker is always true and blue and the bad guys always wear black. Doc Ock actually trying to do good because those around him expect it of him doesn’t fit that adolescent good/bad paradigm Dick Cheney loves to read to his darling Liz. I like complexity. I know we’re arguing Spider-Man. But true blue heroes are a bit creepy in a propagandistic way, don’t you think? I don’t know what Villain Sue is. Wait a minute, maybe, like Doc Ock, Dick Cheney’s wearing Obama like a meat suit. Would explain a lot.

ReplyReply
mygif
Jesse Baker said on July 24th, 2013 at 2:50 am

In the perfect world, Wacker/Brevoort/Slott would be fired and blacklisted for this abortion and the following thing happen to damage control things:

1. Superior Spider-Man the series and AMS #697-700 are declared non-canon in that they are one of the seven fragmented timelines created when Scott Summers murdered Professor X where evil triumphs over good.

2. The REAL Doc Ock (his out of character behavior under Slott revealed to be due to his brain trauma) is repentant after he is cured off-camera by Elixer on orders from Julia Carpenter, who’s out of her coma and working to stop the Apocalypse Twins and Kang and the Seven (which includes Superior Spider-Man Otto). He joins Uncanny Avengers along with Spider-Man.

3. Due to the events of Age of Ultron, Superior Spider-Man Otto’s fragmented timeline is the first to be wiped out (removing the stories from canon and he’s stranded in the real Marvel Universe and joins forces with Kang and Red Skull and the rest of the Seven to take over the world.

4. Doc Ock and Spider-Man BOTH beat up SSM Otto and denounce him as a monster when he tells them what he did.

5. SSM Otto and Red Skull doublecross Kang and merge to create the new version of Onslaught, since Superior Spider-Man Otto’s crimes are so evil, so vile, so beyond redemption, that he is the only member of the Seven worthy to merge with Red Skull.

6. But in merging, Superior Spider-Man Otto suffers the same hellish fate he subjected Peter to TWICE as it is revealed to him, when the merging takes place, that Red Skull intends on and successfully erases Superior Spider-Man’s mind from existence, providing a fitting final death to SSM Otto.

ReplyReply
mygif

I wish to god that I could be handed the reins of the Spider-Man universe tomorrow. I feel it is imperative that we find out that Slott’s gimp-suit Doc Ock was, all along, Carlyle having been possessed by the Master Programmer, who then fled to Spider-Man’s body while the real Doc Ock watched from a secret hideout and plotted when to strike.

ReplyReply
mygif
Heksefatter said on July 24th, 2013 at 5:22 am

Urgh, to me this just sounds morbid and creepy. Not at all like a story I’d like to follow in any sense. A Doc Ock having taken over Spidey’s body and becoming a lawful evil failure as a hero?

It sound like the protagonist is likeable or even has that “awesomeness” that makes people like Doctor Doom, Darth Vader or other villains. To me it just seems like they’ve screwed even more up.

ReplyReply
mygif
Jesse Baker said on July 24th, 2013 at 5:52 am

The worse thing about SSM, is that Slott went out of his way to SCORCH EARTH all of Otto’s good qualities, by turning him into an unrepentant mass murderer right before the storyline THEN acting even WORSE when the mind switch happened and Slott not even BOTHERING to even have Otto have a real come to jesus moment in terms of playing the brain trauma card to undo those previous stories and have Otto utterly penitent when he’s in a body where his bran is not damaged to make him all mass murdery and non-competent that he basically sealed Peter’s doom and can’t find any way to stop it now that his sanity has been restored and what he has done is right there in front of him.

Which goes towards Marvel’s worship of the sociopathic monster as heroes, though I will add that even Norman’s tenure as Iron Patriot was handled far better than this, since A. Ellis managed to basically de-Satanify Norman and return him to his original pre-death of Gwen Stacy personality in Thunderbolts and B. The fact that Bendis (in Dark Avengers at least) played around with the idea of Norman going into the Dark Avengers/Iron Patriot thing with good intentions and that after Luke Cage double crossed him after a legit moment of goodness (helping him save his daughter), did he start going bad and even then, that was largely egged on by Loki being a dick to him.

Slott completely and totally ruined Doc Ock as a character as part of this farce, doing to him what Meltzer did with Doctor Light in terms of saddling him with such character assassination-styled writing that basically renders him irreversibly radioactive in the end. But worse, he does this THEN demands we treat Otto as being BETTER than Peter, further providing insult to injury in terms of saying “Old Doc Ock was stupid character, only mass murdering Doc Ock matters!”

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 5:52 am

“And all the rape-y stuff. In the situation the story describes, this would come up! Being an all-ages book, it was resolved sans rape-y.”

The resolution does nothing to excuse the fact that a) Slott refused to acknowledge its inherently rapey implications in the first place and b) treated the whole affair as an excuse for wacky romantic comedy hijinks, AS I ALREADY STATED, so at least do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote if you’re going to try and refute it.

“Peter is acting irrationally. When hasn’t he?”

Like Slott, you engage in gross false equivalency. Not all types or levels or “acting irrational” are identical, or even equivalent. This snaps the suspension of disbelief even by the standards that Slott himself has set.

“It is a good thing there’s no telepath in the Avengers. Is there one?”

Once again, if you had actually bothered to read what I had already written, you would note that I pointed out that even the Avengers themselves pointed out how idiotic it was for them to run a brain-scan on Peter when none of the team members who were present knew how to read the results properly. What, they couldn’t have just waited for one of their resident super-scientists to clock back in? They verified Peter’s mental state with all the lack of due diligence of a teenager filling a drive-thru order at McDonald’s, which makes them look stupid and careless.

“Peter’s ghost being a bit selfish for a brief moment is completely in character. The whole point of Peter Parker is that one selfish moment at the beginning of his career playing out from time to time.”

No, your interpretation of the character is completely the opposite of the whole point of his origin, which is that his one selfish moment made him so guilt-prone that he actually beats himself up unduly over things that aren’t even his fault, and whatever lapses that he’s had since then have been 1) when he was much, much younger, 2) when the writers of the “Clone Saga” were trying to convince us that he wasn’t the “real” Peter Parker and 3) after the start of Brand New Day, when an entire crew of writers and editors, including the current writer and editor of the “Superior” Spider-Man, actually admitted that they were deliberately regressing Peter’s intellect and maturity because they didn’t like that he’d been turned into a smart adult by previous writers. Moreover, absolutely nothing that Peter has done in the past has even approached the level of letting a little girl die to save his own life.

“It actually makes him more heroic.”

There is no possible context in which Peter is made more heroic by him considering, however briefly, that he should let a little girl die to save his own life, and you are both logically and morally wrong for thinking so.

“It is a commentary, a critical commentary on the type of comics you say you hate. That whole ends justifies the means mindset that permeates our culture.”

No, it’s really not. I’m sure Slott will claim it is in retrospect, but the fact of the matter is that he’s already devoted what would be more than a year of issues, under a normal publishing schedule, to showing how Doc Ock is so smart and everyone around him is so dumb, and Slott has already defended Otto’s methods and intentions in several interviews, to the point of saying that it’s unfairly judgmental for us to still be condemning him as not sufficiently heroic, so much like Norman Osborn and the Pro-Reg side going down in Dark Reign, the conclusion that “he was wrong all along” will be truncated and unconvincing, because like the rest of Marvel’s current creators and editors, Slott is an authoritarian who mistakenly believes himself to be a progressive.

“Also, Peter’s coming back. Did you think Captain America was going to stay dead.”

And YET AGAIN, I already addressed this in the post to which you’re replying. because no matter HOW this story is resolved, it is so OBJECTIVELY poorly written that it should not even be allowed to EXIST in the first place. That’s like punching someone in the balls over and over and over, and then telling them, “What are you crying for? You know I’m going to stop eventually,” when I shouldn’t have to go through that experience to begin with, and the longer it lasts, the more permanent damage it’s guaranteed to do.

“Doc Ock actually trying to do good because those around him expect it of him doesn’t fit that adolescent good/bad paradigm Dick Cheney loves to read to his darling Liz. I like complexity.”

No, it doesn’t fit, because Dan Slott himself wrote Doc Ock as 1) a literally genocidal mass-murderer whose flatly stated goal was to exterminate all life on Earth for no other reason than to spite one man whom he had a grudge against and 2) utterly unrepentant about plotting to rape Mary Jane even after he ultimately decided not to, and you reveal how totally you misunderstand Dick Cheney’s philosophy of cynical opportunism, because the entire point of his worldview is that it’s okay if bastards do bastardly things, as long as they’re on the “right side” and doing them for the “right reasons,” which actually fits in much more with a Spider-Man whose killing and other brutal methods meet with the Black Widow’s approval. Cheney is not about black-and-white morality, but an absolute ABSENCE of morality in the name of supposedly “getting the job done,” which Slott already foreshadowed by having Peter Parker seriously consider “acid-boarding” the Sandman to extract information from him, with Slott himself adopting the factually untrue position that torture actually yields accurate information, when in point of fact, everyone who’s actually worked in the field of interrogation in the real world will tell you that it’s almost guaranteed to yield INaccurate data, to the point that our use of water-boarding and the like actually DELAYED our eventual apprehension of Osama bin Laden. Your idea of moral “complexity” is immature in its adolescent nihilism.

“But true blue heroes are a bit creepy in a propagandistic way, don’t you think?”

On the contrary, I find the jaded insistence that all heroes must ultimately be acting out of self-interest and questionable motives to be much more in line with fascist propaganda of might making right in and of itself, because if no one is actually serving a higher moral good, then no one can credibly challenge the injustices and oppressions perpetrated by those who wield power and authority over others. What you apparently see as a rebellious and transgressive stance actually makes you an unwitting servant of puppet-masters like Cheney and his ilk.

ReplyReply
mygif

It’s wonderful that the comments have made this a Scans_Daily post from 5 years ago.

Quick, somebody tell Slott to die in a fire!

ReplyReply
mygif
Yvonmukluk said on July 24th, 2013 at 9:40 am

My whole attitude to this has been a resounding ‘meh’. But then I wasn’t really into comics when OMD kicked off, and nothing much of Spidey’s subsquent story trajectory has caught my interest. Except for the new Scarlet Spider, and the Real Clone Saga.

ReplyReply
mygif
clodia_risa said on July 24th, 2013 at 9:43 am

I’ve only started reading comics in the past 7 years or so, and while I’d read a few good runs of Spider-Man, I hadn’t been pulled in by it. This run has changed that, despite the furor of some of my friends over the death of Peter Parker. I find the examination of what makes a hero a hero to intellectually thrilling and a breath of fresh air. I also think it would be fantastic if Miles Morales would swoop in and save the day because I’d love to read about him too, but I find the Ultimates Verse off-putting.

ETA: So far, I am of dual minds on the Mary Jane Plotline. One the one hand, wacky hijinks! On the other hand, holy god his pursuit is not okay in any way shape or form due to the deceit on his part. Yes, worse than pretending to be Spider-Man or Peter Parker in general. The latter is winning out, although I somewhat understand how the writers couldn’t resist.

ReplyReply
mygif
American Hawkman said on July 24th, 2013 at 10:26 am

For the record, I’d not read the Spider-books regularly since Ben Reilly died until this dragged me back in. I agree with everything MGK said about it, and am enjoying the ride, with the assumption being that it is only temporary, and is a clever way to return Peter back to the classic “distrusted by everyone” status quo in time for the next writer, once Spider-Ock destroys Peter’s reputation.

For those who are wondering why the Avengers haven’t caught on yet, the vast majority of them that have regularly interacted with Spider-Man before the mind-swap are out of the team now, or haven’t spent much time with him since. Wolverine became suspicious IMMEDIATELY, only to get shamed out of pushing too hard by his X-Men teammates who refused to run a telepathic probe for him, Thor’s meeting with Spider-Ock had Ock’s weird characterization being a perfectly rational response to Thor being arrogant, and the Avengers ultimately put Ock on probation ANYWAY, which was somewhat mitigated from expulsion because he ultimately cooperated with the probe into him, and the Black Widow apparently is worried about what killing for the first time has done to his mindset in an empathetic way that makes excuses for him. Otherwise, Spider-Ock’s interacted with Avengers for a grand total of 4 panels or so since he was replaced, ignoring the Age of Ultron stuff that didn’t stick, and essentially all of the guys who have caught him being weird aren’t people that know the real Peter well enough to tell. (Cannonball, Sunspot, Hyperion, and the like.) Cage’s new Avengers team including Spider-Ock will be… interesting… as to how close proximity with people that actually KNOW Peter will react.

ReplyReply
mygif
Elijah Fly said on July 24th, 2013 at 10:45 am

I pretty much quit spider-man, and nearly all comics for that matter, because of the utterly disgusting treatment of Mary Jane. Rapidly approaching worse than a refrigerator, if not shot past it.

and it really pisses me off we’re getting a ‘distrusted’ Spider-Man. I really dug Spider-man: Avenger/science teacher.

ReplyReply
mygif

Yeah, I haven’t been too impressed with this storyline. While not quite as vehement about them as K-Box, I do find most of his points reasonably accurate. It’s a shame, because for a long while Slott was one of my favorite writers, but his work on Spider-man has really been a disappointment.

ReplyReply
mygif

Dear K-Box,

I apologize for getting your dander up. I do see where you’re coming from with your argument. I happen to disagree with some of it. What I completely disagree on is that serving the higher moral good should be accomplished without doubt and the occasional selfish thought. You may as well program a robot with higher moral good code. People have doubts and contradictions and stuff. To illustrate that in a story adds a layer of realistic complexity to a character. Yes, Peter has grown and evolved, but I’m sure that that scared little boy is still in there waiting to come out when stress reaches apocalyptic levels (like being dead, say). It isn’t jaded to want a character much more morally complex than the Golden Age Superman. That he still does the right thing, despite being human and afflicted by all the doubt and narcissism that being human entails, is aspirational to us all. That he sometimes fails (in being dead, say) but still soldiers on (off-screen for now I guess until whatever brings him back brings him back) is inspirational. Humans are complex. I like that about us. I like stories that illustrate that about us.
Also, I like that thing about getting hit in the balls over and over again. Hilarious!

ReplyReply
mygif

Yeah, no. If K-Box and Baker_Baker are going to start polluting this blog, I’m out. I’ve seen what they can do to forums.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 1:08 pm

“I agree with everything MGK said about it, and am enjoying the ride, with the assumption being that it is only temporary, and is a clever way to return Peter back to the classic ‘distrusted by everyone’ status quo in time for the next writer, once Spider-Ock destroys Peter’s reputation.”

Which is yet another problem, because that status quo is played out as all hell, every bit as much as OH NOES HOW CAN I RUSH OFF TO SAVE LIVES AS SPIDER-MAN WITHOUT REVEALING TO [fill-in-the-blank interchangeable love interest of the moment] MY SECRET IDENTITY??? Indeed, one of the refreshing things about the modern Marvel movieverse is that it’s a) dispensed entirely with contrived secret identity hijinks and b) offered a far more balanced civilian perspective on their superheroes, with at least as many members of the public who adore our heroes as those who have relatively valid reasons for mistrusting them, as opposed to the Flanderization of the 616 Marvel Universe’s civilian public in going YEARGH WE HATE MUTANTS AND SPIDER-MAN AND ALL OTHER HEROES EXCEPT WHEN THEY’RE VILLAINS LIKE NORMAN OSBORN WHO ARE CALLING THEMSELVES HEROES IN WHICH CASE WE LOVE THEM.

“Otherwise, Spider-Ock’s interacted with Avengers for a grand total of 4 panels or so since he was replaced [...]”

Which is itself a problem, because they apparently are aware enough that he’s acting dangerously unlike himself to haul him in for questioning, but don’t give a damn enough to thoroughly vet him, yet again, by having one of their super-scientists monitor the results of the brain-scan, and given that an entire line-wide crossover was devoted a few years ago to the whole world going justifiably nuts over the number of Skrulls who had infiltrated all levels of human society, not to mention the number of Spider-Man foes whose gimmicks often revolve around being doppelgängers of him, maybe they should actually be shown being a bit more concerned, and doing a bit more due diligence, than simply fulfilling just barely enough of their narrative obligations for Slott to insist that he’s already covered that, so we’re not allowed to criticize him for it.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 1:09 pm

“I pretty much quit spider-man, and nearly all comics for that matter, because of the utterly disgusting treatment of Mary Jane. Rapidly approaching worse than a refrigerator, if not shot past it.
“and it really pisses me off we’re getting a ‘distrusted’ Spider-Man. I really dug Spider-man: Avenger/science teacher.”

If you had a newsletter, I would subscribe to it. :)

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 1:18 pm

“I also think it would be fantastic if Miles Morales would swoop in and save the day because I’d love to read about him too, but I find the Ultimates Verse off-putting.”

See, if 616 Peter had died and been replaced by Miles Morales, I still would have lamented the loss of a character I once loved, but at least I’d feel like he had a worthy successor in place. Miles is a good kid, and you’re right, he deserves better than the Ultimate Universe.

“So far, I am of dual minds on the Mary Jane Plotline. One the one hand, wacky hijinks! On the other hand, holy god his pursuit is not okay in any way shape or form due to the deceit on his part. Yes, worse than pretending to be Spider-Man or Peter Parker in general. The latter is winning out, although I somewhat understand how the writers couldn’t resist.”

While you and I obviously still disagree on the “Superior” Spider-Man overall, I respect and thank you for being willing to acknowledge this deeply problematic point, which is more than Dan Slott, Steve Wacker or Tom Brevoort were willing to do.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 1:34 pm

“What I completely disagree on is that serving the higher moral good should be accomplished without doubt and the occasional selfish thought.”

And I’m not saying that, because I myself acknowledged, a huge part of Peter’s character is that his guilt is always causing him to question himself, and to wonder if he could have done more, but again, I think it’s the height of false equivalency to say that “not being perfect” should be seen as anywhere near the same level as “allowing innocent children to die in his stead.” That’s like comparing a hangnail to the Holocaust.

“Yes, Peter has grown and evolved, but I’m sure that that scared little boy is still in there waiting to come out when stress reaches apocalyptic levels (like being dead, say).”

Except that this isn’t even the first (or second, or third) time that he’s LITERALLY BEEN DEAD, with his spirit ascending to Heaven and everything. Which makes this a symptom of the same problem I’ve had with the whole post-OMD treatment of Peter Parker overall, which is that they have him acting like a scared, stupid rookie in the face of challenges that he’s already weathered several (and in some cases literally countless) times before. That’s NOT “morally complex.” That’s the OPPOSITE of “morally complex.” Saying “It just takes a bad enough crisis for even a veteran superhero like Spider-Man to be willing to sacrifice innocent lives to save his own” is not in any way “complex” or “inspiring,” because it’s a reductive bit of cynicism that insists that even the best of heroes ultimately have feet of clay, and the fact that you insist that making Peter BETTER than that somehow makes him an impossible paragon of virtue is quite telling, I think, because even I, as a non-superhero, can say for a fact that I sure as hell wouldn’t pull an Alan Stillson in The Dead Zone and hold up a helpless child as a human shield for myself, and as I’m sure you’d agree, I’m not even a particularly nice guy; I’m just a guy who has certain moral codes, instilled in me by my upbringing and honed by my years of military service, which were nowhere near as hard as Peter Parker’s life as a superhero. I was deployed in two foreign wars, but Peter has faced down literal gods and monsters, so you’re goddamn right I think he should at least live up to my own meager moral standard of, you know, NOT being tempted to throw an ailing child under the bus to save my own ass. We’re not even talking about HEROIC behavior anymore; that’s simply BASELINE behavior for what it takes to qualify as a DECENT HUMAN BEING.

ReplyReply
mygif
clodia_risa said on July 24th, 2013 at 1:46 pm

@K-Box

I fully respect the issues you have with Superior Spider-Man.

As for the Mary Jane subplot, I’m honestly about 9 parts grossed out because of its subplot versus 1 part amused at the meta-aspects of it, including Doc Ock calling Parker a fool for letting her go. I have huge issues with the creators not realizing how extremely uncute non-consent is. When the truth comes out in-story, I hope that Mary Jane rips “Superior Spider-Man” a new one.

ReplyReply
mygif

I think an interesting take on the story’s finale would be the discussion of ‘what is the self’. As in, is Superior Spider Man REALLY Doc Ock in Peter’s body, or simply Peter having been mentally conditioned with Doc’s memories?

We know some kind of afterlife exists in the Marvel verse. I would love to see a scene where Doc finds himself in some sort of limbo or purgatory, and realized he actually died when his body passed away, and the ‘thing’ in Peter’s head is just a copy of him. Then Doc finds some way to be resurrected (Mephisto, whatever) and hunts down Spiderman to ‘set things right’… after all there can’t be TWO Doc Ocks running around. Doc restores Peter’s memories but everything Spiderman did while under Doc’s mind clone’s influence remains, and now he has all that extra guilt to deal with (‘did “I” do that, or was I someone else?’).

ReplyReply
mygif

Dear K-Box,

Pete was totally focused on Doc Ock. Doc pointed out Peter’s failings to him. Peter made no decision to put himself ahead of the child. He did not put her in the path of the assassin’s bullet. He wasn’t even thinking of her. That’s why it was so devastating to him when this was pointed out by Ock. I can see his desperation of the situation he was in make him not see everyone in the room. In hindsight, he should have, but in hindsight is where Pete lives most of the time. It’s a tragedy. And that makes for good stories. Again, I do not read that he held that girl up as a shield.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 2:57 pm

“As for the Mary Jane subplot, I’m honestly about 9 parts grossed out because of its subplot versus 1 part amused at the meta-aspects of it, including Doc Ock calling Parker a fool for letting her go. I have huge issues with the creators not realizing how extremely uncute non-consent is. When the truth comes out in-story, I hope that Mary Jane rips ‘Superior Spider-Man’ a new one.”

See, I almost could have appreciated it if Mary Jane was given some agency, so that even if she didn’t spot that Otto was an impostor (as she’s done with the Chameleon and Peter’s clones), she could still look at Otto-as-Peter, at the height of his success, and say, “No, I’m sorry, but something is just … WRONG about you. You’re not the man I loved,” because that would at least a) put her in control of how the relationship turned out and b) sell the strength of her lingering love for Peter, to make it clear that these two SHOULD and WILL eventually be together again.

By contrast, even when Otto’s planned rape of Mary Jane was averted, it wasn’t because SHE stopped it before it could start, but because OTTO changed his mind, thereby making Mary Jane an OBJECT in that plotline TWICE OVER, while trying to sell us on the ideas that a) Otto is such a swell guy for ultimately deciding NOT to go ahead with his planned rape of Mary Jane, to the point that both Mary Jane and even PETER serve as Slott’s mouthpieces to praise Otto for it, and b) because Otto is smarter and supposedly more moral than Peter, he sees that a romance between Peter and Mary Jane could never work out, and that it’s wrong for them to even TRY to make it work.

Something I’ve noticed about Slott overall is that he’s highly chauvinistic toward the Lee-and-Ditko run on Spider-Man, to the point of doing as much as he can to regress all these characters to how they were back then (or rather, how Slott saw them as being back then), up to and including his intentional tearing down of Mary Jane, whom he and several other Marvel writers have gone on record as saying never should have been elevated to the status of Peter’s greatest love.

Indeed, Slott’s unexamined readings of those past stories account for a lot of his problems as a writer, because he believes that the storytelling flaws of fan-favorite stories written decades ago justify him repeating those same flaws in his own writing, either because it’s too much bother for him to fix them or because he intentionally included those flaws, when in point of fact, writers should always be striving to improve on storytelling, both their own and the standards that have been set by others, so that we don’t wind up inadvertently perpetuating the prejudicial tropes of old.

Because yeah, one of the ’80s slob comedies that I used to love was Revenge of the Nerds, but I never recommend that anyone see it now without first telling them, “This film was created three decades ago, so there is some AMAZING racism and sexism in here, because we were kind of a lot dumber as a society back then,” and yes, the one scene I have to skip over anymore is when Robert Carradine’s nerd basically rapes that sorority girl by pretending to be her jock boyfriend, but the movie justifies it because she liked it, which makes me feel skeevy just to TYPE, but was a remarkably common trope back then, and as much as we might dismiss its impact as unrealistic disposable entertainment, when you raise entire generations of men to accept that rape-by-impersonation is simply wacky romantic comedy hijinks, then you shouldn’t wonder why real-world teenage rape victims are now branded “whores” for getting raped while they were drunk.

ReplyReply
mygif
clodia_risa said on July 24th, 2013 at 3:12 pm

@K-Box

“By contrast, even when Otto’s planned rape of Mary Jane was averted, it wasn’t because SHE stopped it before it could start, but because OTTO changed his mind, thereby making Mary Jane an OBJECT in that plotline TWICE OVER, while trying to sell us on the ideas that a) Otto is such a swell guy for ultimately deciding NOT to go ahead with his planned rape of Mary Jane, to the point that both Mary Jane and even PETER serve as Slott’s mouthpieces to praise Otto for it, and b) because Otto is smarter and supposedly more moral than Peter, he sees that a romance between Peter and Mary Jane could never work out, and that it’s wrong for them to even TRY to make it work.”

Well put.

Yeah, I have so many books and movies that I have to put the sexist disclaimer to. And racist. And several that I refuse to read because I can’t look past momentary lapses into territory that make me very uncomfortable, but I’m supposed to just ignore. I can sorta deal with this one, because I like what’s being done overall (ignoring MJ). But neither will I be able to say to anyone who can’t read it for the MJ storyline that they should get over it.

As for the comparisons to previous storylines, I cannot comment as my knowledge is limited, but I find your analysis interesting.

ReplyReply
mygif

Personally, I’m enjoying Spider-Otto. I’m a latecomer to the storyline so I’m not familiar with every detail of it, but nothing I’ve read so far here is discouraging.

The thing I like the most about it is that it feels original, both for Spider-Man and for superhero stories in general.

As for it being an original Spider-Man story, let’s be honest here, the usual plot of a Spider-Man story is fairly well-defined: personal life sucks, almost always does the right thing, very powerful on the rare occasions he doesn’t hold back, occasionally is a tiny bit selfish (frequently quits being Spider-Man, for example) but karma immediately makes him pay for it, blah blah blah. It’s not a bad story, but there are only so many variations on it they can do, and they’ve been doing variations on it for most of 50 years. FIFTY YEARS.

As for it being an original superhero story, there are lots of “villain takes over a hero’s identity” and “villain kinda sorta becomes good but doesn’t know how” stories, but very few where the villain seems so smart about it, and/or where it has become the status quo. Sure, it won’t last, but Spider-Ock is part of the Marvel universe in ways that Chameleon in disguise or a Skrull in disguise never has been, except maybe in retcon. It’s interesting to see what’ll happen next.

EDIT: “but nothing I’ve read so far here is discouraging…” except the “Mary Jane has no agency” bits, which make it seem like this story marginalizes female characters even more than the usual comic book does, which is saying something. If that part of the story is as bad as this makes it sound when I get around to reading it, fair enough, I may not stick with the series after that. It’s striking how little that has to do with the basic idea, though.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 3:29 pm

“Again, I do not read that he held that girl up as a shield.”

The problem is that the narrative itself consistently takes Otto’s side over Peter throughout the run of the “Superior” Spider-Man, first by having Peter voice his objections to what Otto is doing with his life in the most irritating and ineffectual fashion possible, to the point that even several fans who still want to see Peter back were relieved when his ghost was “killed,” to spare them from his further “whining” (which is also notable for the fact that Slott admitted that he drew several of Peter’s complaints directly from message board posts criticizing his story), and THEN by framing Ghost Peter’s supposedly final conflict with Otto so that a) Otto gets in the triumphant last word and b) Peter is depicted as small and cowering and crushed by the moral righteousness of Otto’s claim.

“It’s a tragedy. And that makes for good stories.”

Not necessarily. Indeed, badly rendered attempts at tragedy are directly responsible for the vast majority of the worst superhero comic book stories ever told, because writers like Slott automatically assume that what’s “tragic” is somehow more “true” or more “deep,” when in point of fact that’s a very immature adolescent way of thinking.

“Peter made no decision to put himself ahead of the child.”

Actually, according to the Word of God from Slott, Wacker and Brevoort, he did indeed do exactly that, albeit briefly, so as I already pointed out to MGK, according to the very same guys whose story you’re defending, your interpretation of their story is not what they intended, and moreover, they’re personally insulted fans who believe that Peter WOULDN’T make such a decision, by telling them that those fans don’t really like or understand Spider-Man if they think Peter would be better than that.

ReplyReply
mygif

I’m genuinely surprised Slott or Wacker haven’t shown up yet to troll the people who don’t show whatever they consider to be the proper amount of reverence and obsequiousness for spOck. I could swear they have a google alert set up for that purpose and they seem not to have anything better to do with their time.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 3:42 pm

“The thing I like the most about it is that it feels original, both for Spider-Man and for superhero stories in general.”

The problem for me is that, within the larger context of Marvel comics overall, this just feels like yet another story, since Bendis began the ruination of the 616 Marvel Universe with Avengers Disassembled coming up on a decade ago, in which the heroes are all dumb and impotent and hypocritical, and the villains succeed due to plot armor that snaps the suspension of disbelief even by superhero comic book standards, with the writers and editors telling us throughout that the worst traits of those villains are also what make them more effective and even more MORAL than the heroes.

Especially in the wake of both Bush AND Obama using the Patriot Act to wipe their asses with Americans’ civil liberties in the name of “homeland security” — which doesn’t actually work anyway, because even the CIA’s own findings have proven that increased warrantless surveillance and the use of torture in interrogation actually make us LESS SAFE as a nation from terrorists — I can’t help but consider it TREASONOUS for storytellers to still be seriously suggesting, even within the context of a purely SPECULATIVE discussion, that maybe we need to consider the merits of letting brutal bastards ride roughshod over everyone to “protect” us.

Not only is that a viewpoint without any validity, but it shouldn’t be afforded any validity even as a HYPOTHETICAL.

People who defend water-boarding (or, in the case of Slott’s own Spider-Man stories, “acid-boarding”), even as a “necessary evil,” deserve to go down in history as being just as bad as those who supported the lynching of blacks.

It’s an opinion SO wrong that you shouldn’t even be entitled to BELIEVE in it, much less ESPOUSE it, if you want to live in America.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 3:48 pm

“It’s not a bad story, but there are only so many variations on it they can do, and they’ve been doing variations on it for most of 50 years. FIFTY YEARS.”

Hey, I’ll actually agree with you there, but blame the current Marvel editorial crew for retconning away Peter’s marriage to Mary Jane specifically because they wanted to tell MORE of those sorts of stories, and by their own admission, Mary Jane as Peter’s wife actually forced them to try and tell OTHER stories besides that. These folks were the kinds of kids who deliberately broke their own toys, then complained that they couldn’t have any fun playing with broken toys.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 3:53 pm

“As for it being an original superhero story, there are lots of ‘villain takes over a hero’s identity’ and ‘villain kinda sorta becomes good but doesn’t know how” stories, but very few where the villain seems so smart about it, and/or where it has become the status quo.”

Again, aside from Villain Sue contrivances that well exceed the level of strategy that Doc Ock has ever demonstrated before, he actually isn’t being all that smart; it’s just that everyone else around him has been dumbed down in extremely out-of-character ways, to the point that Otto can talk exactly like a Silver Age stereotype of a supervillain — one whom Mary Jane has herself encountered on several separate occasions, let’s not forget — complete with hackneyed panto villain dialogue like “impudent whelp,” and she doesn’t even bat an eye. That’s FLATLY bad writing.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 3:58 pm

“It’s wonderful that the comments have made this a Scans_Daily post from 5 years ago.
“Quick, somebody tell Slott to die in a fire!”

Spoken by someone who can’t contradict any of the actual points that I made.

By the way, it was proven that Slott was lying about that claim, which he got called out on when he decided to go trolling on the non-industry blog of a complete stranger who literally typed a single sentence that was critical of his conduct.

Slott is a creepy stalker and a cowardly bully.

ReplyReply
mygif

Is the manifesto over? Okay then.

Well MGK, I hope you learned a valuable lesson about talking about what you like on your own blog!

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 4:14 pm

“As for the comparisons to previous storylines, I cannot comment as my knowledge is limited, but I find your analysis interesting.”

It’s like this: Stan Lee was a great storyteller, but modern writers who say, “Well, I should be able to get away with this because Stan did it, and everyone loves his stories,” is an idiot, pure and simple.

Stan Lee had a great gift for compact yet epic storytelling, complete with bombastic dialogue that managed to feel operatic in spite of itself, but Stan’s portrayals of female characters like Sue Storm were also hellaciously sexist, just to name one of his unintentionally prejudicial flaws, and we forgive him because he was already a middle-aged man when he wrote that stuff fully half a century ago, but the writers of today have no such excuses for choosing to perpetuate the less glorious tropes of Lee’s storytelling.

And again, what makes this especially damning in Slott’s case is that several of the storytellers who followed Stan Lee had already done tremendous work in addressing the more problematic aspects of how those characters had originally been written by Lee — J.M. DeMatteis should have been handed a lifetime achievement award just for how much he transformed Aunt May from a plot device into a full-fledged character in her own right, for example — but by the directly stated admission of Slott and Wacker and Brevoort, they’ve been intentionally reversing course on a lot of that character development, that’s already occurred over the course of several decades, because they wanted the characters to cleave more closely to how Lee originally presented them, flaws from their eras and all.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 4:15 pm

“Well MGK, I hope you learned a valuable lesson about talking about what you like on your own blog!”

God forbid I bother to respond to what he’s written with anything other than MEGADITTOS.

ReplyReply
mygif

Spoken by someone who can’t contradict any of the actual points that I made.

Your deranged tone is doing more to discredit you than any deductive argument could. Comparing Dan Slott to Dick Cheney? Accusing writers of treason? Capitalizing words at random?

It’s a story. You don’t like it, fine. I do, but realize I’ve only read a tiny bit of it so far; of those who have read more, some like it, some don’t. I’m willing to bet that your stated beliefs about fans of the series are wrong in many ways, but that’s beside the point: you’re acting like a complete nut. I’m pretty sure there’s a middle ground between “MEGADITTOS” and writing 4,797 words about how Superior Spider-Man fans support torture and Slott is a horrible person.

ReplyReply
mygif
freeballer said on July 24th, 2013 at 4:50 pm

Slott’s piss poor writing on ASM should have gotten him fired, not writing a “brand new title”. I tried to like this, as a comic fanboy and spider-man fanatic… After glancing at 14 and seeing “spider-man” allowing a drug dealer on a street corner as not a priority, It made me EXTREMELY angry. This title is so beyond hope, so horribly written and thought up, otto isn’t trying to become a “better person” so the whole premise is flawed. He’s taking out his rivals, and those who have mocked him – which admitedly is the whole marvel universe..

Its really suprising that anybody buys it. You want “dark” spider-man read venom or scarlet.. The whole industry standard has sunk to new levels, and review sites are so horribly positive about any old title from the major publishers its hard to find a gem in all the pile of crap there is out there.

But I know that sooner or later, not only will PP be back, but that sales will get so bad that slott will (hopefully) be fired and a new team take over. I could go on with everything thats wrong with the title, but its easier to say whats good about it; ___ (nothing, zich, nadda)

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 4:55 pm

“Comparing Dan Slott to Dick Cheney? Accusing writers of treason? Capitalizing words at random?”

Dan Slott wrote a Spider-Man story in which Spider-Man contemplated “acid-boarding” the Sandman in order to extract information from him, and it was made clear on the text of the printed page itself that the phrase “acid-boarding” was deliberately meant to parallel the practice of “water-boarding,” and while Peter ultimately decided against the practice, Slott still treated it as a given that the use of torture to extract information will yield accurate data, which has been the party line of Dick Cheney and his fellow neo-cons. Furthermore, Brian Michael Bendis specifically compared Norman Osborn to Dick Cheney, BY NAME, during an interview promoting Dark Reign, and he did so to argue that Norman DESERVED to be in power over America, because of the personality traits that BENDIS HIMSELF flatly stated that Norman Osborn and Dick Cheney share in common, which he saw as a GOOD thing. And yes, I believe it is treasonous to the spirit of what America stands for to promote the idea that torture could ever in any way be morally tolerable, and I emphasize certain words with CAPITAL LETTERS because, even after writing thousands of words on this subject, people like you STILL manage to misread what I CLEARLY wrote (assuming, of course, that you’re not arguing in bad faith).

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 4:59 pm

“You want “dark” spider-man read venom or scarlet.”

It’s not just that they want a “darker” Spider-Man, because as you point out, there are already several. It’s that they want there NOT to be ANY “bright” Spider-Men.

It’s the same as the argument that Marvel made in favor of retconning the marriage; in every other iteration of the character except for Spider-Girl (which was cancelled anyway), Peter Parker is already single, but the fact that ANY version of the character was married was what Marvel found intolerable.

ReplyReply
mygif
freeballer said on July 24th, 2013 at 5:09 pm

well than they should just break them up, in some dramatic way or kill his love interest.. But the senseless, and endless character assassination makes me wonder if I should give up any hope of a decent spider-man book, and find another hero to latch onto.

Parker has always had his “parker luck”, he’s always a self-deprecating geek/loser… GENIUS who does the right thing because of his upbrining. He’s been selfless, heroic, goofy and always had a huge heart. I don’t get why this isn’t the kind of person to look up to? Despite his flaws he’s been my hero since childhood.. Thats like superman not being a boyscout, batman not being broken…

And I don’t think otto cares about being “good”, he’s doing everything for selfish reasons, for his own arrogance and need to be better than anybody else. He’s taking out his enemies, not cleaning up new york..
It’ll spudder and fizz out… I hope.

if would be sad f I can’t share spider-man with my children/grandchildren…

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 5:19 pm

And for the record, Dan Slott himself used the term “torture” to describe the acid-boarding of the Sandman, at the same time that he insisted that Peter Parker has ALWAYS engaged in torture as Spider-Man, because Slott actually believes that Spidey’s “psychological torture” of his foes — which is how Slott categorized Spidey making fun of supervillains during their fights — is every bit as bad as acid-boarding the Sandman.

So, yeah … tell me how I’m misrepresenting these guys, again?

ReplyReply
mygif
Savage Wombat said on July 24th, 2013 at 5:27 pm

You know, it’s worth noting that many writers are capable of putting dialog into the mouth of a character that they do not personally agree with.

I don’t read SSM as vindicating Doc’s opinions – just portraying them. I suspect that the ending of the series will ultimately demonstrate why Ock is wrong.

ReplyReply
mygif
freeballer said on July 24th, 2013 at 5:31 pm

I think its more than that. I think he identifies with him or at least sympathizes with otto in some way. But I won’t find out why, I don’t care, and I won’t waste my money waiting for it to get better. I just hope that someday soon, I can read my all time, childhood hero again and I’m not too old to enjoy it.

I disagree with phychological torture, thats batman… Parker isn’t the kind for torture, Parker still gets butterflies in the stomach during battle. Its just another eg. of character assassination, because slott was in fact writing that issue. We need another team on Amazing Spider-Man volume 3

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 5:39 pm

“You know, it’s worth noting that many writers are capable of putting dialog into the mouth of a character that they do not personally agree with.”

Except that I’ve repeatedly cited several separate interviews in which both the writer and the editors of these issues have gone out of their way to defend their fictional characters’ reprehensible actions, to the point of criticizing those fans who would dare to criticize those characters.

ReplyReply
mygif
Slinky Butter said on July 24th, 2013 at 5:58 pm

Could it be possible that showing a Spider-Man that is so different and at odds with the Spider-man we’ve all know for years, strengthens what we love and makes us want it back? Ever think that this is all part of the ride? Slott is showing us what we love by turing it upside down and making us want it back. After so long there needed to be a shake up to show us how good Peter was and how much he meant to us. Getting upset and complaining in the middle of a story is just pointless. Let the man finish his story and then let loose the vitriol. Heroic journeys have to have a low point to make the triumph much more triumphant.

ReplyReply
mygif
Archie 5 said on July 24th, 2013 at 6:03 pm

Godspeed K-Box! Crush these heathen WORMS with your mighty SEMANTICS! Bludgeon them again and again with your blocks of text that TOWER TO THE HEAVENS! Watching the TRATOROUS, ARROGANT so called “Mightygodking” HUMBLED and revealed as the FALSE IDOL he truly is brings a tear to my eye! Why, I be he isn’t even a real GEEK! To all the sycophantic cowards who would dare support the BIRD’S WORD, know that mighty K-BOX NEVER, EVER, EVER STOPS! EXCELSIOR!!!!’

ReplyReply
mygif

“So, yeah … tell me how I’m misrepresenting these guys, again? ”

Well, for a start, you’re misrepresenting them by comparing the actions of the fictional non-real characters they write to that of a real person who condoned torture and started an illegal war.

” Furthermore, Brian Michael Bendis specifically compared Norman Osborn to Dick Cheney, BY NAME, during an interview promoting Dark Reign, and he did so to argue that Norman DESERVED to be in power over America, because of the personality traits that BENDIS HIMSELF flatly stated that Norman Osborn and Dick Cheney share in common, which he saw as a GOOD thing. ”

You’re misrepresenting Bendis by implying that, by approving of parallels comparison of someone in the real world to a fictional character he writes, he must logical approve of the traits they have in common. Liking complexities in the characters you are writing, which allows stories to work on multiple levels, does not mean that you approve of those traits or find them desirable.

There. People addressing your points.

On the other hand, I hugely approve of MGK’s original post pointing out

“But what’s really great about Superior Spider-Man is that it is, on a subtle level, active criticism of many Marvel comics’ current top-down model of heroism, where the heroic protagonist does What Is Necessary For The Greater Good. (See: Iron Man, Nick Fury, Cyclops’s renegade X-Men, the Illuminati, and so on and so forth.)”

Which you’ve not only ignored, rejecting the possibility of subtlety or actual sensible ideas behind the stories you follow for some masochistic reason, but seem to have not even read. Assuming SSM is just part of a trend is a possible response to MGK’s point here, but it’s not one you’re backing up. You seem to not particularly want to engage with an argument that allows the possibility of your bile-object to have value.

You seem happy to ignore the blogpost you’re allegedly commenting on to rant about the people who write fictional characters in a way that you don’t like. Don’t pretend you’re coming across better because people whose time management doesn’t allow for several screeds of hate a day don’t reply. You’re not engaging the thesis of the blogpost. You’re ranting in someone else’s space about why it’s wrong for them to enjoy material which doesn’t meet your personal tastes.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 6:23 pm

“Crush these heathen WORMS with your mighty SEMANTICS!”

Not merely semantics, but the heart of the argument; I have consistently demonstrated how my criticisms and comparisons are valid, citing what appears on the printed page of the actual stories themselves, as well as the writers’ own words in interviews, and because you don’t care to address any of that, you resort to derailing mockery.

I’m sorry that I don’t think it’s appropriate to defend practices such as torture, even in fiction, when real-world legal authorities such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia have actually defended the real-world use of torture on the grounds that fictional characters such as Jack Bauer in “24″ have supposedly “proven” that torture works in the real world.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 6:38 pm

“Could it be possible that showing a Spider-Man that is so different and at odds with the Spider-man we’ve all know for years, strengthens what we love and makes us want it back? Ever think that this is all part of the ride?”

Slott and Wacker are not exactly doing a great job of selling it if so, between Wacker repeatedly insisting (and yes, I know that he’s lying) that Peter is never coming back, and both of them personally insulting anyone who asks for Peter to return, which isn’t exactly going to make anyone who does want to see Peter return feel like sticking around in the meantime.

“After so long there needed to be a shake up to show us how good Peter was and how much he meant to us.”

No, there didn’t. They just needed to stop writing him like the dimbulb, devolved douchebag that they themselves have deliberately made him out to be ever since the start of Brand New Day. Instead of making people miss a badly written version of a character by subjecting them to an even worse-written version of that same character, a writer with actual talent can engage readers by writing the character WELL.

“Getting upset and complaining in the middle of a story is just pointless.”

Bull. When your story is slated to last an ENTIRE YEAR, at minimum, and being sold in installments of two a month, at a cost of $4 each, how is it in any way wrong to complain that it’s taking too long, and being told so poorly in the meantime that the story as a whole cannot possibly be good, no matter HOW it winds up being resolved? If Slott does not want to be judged on an issue-by-issue basis, then he should have insisted that the story be published as a graphic novel, collecting all those installments at once. Otherwise, he has NO RIGHT to complain about being judged in this way, and neither do you on his behalf.

ReplyReply
mygif
Savage Wombat said on July 24th, 2013 at 6:56 pm

Technical point, Mr. K-Box.

You repeatedly say that you have cited examples of the writers themselves supporting your point.

I have so far failed to locate any actual citation or quote in your posts – they’re long, so I might be missing them – and only have your word that the writer made that statement. And that it is not merely your interpretation of their statement.

If you wish to repeatedly argue that the writers themselves have made your point for you, you must actually include the citation to which you refer – otherwise I have no way of judging the truth value of your claim.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 7:06 pm

“Well, for a start, you’re misrepresenting them by comparing the actions of the fictional non-real characters they write to that of a real person who condoned torture and started an illegal war.”

I’m calling them out for claiming to be liberal progressives at the same time that they’re using their interviews to defend the righteousness of the actions of their fictional characters — actions which THEY THEMSELVES HAVE COMPARED to real-world atrocities like torture, both in their interviews and on the printed pages of their stories — by pointing out that they are using fiction to promote a political philosophy that is strikingly similar to that of the neoconservatives they claim to oppose.

“You’re misrepresenting Bendis by implying that, by approving of parallels comparison of someone in the real world to a fictional character he writes, he must logical approve of the traits they have in common. Liking complexities in the characters you are writing, which allows stories to work on multiple levels, does not mean that you approve of those traits or find them desirable.”

Except for how Bendis, in those same interviews, flatly asserted that Norman Osborn and his fellow “Dark Avengers” were “better heroes” than Spider-Man and Captain America BECAUSE Osborn and his crew of supervillains were, according to Bendis himself, ruthless and insane. Bendis explicitly stated that Norman Osborn being evil made him “more effective” as a “hero” than Spider-Man or Captain America. So, according to Bendis himself, your interpretation of his remarks is incorrect.

“People addressing your points.”

Nope. Still misreading them, as I just proved.

“Which you’ve not only ignored, rejecting the possibility of subtlety or actual sensible ideas behind the stories you follow for some masochistic reason, but seem to have not even read.”

I read it. I just think it’s inarguably incorrect. Because literally every single modern Marvel comics story arc that’s been devoted to these same issues to date has been terribly executed to a degree that actually qualifies as immoral.

“Assuming SSM is just part of a trend is a possible response to MGK’s point here, but it’s not one you’re backing up.”

I’ve already backed it up through how Civil War and Dark Reign played out, and how Mark Millar and Tom Brevoort and Brian Michael Bendis and Steve Wacker and Dan Slott have SAID IN INTERVIEWS that we should be interpreting their own stories, when Millar and Brevoort asserted that Civil War “proved Tony Stark morally right” for violating the human rights of countless innocents, including his own former best friends, and Bendis even went so far as to say that “anyone can identify” with Norman Osborn’s psychotic point of view in Dark Reign, and when previously competent and virtuous heroes are made out to be inept hypocrites, while the public of the 616 Marvel Universe falls in love with SELF-CONFESSED SERIAL KILLER Norman Osborn, whose downfall only took place in the most truncated and unconvincing fashion possible.

“Don’t pretend you’re coming across better because people whose time management doesn’t allow for several screeds of hate a day don’t reply.”

No, I’m coming across better because I’m not being a reflexive apologist for trademark-warming hacks who don’t deserve to be defended for using the flagship franchise of a multinational multimedia corporation as an outlet for their Cheney-esque pro-torture propaganda.

“You’re not engaging the thesis of the blogpost. You’re ranting in someone else’s space about why it’s wrong for them to enjoy material which doesn’t meet your personal tastes.”

If an artistic work is morally corrupt enough, you should not be allowed to consume it without acknowledging its abhorrent messages. D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” is a brilliantly innovative piece of cinema, but it’s also such virulently racist bile that Griffith devoted his next film, “Intolerance,” to atoning for the sins of racist propaganda that he’d committed with his previous film. And contrary to MGK’s baseless assertions, there is absolutely nothing new or daring or innovative or subtle about the “Superior” Spider-Man.

ReplyReply
mygif
Slinky Butter said on July 24th, 2013 at 7:52 pm

Well I guess your opinion of not liking something is more important than mine for liking it. I’m going to continue to read and enjoy the ride that I feel has been different, fun and interesting. Good luck ranting from the ledge.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 8:00 pm

“Well I guess your opinion of not liking something is more important than mine for liking it.”

And once again, you deliberately omit my repeatedly stated REASONS for disliking it, in order to dismiss all opinions as equal, when in point of fact, certain opinions are factually wrong. But have fun being a disingenuous coward who refuses to address the substance of other people’s arguments.

ReplyReply
mygif

I’m curious if you picked up the first issue of Superior Foes, MGK. I found it to be a really good read. Very Hawkeye-ish in tone and Spencer’s take on Boomerang, Shocker, and Speed Demon are great.

ReplyReply
mygif
SIlverHammerMan said on July 24th, 2013 at 9:28 pm

I’ve actually found the whole SpOck character way more tolerable in his team up books, mainly because just focusing on his Spidey identity sidesteps the buckets of grossness that come from Ock playacting as Peter Parker.

Also, I’m with K-Box on criticizing extended stories. I wouldn’t choke down 3 shitty hamburgers just because the chef assures me that the 4th will actually be good. Admittedly that’s not the greatest comparison, but I stand by the general idea.

And was I the only one who was shocked that the whole SpOck/MJ thing didn’t get like, any, publicity? Because it was at best tone deaf and at worst misogynistic.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 9:35 pm

“I’ve actually found the whole SpOck character way more tolerable in his team up books, mainly because just focusing on his Spidey identity sidesteps the buckets of grossness that come from Ock playacting as Peter Parker.”

I will actually agree with this. Indeed, much like how Rob Liefeld is the worst writer of his own characters, it’s telling that literally every other writer at Marvel to tackle Otto-as-Peter has done a better job with it than Dan Slott himself.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 9:39 pm

“And was I the only one who was shocked that the whole SpOck/MJ thing didn’t get like, any, publicity?”

Oh, there was quite a bit of bad noise about it on Twitter and Tumblr and Bleeding Cool and the blogosphere in general, but when Otto decided not to continue pursuing Mary Jane, most everyone forgot that the three-issue build-up to that moment was still creepy and rapey and gross in ways that both Slott and Wacker adamantly refused to acknowledge.

ReplyReply
mygif
SIlverHammerMan said on July 24th, 2013 at 9:44 pm

I remember a lot of the fandom calling it gross, but I never saw any mention of it from like, comics news sites. I was especially surprised that there wasn’t an editorial on Comics Alliance or Wired or something, because usually they take that kind of gross writing to task.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 9:49 pm

Rich Johnston covered it here, and identified its ugliness even in spite of how much he was bending over backwards to give Slott and Wacker the benefit of the doubt:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/26/rape-redemption-and-the-amazing-spider-man-spoilers/

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 9:53 pm

But yeah, overall, you’re right; the forces of comics industry “journalism” really dropped the ball on that one.

ReplyReply
mygif

Slott and Wacker are not exactly doing a great job of selling it if so, between Wacker repeatedly insisting (and yes, I know that he’s lying) that Peter is never coming back, and both of them personally insulting anyone who asks for Peter to return, which isn’t exactly going to make anyone who does want to see Peter return feel like sticking around in the meantime.

I think the main problem you have is that you are taking Slott and Wacker’s comments about Otto being a hero and Peter never returning at face value, when this is a bloody stupid thing to do.

I mean, the current issue has Otto taking down the Kingpin and quite obviously setting up his own criminal empire, which will no doubt erupt into a gang war with the Green Goblin’s criminal empire, and I will bet you five dollars before this is over Otto rationalizes it as “well, there has to be SOME crime, so best that I run it to minimize harm and direct the profits to more noble ends.”

If you are taking some sales job by Slott and Wacker at face value over your own lying eyes, then that is your own problem.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 10:02 pm

And it fits perfectly with Slott’s situational ethics, because even though Otto fully intended to rape Mary Jane, Slott wrote both Mary Jane and even PETER praising Otto simply for NOT following through on his ghastly intent, which is, I suppose, why Slott believes that even a hero like Peter would be willing to sacrifice an innocent child to save his own life, because as long as he doesn’t follow through on it all the way, then he’s still a “hero” in Slott’s eyes. Hell, the entire premise of the book is that we’re supposed to buy off on even the POSSIBILITY that Otto deserves to be Spider-Man and live out Peter Parker’s life, even after SLOTT HIMSELF wrote a story in which he turned Otto into an intentional engineer of global genocide, to the point that Otto himself says, and I quote, “I shall live on in infamy — a mass murderer worse than Pol Pot, Hitler, and Genghis Khan combined!” Because for Slott, as with Bendis, being a “hero” is an ends-justify-the-means condition.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 10:05 pm

“I think the main problem you have is that you are taking Slott and Wacker’s comments about Otto being a hero and Peter never returning at face value, when this is a bloody stupid thing to do.”

Yes, because turning their public relations with the industry press and their own readers into an especially retarded form of kayfabe is totally the way to broaden their market and to win over hearts and minds! Were you a big fan of Bill Jemas as well?

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 10:16 pm

“I mean, the current issue has Otto taking down the Kingpin and quite obviously setting up his own criminal empire, which will no doubt erupt into a gang war with the Green Goblin’s criminal empire, and I will bet you five dollars before this is over Otto rationalizes it as ‘well, there has to be SOME crime, so best that I run it to minimize harm and direct the profits to more noble ends.’”

Except that you’ve just described Dark Reign as well, which also — exactly as the “Superior” Spider-Man has done — portrayed previously valiant and effective heroes as suddenly being hypocritical and incompetent, in order to further sell us on how well the grand master plans of the villain-as-”hero” are coming along, even though those grand master plans are actually quite simple and slipshod and should be able to be stopped with anyone who possesses half a brain and exercises even a modicum of effort, as demonstrated by dozens of previous stories in which the heroes have indeed defeated the villain when he was being much smarter and more impressive than he is currently, and when Otto’s downfall comes, it will be like that of Norman Osborn, who just sort of spontaneously imploded because the plot dictated that was what needed to happen, because Marvel’s current crop of “creators” are MORALLY opposed to showing the heroes proactively earning their victories, which is why, as I keep saying, the turning of the tide always feels so truncated and unconvincing, because Bendis’ nihilistic noir mentality has infected the drinking water at the bullpen, and when these guys try to write about heroes prevailing against the odds to finally win the day, they’re trying to sell a conclusion that they themselves DON’T BELIEVE IN. Even Brian Hibbs pointed out that Dark Reign ultimately read like the self-described liberals at Marvel were nonetheless wishing that McCain would have won the election, because they don’t want “the world outside your window” to get any better.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 10:23 pm

“If you are taking some sales job by Slott and Wacker at face value over your own lying eyes, then that is your own problem.”

If the people who represent the company so habitually misrepresent themselves, then they have to right to complain when I accuse them of being untrustworthy liars, which is exactly what they are.

Moreover, given the things that their characters are currently being shown doing in their stories, how is it in any way morally defensible for the writer and editor to be defending Otto’s torture-tactics fascism even as a put-on? Would you expect the writer of a Red Skull solo series to say, “Well, maybe Hitler WAS right,” even as a GAG? Because Slott and Wacker, whether they’re “acting” or not, ARE defending the use of torture and similar brutality by their protagonist, to the point of INSULTING those who disagree with them on that issue, and I’m sorry, but no, there is NO PLACE in modern media for those kinds of methods to be defended, even as a POSSIBLE “necessity,” and even “ironically,” or whatever other Pee-wee Herman-esque “We meant to do that!” defense that Marvel or its apologists will rely upon to condone such rhetoric.

ReplyReply
mygif

So speaking as someone who has only very casually followed comics for the last decade or more, how does this storyline stack up to “Knightfall”, where you had an ex-assassin taking over the mantle of Batman, designing a suit of pouch covered near-powerarmor with belt fed batarang launchers, and letting criminals and innocents die as he spiraled out of control in his efforts to be the vigilante he thought Gotham needed?

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 10:25 pm

In fact, I’m calling you out, right now; what’s your stance on Slott and Wacker vehemently denying that there were even any IMPLICATIONS of rape in Otto using Peter’s identity to try and commit the rape-by-fraud of Mary Jane?

ReplyReply
mygif

I just wonder what these guys have against heroism

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 10:31 pm

“So speaking as someone who has only very casually followed comics for the last decade or more, how does this storyline stack up to “Knightfall”, where you had an ex-assassin taking over the mantle of Batman, designing a suit of pouch covered near-powerarmor with belt fed batarang launchers, and letting criminals and innocents die as he spiraled out of control in his efforts to be the vigilante he thought Gotham needed?”

Slightly worse, simply because Jean-Paul Valley wasn’t trying to screw Catwoman by pretending to be the former Batman, nor was he engaging in the theft of Bruce Wayne’s identity to take advantage of those relationships, but you know what? Knightfall was still pretty goddamn dumb.

Bruce, you have a former sidekick whom you’ve trained so well to be an adult hero that he’s the single most beloved and trusted character in the DC Universe short of Superman himself, and when you get crippled, you choose to hand over the mantle of the Bat to a clinically insane assassin. That plan would be pants-on-head moronic even by the standards of Silver Age Superman comics.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 24th, 2013 at 10:36 pm

And before anyone says it, you CAN’T call Godwin on me for comparing Doctor Octopus to Hitler, because SLOTT HIMSELF DID IT FIRST IN HIS OWN COMIC BOOK STORY.

ReplyReply
mygif
SIlverHammerMan said on July 24th, 2013 at 10:36 pm

Also I think it was super weird that they set up this status quo in the #700 anniversary issue. I mean, that’s the one that fans who aren’t following the series are gonna pick up, so to me it’s kind of wrongheaded to have that be the issue where Peter Parker goes out like a chump and has his life stolen.

I guess you could call it brave, but still, it strikes me as maybe not the smartest move.

ReplyReply
mygif
Jesse Baker said on July 24th, 2013 at 10:45 pm

Jason, these current crop of Marvel writers are all failed novelists and TV/movie writers who barely conceal their contempt towards the comic genre they are “forced” to write in because the “legitimate media” won’t have them.

As Kirk can probably expand upon, these bastards are like Ayn Rand villains who failed miserably in their fields so they set about scorch earthing the only genre that will have them because they see themselves as failures and god damn it, SOMEONE has to pay for their failures to make them seem powerful and big shots.

So they scorch earth the concept of heroism in the comic genre because their failures, due to their lack of talent, must be avenged to comply with a worldview where if they can’t be the hero of their story, they’ll be the villain and they will make damn sure the villain wins.

ReplyReply
mygif

Poor MGK, having to deal with the fallout of giving people what they want only to be punished for having a differing opinion than some …rather outspoken people.

…which actually ties to my interpretation of the Superior Era. If there’s a message to be found in these issues its “be careful what you wish for”.

Ock spent years being envious of Spidey and its pretty obvious he’s in WAY over his head now that he IS Spider-Man (plus there are the minor annoyances like finding out Peter doesn’t have a doctorate). JJJ just discovered that Spider-Man is every bit the menace he claimed he was when publishing the Bugle. The more bloodthirsty members of the fandom got a Spider-Man who kills*.

Personally I’m reading for the inevitable train wreak. I’m still not sure if it will be Doc Ock’s train wreak or Slott’s train wreak but its been an entertaining ride so far.

*Never mind that we already have the new Scarlet Spider and several Venoms if we want a darker Spider-Man. Miles is the only current Spider-Man that comes close to Peter’s moral standard.

PS: How are people misinterpreting issue #14 so badly? Otto isn’t ignoring drug deals; his Spider-Bots – which Otto believes infallible – have been hacked and are ignoring all goblin activity ranging from the Hobgoblin escaping Shadowland to a Goblin Cultist dealing drugs on a street corner. The Goblin King is building an empire right under the “Superior” Spider-Man’s nose. Like is said, Otto is in way over his head.

ReplyReply
mygif
dogheart said on July 24th, 2013 at 11:59 pm

I don’t think I’ve ever seen one dude wanking so hard in someone else’s blog in all my days on the internet.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 12:07 am

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen one dude wanking so hard in someone else’s blog in all my days on the internet.”

Yet again, someone who doesn’t want to bother with actually addressing any of the points that I’ve made, so you just resort to substance-free mockery. Way to elevate the level of the very same discourse that you’re complaining about.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 12:09 am

“Poor MGK, having to deal with the fallout of giving people what they want only to be punished for having a differing opinion than some …rather outspoken people.”

I wasn’t aware that replying to someone’s post, when they’d chosen to leave the comment function enabled, constituted “punishing” them. For the most part, I usually enjoy and agree with MGK’s commentary. This is me being NICE.

ReplyReply
mygif
JusSaYin said on July 25th, 2013 at 12:43 am

^^You really need to get a life^^

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 12:54 am

Another contribution of zero value. You have nothing of worth to say yourself, but you don’t want me to say anything either. I’m so sorry that I apparently have mind control and am forcing you to read this thread against your own will.

And who says I don’t have a life? Evolved human beings can multitask. :)

ReplyReply
mygif
Ian Austin said on July 25th, 2013 at 2:04 am

I think I speak for all of us K-Box when I point out that Spider-Man has one story a decade that divides people. Zz80/s was Venom, 90s was Clone Saga, 00s was OMD? With that in mind, please stop posting opinion as fact. You’re no more enlightened than any of us, and in fact confuse writers trolling to sell a book with “they actually believe this.”

And if you believe defending a characters choice is endorsement of the practice itself, you really have no idea what writing is. At all. Especially given Bendis wrote Siege as a reconstruction of why superheroes are needed and how ridiculous given a madman power is..

ReplyReply
mygif
Archie 5 said on July 25th, 2013 at 2:33 am

“Not merely semantics, but the heart of the argument; I have consistently demonstrated how my criticisms and comparisons are valid, citing what appears on the printed page of the actual stories themselves, as well as the writers’ own words in interviews, and because you don’t care to address any of that, you resort to derailing mockery.”

The funny thing is I agree with 95% of what you are saying, but the problem is your tone stinks. Have you noticed that many other posters on this blog share your position, but no one is going after them? You have been extremely rude and condescending to just about everyone who disagrees with you, and that turns off a lot of the people you are trying to convince. This is why no one is addressing you points. Ask yourself this: Do you care more about preaching to the choir or bringing new members into the fold? Because at best you seemed to be more concerned with the former and at worst you seem like you are only concerned with silencing dissident opinion. Ironically, this incident reminds me of the time Steve Wackner showed up on the 4th letter and was harassing David Brothers for going after some of the same stuff you have brought up. I found Wackner obnoxious for the same reason I find you obnoxious right now.

But to address the heart (or rather, one of the hearts) of your argument, the sad fact is that torture and cruel and unusual punishment has been in superhero’s make up since their inception. How many times has Batman held a thug over a roof or broken some fingers to get some information about the joker? How many times has green arrow shot an arrow through a thug’s HAND in order to disarm him/her? The fantastic four turned a whole group of skrulls into cows that were then slaughtered and EATEN, and that was okay because they were from a different planet (country). People always get uncomfortable when this gets brought up, or try to explain how this is different from real torture, but honestly it isn’t. The scary thing is, nobody even considered this until all the issues with the Bush Administration showed up. You can get mad at Marvel/Slott/Wagner all you want, but really they are all just symptoms of America by and large embracing torture culture and Neo-Liberalism. Its extremely frustrating watching these ideas bleed into our escapist fiction, but that’s the price we pay for not addressing the problems at its root instead of the tendrils waving at the side.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 2:43 am

“You’re no more enlightened than any of us, and in fact confuse writers trolling to sell a book with ‘they actually believe this.’”

The point that I already made, which you either didn’t bother to read or weren’t capable of comprehending, is that, even if Slott and Wacker are simply trolling — which I’m not willing to concede, given the number of unforgivably reprehensible opinions they’ve voiced in all sincerity, such as their attempts to assert that Otto’s sexual pursuit of Mary Jane had absolutely no implications of rape whatsoever — it is morally impermissible for them to express support for certain opinions even if they are not doing so sincerely, for the same reasons that Amanda Palmer quite rightly caught heat for suggesting that people should donate money to the Ku Klux Klan “ironically.”

I feel strongly enough about the intolerable wrongness of the use of torture tactics that it’s one of a number of reasons why I’m no longer in the military — as a wise man once said, I don’t go to bed with no whore and I don’t wake up with no whore, and that’s how I live with myself — and as such, you’ll forgive me if I don’t share your amusement at a couple of privileged, pampered white boys, who have never worn a service uniform in their lives, adopting the POSE of endorsing atrocities that have made me ashamed of my country, in much the same way that my parents and members of their generation were ashamed of the practices of racial segregation just a few decades ago.

“And if you believe defending a characters choice is endorsement of the practice itself, you really have no idea what writing is. At all.”

I know that certain opinions do not deserve devil’s advocates under any circumstances, and I count torture as equal to rape and institutionalized racial oppression in that regard, so since there’s no way you can seriously tell me, with a straight face, that you’d be defending Slott and Wacker just as strongly if they were “trolling” by espousing pro-Nazi opinions to promote a Red Skull solo title — and again, thanks to Slott himself already having Otto compare himself to Hitler, out of PRIDE, on the printed page, you can’t even accuse me of pulling the first Godwin in this argument for making that analogy — then you don’t understand the ethical responsibilities that come with the power to exercise one’s freedom of speech. At all. But then, why should I expect someone who claims to be a Spider-Man fan to understand anything about POWER and RESPONSIBILITY?

“Especially given Bendis wrote Siege as a reconstruction of why superheroes are needed and how ridiculous given a madman power is.”

If that’s what Bendis was attempting to do with Siege, than it was even more of a failure on every conceivable level than it is already, because as I keep pointing out, AS FACT, Bendis took heroic characters who had previously been capable and conscientious, and twisted them into out-of-character pretzels of ineptitude and infighting, to the point that the only way the plot was able to resolve itself on schedule was by having Norman Osborn essentially spontaneously self-destruct, with the fig leaf of Peter Parker punching him out to pretend that the heroes had actually contributed anything of substance to his downfall.

Because if you actually look at Bendis’ writing, you’ll see how much slavish, practically masturbatory adoration is heaped on authoritarian figures who act without regard for others, to the point that, even when Bendis allowed other characters to call out Ultimate Nick Fury for the death of Ultimate Peter Parker, he resolved those scenes by showing Fury crying, as though that absolved him, and yet, by the time Miles Morales has been bitten by his own spider, Fury was right back to being just as much of an unaccountable, unrepentant manipulator as he ever was.

And as I’ve said before, this surely stems from Bendis’ noir roots, because heroes aren’t allowed to win in noir, only to survive, at best, and you’ll note that there has never been a truly heroic victory in any story that Bendis has ever written — all that any character is ever able to do is survive to hopefully fight another day, and indeed, what’s notable is how Bendis portrayed the death of Ultimate Peter Parker as that character’s REWARD, because the world he lived in was so awful that DYING AS A CHILD was the most merciful fate he could hope for.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 2:46 am

“The funny thing is I agree with 95% of what you are saying, but the problem is your tone stinks.”

Yeah, see, that logical fallacy you just engaged in? That’s called the “tone argument:”

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 2:49 am

“I found Wackner obnoxious for the same reason I find you obnoxious right now.”

Yes, because being a high-ranking Disney employee in charge of one of its flagship media franchises is totally equivalent to being a lone fan with nothing more than an Internet connection in terms of media outlets through which to express my opinion.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 2:54 am

“Do you care more about preaching to the choir or bringing new members into the fold?”

I care about speaking the truth and making others listen. If you choose to take issue with what I am saying, even though you have just admitted that I am right, then that’s your decision and your defect of character. You’re a grown adult, and if you’re going to part company with arguments that you yourself concede to be correct, just because you think they’re not nice enough, then you’re the one who’s making the mistake, not me.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 3:10 am

“But to address the heart (or rather, one of the hearts) of your argument, the sad fact is that torture and cruel and unusual punishment has been in superhero’s make up since their inception.”

Now, see, THIS? I will FREELY admit to. Because you’re goddamn right; Batman has dangled so many random thugs from rooftops, even in stories by otherwise really good writers, that I’ve long since lost count, and yeah, back when I was younger, I went through my own angry adolescent phase of thinking that Batman and Wolverine both were “badass” because their methods were “brutal.”

“The scary thing is, nobody even considered this until all the issues with the Bush Administration showed up.”

And THIS is true too, because yeah, it took the word “water-boarding” coming up during Bush’s presidency for me to reevaluate my own choices in entertainment and say, “Good God, what am I implicitly supporting here in my favorite fiction, about so-called ‘heroes?’”

“You can get mad at Marvel/Slott/Wagner all you want, but really they are all just symptoms of America by and large embracing torture culture [...]”

Yes and no. They’re able to get away with perpetrating these tropes largely unquestioned because of the culture that they operate within, but that doesn’t absolve them of their own individual responsibility as grown adults for the political viewpoints that they’re conveying through their stories, whether they choose to consciously acknowledge those messages or not. You don’t get to reference elements of the “War on Terror” for frisson’s sake without actually doing your goddamn homework and thinking the implications of those issues through fully.

Because here’s the most important part; this sort of brutality was part of the foundational makeup of the superhero genre from its outset, I’ll agree, but you know what other tropes were? Racist sidekicks and disposable female love interests. And guess what? Green Lantern doesn’t have an Eskimo (Inuit) sidekick whom he calls “Pie Face” anymore, and until the relatively recent wave of marriage retcons, both Peter Parker and Clark Kent had smart, strong, committed wives who held their own and were treated as equal partners in their marriages. What’s past doesn’t have to be prologue. Rather than breaking crooks’ fingers, Batman could actually try living up to his billing as “The World’s Greatest Detective.” We CAN and SHOULD evolve, and anyone that CHOOSES not to, and CHOOSES to perpetuate terrible tropes on the grounds that “It’s how it’s always been done,” is consciously choosing to commit an immoral act.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 3:29 am

I mean, it’s been nearly TWELVE YEARS since 9/11, and even Marvel writers and editors who VOTED AGAINST Bush are perpetuating his disproven memes, even as they CHOOSE to include political implications in their superhero stories.

A few years, ago, I read an interview in which Tom Brevoort defended the ending of Civil War by pointing out that, in the wake of 9/11, there were armed National Guardsmen in the civilian airports, and in Brevoort’s own words, he liked the airports BETTER that way, and that scared the holy living HELL out of me, because how does a middle-aged man who works in the writing field for a living NOT think of Benjamin Franklin’s quote about liberty versus security in response to that sort of situation?

ReplyReply
mygif
Potomac Ripper said on July 25th, 2013 at 5:47 am

If this was a Silver Age Superman story (Luthor takes over Superman’s body, struggles with how to save the world with his inherent flaws of his plots never work out 100%) We would all be looking back on this as ONE OF THE GREATEST STORIES EVER TOLD.

That’s what it is. A brilliant silver age premise getting played out in a modern Marvel U. My hat is off to Slott for pulling it off.

ReplyReply
mygif
Jesse Baker said on July 25th, 2013 at 6:06 am

Except it’s NOT an imaginary story and moreso, it’s further shatted on the Spider-Man franchise.

Moreso, in the imaginary Silver Age stories, good always wins no matter what in the end. So far, evil continues to win with no hope in sight that the super-hero community will inflict a punishment grotesquely FITTING for Otto for the crime of murdering Spider-Man and wearing his body to do more evil. Wacker and Slott have REPEATEDLY stated that they have ZERO intention of Otto being punished for his murder.

And really, what is the end point for this crap? Otto’s entire activities since #700 are based on lies, ego, vanity and not true heroism but a ghoulish notion that he STOLE Peter’s entire life from him and is now ghoulishly living vicariously through the spoils of his murder. The only reason he does good is because he wants to rub it into Peter’s ghost face that he is “better” than him and moreso, to get his jollies knowing that he murdered a great hero and got away with it.

Hell, with the rate things are going, how long will it be before Slott and Wacker unmask Otto and have the ENTIRE Marvel Universe take one gigantic dump on Peter Parker’s ghost by way of having no one give a crap that Otto murdered Peter and stole his life and flesh? Just to hammer home their vile contempt towards the fans by having everyone just accept Otto into their ranks even though he murdered one of their own.

That would be like having Lex Luthor murder Flash and declare himself the new Flash and having Superman and the JLA and the world all accept the murderous Lex Luthor as Flash under a “might makes right” proclamation as opposed to Superman killing Lex Luthor on the spot…….

ReplyReply
mygif
Beware Of Geek said on July 25th, 2013 at 6:25 am

What amazes me in all of this is that Slott & Wacker’s defenders are actually claiming that there’s a deep message to all of this.

The team that trolls the fans in the actual solicits with (and I’m paraphrasing here): “Think you were mad before? This issue will REALLY piss you off!”

Real “subtle”. Just like how subtly Ock is showing his true identity in dialogue, by acting like a bad 1930′s movie villain.

What you seem to be missing, MGK, is Slott’s own words on the subject:

“Doc is kinda like me: He’s short and schlubby. This is a guy who now gets to be in the body of Peter Parker. This opens up whole new things. He had to be a hero in his own eyes, and on some level Otto Octavius is facing that struggle not with Spider-Man’s world but with the readership. How do you get more Peter Parker than that? Now the readers think he’s a menace. That’s exciting. On a meta level, that is Spider-Man.”

Spider-Man is a character we’re supposed to hate. That’s why he’s been around for 50 years.

ReplyReply
mygif
whoopsie daisy said on July 25th, 2013 at 6:32 am

MGK, don’t take this the wrong way, but have you actually read the issues? Because you sound like I did when this was first announced. This IS a really great idea for a story, but it’s just so incredibly poorly executed. I mean, this is the guy who wrote what might be the best run on She-Hulk ever! Why is he suddenly writing every character like they’re fresh out of some amateur Spidey stage show? Why are half the plots resolved through people who aren’t Spock being complete idiots? If anything, I think we should all be pissed that this isn’t anything near the great comic it should be.

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 6:52 am

“I mean, this is the guy who wrote what might be the best run on She-Hulk ever!”

Jesus, what the hell ever happened to THAT Dan Slott? I remember reading his issues of She-Hulk guest-starring Spidey and Jonah and thinking, “Holy living God, this guy would be an AMAZING Spider-Man writer,” pardon the pun, and then … yyyeeeaaahhh. :/

ReplyReply
mygif

‘“The scary thing is, nobody even considered this until all the issues with the Bush Administration showed up.”

And THIS is true too, because yeah, it took the word “water-boarding” coming up during Bush’s presidency for me to reevaluate my own choices in entertainment and say, “Good God, what am I implicitly supporting here in my favorite fiction, about so-called ‘heroes?’”’

Er… no. That’s bollocks.

We’ve had more than a quarter of a century of comics looking at the ways in which vigilante justice, force and torture do not work. A central point of the Rorscharch character in Watchmen, if nothing else, is that the use of brutal force is wrong, and that torture doesn’t really work and is horrifying. Ditto, for that matter, The Comedian.

“you can’t even accuse me of pulling the first Godwin in this argument for making that analogy”

Seriously, that’s not what Godwin says. Godwin’s law states merely that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of Hitler getting mentioned tends to one. No claims about mentioning of Hitler making arguments valid or not. (Huge pet peeve.)

Additionally: what you’re criticising is not really the tone argument. Your own link you give to on it explains why it’s a fallacy, and when: when used to silence the oppressed (which you are not, here) and when used as an excuse for avoiding good arguments.

You are not giving good arguments which are avoided. You are stating your opinions, stating that anything you disagree with is “inarguably incorrect”.

You claim to know the creators’ positions, and that the creators are morally wrong, due to things you claim that they’ve said. (It’s worth noting you have totally avoided point-blank requests for sources. This is something that lowers your credibility.) You seem to have dismissed the possibility that story-tellers could say something other than what they literally mean, rejecting the possibility of alternative readings because … well, I’m not actually sure what in what way the double ad-hominem attack of “Yes, because turning their public relations with the industry press and their own readers into an especially retarded form of kayfabe is totally the way to broaden their market and to win over hearts and minds! Were you a big fan of Bill Jemas as well? ” even pretends to deal with the fact that the point raised demolishes the ground on which the vast majority of your screeds are based.

You also seem to be completely blind to the concept of irony or the possibility of multiplicity of readings.

Most egregiously, there seems to be some kind of operating assumption that anyone who doesn’t declare hatred for your hate-object loudly and in bile-filled rants on the internet is a bad person and makes the world worse. And you seem to think anyone who doesn’t agree word for word with your moral critiques is a terrible person and making the world worse. You are coming across with all the ability to grasp not-explicitly-spelt-out subtlety as someone with Aspergers. (Which I say not as an insult: I communicate with hugely intelligent friends with asperger’s a lot. You actually do just seem to have some of the communicative features here.)

I spend a lot of time railing about political reform and spreading variou words about the ways in which the corporate corruption takes place, the media doesn’t cover the abuses of the militaro-industrial complex properly, the ways in which my country’s medical system is being sold off for profit and big money crushes democracy. I also try to actually get people to listen and point out what’s wrong briefly and engage in conversations with those who I disagree with about the ways it may be possible to work as if one lived in the early days of a better nation.

I don’t rant that Superior Spider-Man is a terrible comic because Brian Michael Bendis is a terrible writer who can write only noir. (Bendis has a huge number of flaws as a writer, including his inability to write teams, which makes his decade writing Marvel team books unfortunate. However, all else aside, I don’t think that his writing ability has much to do with Superior Spider-Man.)

I think the war on Iraq was a terrible thing, but accept that good people who were involved at the time actually believe it’s good, and that doesn’t stop them being good and trying to make the world better. (This isn’t about their fitness for power, this is purely in terms of judging their moral character. I’m also not talking about Blair or Bush.) I know it’s more important to look at good people who get convinced that something wrong is right and try to talk to them in ways that they’ll understand, with compassion, than shout abuse at them or tell them that they’re terrible. I think integrity’s one of the most important things but know that giving details, sources, and explaining the little things that are wrong is important.

I think it’s more important to actually look at the state of the world and how we’re doomed (pro-tip: the North Pole just melted) than complain that super-hero comics aren’t presenting heroes as winning as cleanly and utterly as you would like.

I also know one needs to keep an open mind because the world’s big and confusing and there’s a lot of possiblities that those who think they’re right can be wrong, and not to assume everyone’s out to warp you.

Think about what you’re saying and doing on a wider scale, how you’re coming across and just remember Weaton’s law more.

ReplyReply
mygif
dogheart said on July 25th, 2013 at 7:30 am

Actually, I just stopped giving a shit about anything that you’re saying about 100 comments back. But, y’know, make whatever assumptions that will make you feel better.

ReplyReply
mygif

What you seem to be missing, MGK, is Slott’s own words on the subject

No, I don’t care about Slott’s own words on the subject. I don’t bother reading most comics “news” on the internet because it’s 95 percent puffery, PR and hackwork, and frankly anything anybody who actually works for Marvel says about anything should be considered suspect because they have invested themselves in pretending that what is obviously a non-tenable status quo is going to be around forever. That’s how you sell the story. “THIS IS A DRAMATIC CHANGE TO THE ENTIRETY OF SPIDER-MAN AND WILL BE AROUND FOREVER” – The writers said the same thing about Ben Reilly, Azrael, the Reign of the Supermen, Electric Superman, Teen Tony, you name it. Frequently, as in this case, they said it while the story was clearly approaching or even past the halfway point and it was obvious this was not the new status quo.

A simple reading of Superior Spider-Man shows us that it is a tragic story about a bad man trying to be good and largely failing at that because he does not understand that his flaws are not strengths. Things have gradually gotten worse over every single issue, and it takes a truly obtuse arguer to suggest that this measured build is somehow incidental or accidental. Slott knows exactly what he’s doing.

I really don’t care what Slott and Wacker say in their PR bullshit, because it is not relevant to anybody except obsessive nerds looking to prove their point. Their PR is not in the comic, and what is in the comic proves me correct.

ReplyReply
mygif
Beware Of Geek said on July 25th, 2013 at 8:23 am

“Whoever *did* write this doesn’t know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut!”

So we have two possibilities here:

1) Slott & Wacker are hyping the story as more simplistic than it is to the bloody NEW YORK TIMES to “sell the story”.

2) Your interpretation is wrong, and there’s about as much subtlety in this story as in Sharknado.

Let’s look at the latest issue, shall we? After all “what is in the comic” is what counts, right?

http://abload.de/img/superiorspider-man0142aub8.jpg

Yes, Slott is obviously writing Otto as a failure….

ReplyReply
mygif
The Unstoppable Gravy Express said on July 25th, 2013 at 8:27 am

WOAH WOAH HOLD UP WHAT HAPPENED TO ELECTRIC SUPERMAN?!???!????!!!?

…i have fallen behind in my reading

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 8:32 am

“No, I don’t care about Slott’s own words on the subject.”

Of course, you can’t allow yourself to care about what Slott or Wacker or anyone else at Marvel says, because if you did, you’d be forced to try and defend their morally indefensible arguments denying that Otto’s plotting over the course of three issues to bed Mary Jane was, in fact, attempted rape-by-fraud.

ReplyReply
mygif
Harry Mudd in Sulu's Brain said on July 25th, 2013 at 8:32 am

I haven’t read any Superior Spiderman, but based on the page Beware of Geek just posted it is obviously bullshit.

Spiderman has TREADS. Why the fuck would his shoes have treads?? How are his feet supposed to stick to anything?!? Therefore, BULLSHIT. QED

ReplyReply
mygif

Except Otto is a failure in this case. Sure, his proactive methods have brought down Shadowlands and other crime families but in doing so he has basically given control of organized crime in New York to the Goblin King because there is a flaw in his system he is not aware of or looking for (and it would probably be inconceivable to him that someone could hack his spider-bots.) Otto getting some wins in his column is necessary for the tragic story structure. And each one of these wins is in some way going to bite him in the ass.

ReplyReply
mygif

On the topic of PR from Marvel: I’m really enjoying the pieces Kieron Gillen’s been putting on his tumblr about his Young Avengers run. In addition to excellent notes about the work after each issue, his piece on use of exposition is one of the best things on the craft of comics I’ve read.

Obv, he writes a lot of stuff that’s tongue-in-cheek, but I’m really impressed at how much he avoids lying.

ReplyReply
mygif

Of course, you can’t allow yourself to care about what Slott or Wacker or anyone else at Marvel says, because if you did, you’d be forced to try and defend their morally indefensible arguments denying that Otto’s plotting over the course of three issues to bed Mary Jane was, in fact, attempted rape-by-fraud.

The thing about attempted crime of any type is that an actual attempt is required. The story progression of that arc is fairly straightforward: Evil Otto plans to have sex with MJ under false pretenses, has his mind-meld with Peter, and comes to realize both that MJ is a rare find and that it would be wrong for him to be with her, so he pawns off an excuse about how “the mission” is more important and subsequently finds himself an non-Peter-related romantic interest. That seems to me to be more a story arc about the power of a noble spirit altering an evil man than a championing of rape.

That having been said: KBox, this is the second time I have had to seriously consider banning you from comments. You are rude, intemperate, condescending (and not on any sense of merit) and you piss people off, and you’re acting like this is just another forum. But it’s not another forum: this is my place. It is not a democracy.

The only time I have ever locked a post to comments was because you would not shut the fuck up and kept fighting beyond the point of reason, and you are exhausting my patience. I’m one of the last major nerd blogs that still allows comments, and the reason so many others have stopped allowing them is people acting like you have. I’m a big proponent, generally speaking, of free-for-all commenting, which is why I haven’t done anything yet and which is why I’ve let you have some rope. Unfortunately, you seem determined to hang yourself with it.

Calm down, take deep breaths before you post, or you will be banned. I’m not going to warn you again.

ReplyReply
mygif

Well, damn. I was going to start deliberately trolling him and compare Bendis to Shakespeare (see, he complained about Osborn basically self-destructing on his own with the heroes having little responsibility for it, which in a more serious genre might be called a fatal flaw…), but I guess that would now be in poor taste.

ReplyReply
mygif
Elijah Fly said on July 25th, 2013 at 10:46 am

long story short: I view dealing with spider-man for the past 20 years give or take and then omd happened. it’s the same feeling I got when I watched an episode of heroes where they make hiro have the mind of an 8 year old. Here’s totally badass samurai hiro in season one. Awesome, we’re going to get to that some day. but fuck that, we need to contrive him back to lovable doofus nerd hiro.

We’re can’t just have ‘good’ spider-man, dude being a good guy in impossible situations is the drama. it’s bullshit like this. Because remember Kraven’s Last Hunt? Dark, dark dark instead.

What I’d love is a Grant Morrison version Manhattan Guardian with Buddy Baker problems. And present day May parker, rachel summers equivalent storyline.

but what the hell do i know?

ReplyReply
mygif
Sisyphus said on July 25th, 2013 at 11:37 am

“Of course, you can’t allow yourself to care about what Slott or Wacker or anyone else at Marvel says, because if you did, you’d be forced to try and defend their morally indefensible arguments denying that Otto’s plotting over the course of three issues to bed Mary Jane was, in fact, attempted rape-by-fraud.”

No, because anyone who’s actually engaged in literary criticism or study must explicitly limit themselves to what is actually on the page. You can decide that the author’s public statements are abhorrent, and you don’t want to support them. However, you can’t say, “The author said ‘x,’ which I find abhorrent, and as a result, this work is bad.”

You can be squicked out by the fact that Otto has taken to wearing Peter as a suit. You can find the general “rapey” tones of comics, and the specific rape-by-deception plotline in Superior to be morally abhorrent. You can say that if the authors were trying to make you question that generally rapey tone of many comics and to shine a light on it, they failed because of specific examples within the work (and only within the work). Or that questioning or satirizing the torture porn stuff in comics is something that they fail to really pull off because of specific examples within the work. However, you cannot bring any source external to what’s actually on the page if you want to talk about what’s on the page.

This reminds me of someone who once did a literary analysis of “stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening.” Their analysis was that it was about a man who was tired, and looking at the end of his mortality, but knew he had much to do before he died.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Frost said that he was wrong, and that it was just about someone on their way home. The fact that Frost said that, doesn’t render the analysis wrong. It just means that someone found a meaning that the author hadn’t intended. That doesn’t make them wrong, nor does it make the work bad. It just means that if Frost’s only message was a narrow reading, then he failed to put that exactly on the page, and therefore, despite writing a wonderful poem, he failed to do what he set out to do, which was to capture the weary sense of a man on his way home, stopping on the side of the road, and captured the sense of a man, weary from a long and difficult life, who was walking toward his grave.

ReplyReply
mygif
SIlverHammerMan said on July 25th, 2013 at 11:44 am

I agree with Potomac Ripper in that it’s a very Silver Age idea and it’s the sort of thing that could be a legitimately great story.

That said I maintain that it’s gone on far too long, had this been a Silver Age Superman story it would have lasted one issue, long enough to roll around in the concept and get some kicks, and then done. SSM has gone on for 14 issues at this point, plus Spidey’s other book and guest appearances, and there’s still no sign of it stopping.

I think this idea would be really cool if it weren’t being treated as the new status quo. Or like I said, if we didn’t have to put up with the squicky Peter Parker impersonation.

ReplyReply
mygif
Scavenger said on July 25th, 2013 at 11:55 am

The team that trolls the fans in the actual solicits with (and I’m paraphrasing here): “Think you were mad before? This issue will REALLY piss you off!”

They’re not trolling the fans, you twit. They’re trolling you. And then they see you freak out on Bleeding Cool or CBR or Twitter and they laugh and laugh and the fans laugh and laugh.

ReplyReply
mygif
Scavenger said on July 25th, 2013 at 12:03 pm

“I think this idea would be really cool if it weren’t being treated as the new status quo.”

I trust if I was to seek out your history of comments, I won’t find you complaining about changes in one book not being reflected across the line, right?

ReplyReply
mygif

Interesting Article. I do like how you’ve framed it, even if your conclusions seem off to me at least.

1)” Let us all take a moment to acknowledge that after semi-rebooting Spider-Man to end his marriage in order to tell all the stories they couldn’t tell with a married Spider-Man, the single best idea they had was “hey, let’s kill him.”” – pretty much speaks to the lack of creativity in their editorial stable. Which after about a decade, I think requires a cleaning out (I think the same of DC).
2)”Not least because the usual suspects would flip out over Spider-Man now being a blackity blackity black kid.” – this would be immensely enjoyable, especially if it also took down the completely vile Ultimate Universe down with it.
3) “Superior Spider-Man is that it is, on a subtle level, active criticism of many Marvel comics’ current top-down model of heroism, where the heroic protagonist does What Is Necessary For The Greater Good. (See: Iron Man, Nick Fury, Cyclops’s renegade X-Men, the Illuminati, and so on and so forth.)”

First, let’s concede that since Civil War, this has been the entirety of Marvel Comics viewpoint. A sort of strange, Homeland-Security-Superbeing-Industrial complex has taken point. Because of the narrative structure of serial fiction, such a construct, whether it is called the Avengers Initiative, the SHRA, or otherwise, is doomed to be an incompetent failure. This in turn, makes all the management of such an institution, incompetent failures. Thus there is no competency in Iron Man, Norman Osborn, or Captain America (After all, if Captain America were competent, one might imagine that “Avengers Arena” would not be a thing that happens). It’s also interesting to compare this to the New 52 DC comics where most of the superheroes are not integrated into the state authority structure; it is interesting because it is now the reverse of what it was in Kurt Busiek’s JLA/Avengers.
4) If it is satire (and seeing how neatly it fits into the larger MU narrative structure, I find that claim very disputable), it’s a severely uneconomical one. If you have used what is arguably your most recognizable IP, and one of its major anniversary issues (Amazing 700), plus over 12 issues of a series costing what, $3.99 a pop (Apologies, there hasn’t been an LCS within 200 miles of me for the last decade so I trade), one could say that’s an expensive bit of satire. The only comparison would be Mark Gruenwald’s “The Captain” storyarc from the mid-80s, and even though I love that story, it’s a bear to get through.

ReplyReply
mygif

You seem to confuse “being satire” with “having a satiric slant”. (Also, I’ve not read it, but I always had the impression that Grunewald’s Captain America was a lot more earnest than satirical. And why would fitting into the MU narrative structure prevent it being satire?)

ReplyReply
mygif

Gruenwald’s “The Captain” arc did have a bit of “Oh, you want a Rambo-esque Captain America? If that’s…what you really want” and then showed how horrific that would look. Now because of the split in narratives, it would be pretty clear that this was a bad idea, which is not the case with Spider-Man.

The problem with fitting it within the current MU narrative structure is that it’s not categorically different enough from what’s going on in the MU currently to really emphasize the satire (or satirical nature, depending on your POV). The other thing is that that by not having a contrasting POV showing how wrong this it, it does rely on the reader being able to pick up that it is wrong, and frankly? I don’t believe the reader will pick up on that subtle distinction (if it is present – again, we are now in the realm of deciphering intent, and as this comment thread has illustrated, there is room for valid interpretations of every extreme).

ReplyReply
mygif
SIlverHammerMan said on July 25th, 2013 at 1:33 pm

I can’t think of any examples of the top of my head of my doing that, Scavenger, so I’m going with probably not. Unless you’ve got something specific in mind that I’ve said previously.

Generally I’m content to let a book do it’s own thing, so long as I actually like that thing.

ReplyReply
mygif

A couple of posts up there was a discussion of intent and why that doesn’t matter.

On a similar note, the argument that a work can’t have a second reading because the reader isn’t guaranteed on picking up subtleties in it holds little water with me. Firstly because, as said, whether or not the author is conscious of an interpretation is irrelevant as to the validity of said interpretation.

Secondly, because the existence of such a reading isn’t necessary for the enjoyment of the work as a whole. Watchmen can be read at face value — Zach Snyder did, and look how far it got him. That doesn’t mean that Watchmen’s not deeper than that.

Thirdly, because I really hate arguments that rely on authors assuming stupidity on the part of the reader.

ReplyReply
mygif
XPlanted said on July 25th, 2013 at 1:56 pm

I so agree with a lot of what you say K-Box, but at the same time, tone does matter. If you only want to be proven right, you can be factually correct, but at the expense of any goodwill at all. If goodwill means absolutely nothing to you, nobody will desire to socialize with you, especially as an anonymous internet poster.

On to SSM, specifically the subject of MJ, I believe many comic book writers do not know how to write strong women. They just think they do. There is very little character depth. Wives/girlfriends are portrayed overall, in no particular order, as: worriers, whiners, naggers, overly jealous, overly maternal, unintuitive, irrational harpies. Not all at once, of course, but they all run the gamut. A stable woman stays stable through even tough times without emotionally going completely off the reservation. I see comments about how MJ is a strong woman, and I only saw that occasionally, but with her, you need to throw in the role of compulsive partygirl and nursemaid. Her character’s all over the place.

Add Slott’s writing to the mix, and now you get her gushing how she loves him over and over. How she waits for Spidey to rescue her. It would be awfully nice to see some range to her.

One small example: there has been absolutely no recognizing how savvy she has to be to get financially secure enough, and be enough of a good business(wo)man to own their own nightclub IN NEW YORK CITY, run it, and still find time to have a life outside of a new business. Totally glossed over.

And yes, she was still raped. How come nobody acknowledges Otto’s mind-rape? He went over Peter’s memories of their lovemaking, and nobody thinks this is wrong, only the physical act could constitute rape. It is more than voyeurism, but less than actual flesh-on-flesh. It’s a violation of a magnitude not seen in comics before. It’s filthy.

Black Cat is portrayed as a fun-loving, ex-criminal with a tendency to sleep around.

Carlie Cooper flips out when she sees Peter lied to her, and breaks up for good, without giving him any latitude whatsoever, even though she got a permanent tattoo of Spider-Man, and just helped save the city with him.

I still don’t know what to think of Betty Brant. She’s had more personality shifts than Sybil. She’s like the try-on room. Let’s see what we can try on Betty now! She’s Cheating-Wife Betty! No, wait, it’s Urban Assault Betty! No, it’s Friend-zoned, Popcorn Betty!

I agree this is also Slott’s story of Otto being unable to redeem himself at the end. This just could have been done in a much more sympathetic way to both Otto and Peter. It’s grandiose fun, but says nothing about true depth of character. They both should have staggering depth to work with by now, but I’m just shaking my head at opportunities lost.

ReplyReply
mygif
Scavenger said on July 25th, 2013 at 4:22 pm

Silverhammerman: as long as your consistent, I got no problem with your statement. I don’t agree with it, as I want a major change in a solo book to resonate thru the other books, but that’s why there’s chocolate and vanilla.

***************************

on the MJ story, I will state up front that I haven’t read the issues since it came out, but as I recall the skeevyness of the story was part of the point. It was supposed to be uncomfortable. Further, body swapping is a standard trope in comics and situations like this are kind of glossed over (similarly the comment about Otto accessing the memories of sleeping with MJ…wrong, yes..but he’s a bad man..and this is a world of telepaths and brain scans….such memories would rarely be private). Also, MJ was the first to notice that Peter wasn’t himself.

That’s a point the critics constantly ignore “Why do none of his friends suspect something?” EVERYONE has notice a change. However, “Doctor Octopus swapped minds” isn’t going to be the first thought that comes to mind. Otto has proceeded to break ties with most of Peter’s friends, alienated others, and for the super community, the Avengers ran him through their tests and he came up clean, Captain America is hardly going to get a telepath to probe his mind without due process, assuming Rachel or Psylocke would even consent to do it (which is the same problem Wolverine had when the X-Men ran into Otto). And Otto realized the telepaths would be a problem so he’s avoided them. Other than “because I want them to”, there’s been no legitimate way for someone to learn what’s going on yet. Critics may wish to fanfic it, but Slott (and Yost) has carefully closed each avenue as they’ve shown up.

ReplyReply
mygif
XPlanted said on July 25th, 2013 at 4:45 pm

“Because I want them to”. Absolutely sums it all up. We are spoon-fed all sorts of deus ex machina and plot holes and told not to question the Great Story.

I see a nasty contrivance coming with the whole Kaine/SpOck crossover. In teasers, it’s mentioned he’s going to remember Kaine killing him, when he absolutely can’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Octopus#Death_and_resurrection

ReplyReply
mygif
SIlverHammerMan said on July 25th, 2013 at 4:50 pm

I’d be willing to overlook the violation of canon if it meant that SpOck spent the entire crossover in pants-wetting fear of Kaine.

And maybe he just remembers that Kaine killed him, because he would have been told, but doesn’t actually have memories of the event itself.

ReplyReply
mygif
XPlanted said on July 25th, 2013 at 4:52 pm

Lol! Maybe. I’d like to see some pants-wetting myself.

ReplyReply
mygif
Rob London said on July 25th, 2013 at 5:10 pm

Much like Lindsay Lohan, Doc Ock knows who killed him – after his ninja magic/virtual reality resurrection, his associate Carolyn Trainer did an “Otto Octavius, This Is Your Life” thing with him in the pages of Spider-Man Unlimited #18.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Spoken by someone who can’t contradict any of the actual points that I made.”

I got no horse in this race. Haven’t picked up the book in a while.

But you’re managing to take comics too seriously while at the same time not actually being terribly deep with your analysis, essentially hitting certain points over and over- 1) These characters act out of character 2) Bad things are happening to characters I like (And would ANYONE be raging about this if the victim were not Peter Parker, he of the most sacred status quo?) 3)The people doing this are not only bad at their jobs but morally inferior human beings.

Pauline Kael it ain’t. MGK is at least proffering not only a contrary opinion but an interpretation of the text. You’re not even treating it as text.

I mean, I thought the Red Wedding was sad too but I could put that aside and think about its craft as a scene.

ReplyReply
mygif

Congratulating someone who decides not to attempt to rape promotes rape culture?

ReplyReply
mygif
K-Box in the Box said on July 25th, 2013 at 6:56 pm

“Congratulating someone who decides not to attempt to rape promotes rape culture?”

Yes, because behaving with the minimum baseline of what should be considered acceptable human behavior shouldn’t be noteworthy. You don’t deserve to be treated like a hero for simply NOT raping people.

ReplyReply
mygif

Then you might as well ban me now

HOKAY

ReplyReply
mygif

“Then you might as well ban me now, because not only do I believe that I’ve not said or done anything wrong, but I also believe that I would be wrong if I conducted myself on this thread in a fashion that you’re asking me to.”

Oh, definitely. It’s completely wrong to be polite and anything less than condescending in someone else’s personal blog. What kind of world would this be if people actually listened to other people instead of trying to win by yelling the loudest and the longest? After you’re banned here, I wish you great success as a radio talk show host.

ReplyReply
mygif

Man, this article is generating all SORTS of comments! Hey guys, what’s going on in

Oh.

ReplyReply
mygif
magnuskn said on July 25th, 2013 at 8:28 pm

Daring the blog owner to ban you: Generally a bad idea.

And K-Box actually had some decent points, but sadly the usual disregard for polite conversation and treating people with respect which makes folks dislike your opinion no matter how right you are.

Although I have no idea how he gets his ideas that Bendis is some sort of authoritarian.

ReplyReply
mygif

Probably the same place he got the idea that anyone who disagreed with him was a proponent of rape culture in the last thread he showed up to shit all over, i.e. if anyone disagrees with me smear them with as many insults and accusations as I can think of while asserting my position’s moral superiority. It’s the Tumblr school of debate.

Really this just goes to show that anyone who describes themselves as a “self-appointed pundit of pop culture” can safely be disregarded without worrying that you’ll miss anything of value.

Best Ock-as-Spider-Man moment so far is actually in Journey Into Mystery where Sif is going aggro and in the process releases a bunch of monsters into downtown New York. First SpOck swoops in all angry about her bringing this shit into “his city,” then when he sees her killing the hell out of everything he starts hitting on her instead.

Anyway, as has been mentioned so far the biggest problem with the story arc is that it’s just taking too long, but that’s an issue that a lot of comics stories have these days like Age of Ultron which took way too long to tell a story that could have been maybe three issues tops.

Besides, everyone should be reading Scarlet Spider anyhow.

ReplyReply
mygif

Just decided I’d put my two cents in: people, you’re objecting to K-Box making this kind of analogy when Doc Ock compared himself to Hitler (who let’s remember took over a republic and left a ruined, shattered, bisected Germany smaller than the one he co-opted thanks to Hindenburg), Pol Pot (who needless to say gave NORTH VIETNAM a moral advantage), and Genghis Khan (who actually used mass murder efficiently as a tool of psychological warfare and built a continental empire).

When *that* is considered morally superior to Peter Parker, ordinary morality has already died a miserable, lingering, horrible death.

ReplyReply
mygif

Also, I might note that again, people object to comparing things to real life when Doc Ock here is a pretty pathetic sad sack who isn’t really even an impressive villain masquerading as a hero. AzBats he is not. The Punisher, he is not. If this is how people define admiring a character, I seriously wonder what people define contempt for them as.

Of course then again, wasn’t the point of OMIT to show what stories could be told about single Peter Parker? So why now are we being told stories about Seth Rogen movie Dr. Octopus? If people are willing to accept a character comparing himself in-story to HITLER AND POL POT as morally superior to Spider-Man, then again, why are you Spider-Man fans? Call yourselves Doc Ock fans. Because that’s not even liking your own supposed hero. You might as well like the Red Skull. At least he can compare himself to Hitler with a straight face.

ReplyReply
mygif

http://dougernst.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/spider-man-doctor-octopus.jpg?w=610

See this panel. Doc Ock in story said that he would outmatch literally the man behind the Holocaust and the man behind Tuol Sleng, as well as randomly roping in a medieval Mongol Khan. If you deny this panel exists, well…..that just shows you’re not actually reading these stories you claim to admire. If you can accept this as morally superior to Peter Parker, again, you’re welcome to do so.

But don’t try to argue that you’re somehow a Spider-Man fan when you do.

ReplyReply
mygif

“You aren’t REAL SPIDER-MAN FANS and I HAVE PROOF!”

ReplyReply
mygif

By the by, just as a means for a slight education. Noting that K-Box has a tendency to extreme rhetoric and capitalizing words, phrases, and sentences is simply noting how he says what he says, and his particular writing method. It is the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem. You might do better to note how a story that is based on the direct assumption of rehashing a storyline done on the scale of a full-scale alien invasion happens on an individual scale to a character who has multiple reasons for this to be detected somehow passes an argument for consistent storytelling.

You might also do well to note why Doc Ock, never before the Slott era shown as a rapist at all, suddenly goes Rapey in thought toward Mary Jane. He almost married Aunt May, and was the very model of a modern gentleman when he did that. Why does *that* guy try to scheme to get in someone’s pants randomly? Doc Ock also is a big science guy who loves technology. So why is he simply sticking with Peter Parker’s technology? Who cares if its not consistent for Peter Parker, it’s not Peter Parker pretending to be Spider-Man here, it’s Otto Octavius.

Why not, I don’t know, have the supervillain do some actual *SUPER* things. Don’t replay the sad sack stories of pathetic loser Peter Parker if this Spider-Man is somehow superior. The English language takes enough abuse without this idiocy contributing to it. The truly epic failure here is that this is a story that insults both the characters of Peter Parker and Otto Octavius in a gigantic mishmash of poking poodles. Using a girl as a human shield makes one morally inferior to someone who threatened the literal annihilation of the human race? Moral myopia at its purest.

A supervillain makes a better hero than a superhero? This is done in the MU already with its own title. It’s called the Punisher. Invasion of the Body Snatchers getting yet another purposeless ripoff of a cliche plot? Again, Secret Invasion. This is a shameful waste of a good idea in theory with wretched execution. I have seen better storytelling mocked by Joel and the Bots.

ReplyReply
mygif

Hey, man, I posted a link to a panel where Doctor Octopus said he would be more infamous than Hitler and Pol Pot. If you see threatening the extermination of humankind as morally superior to the character you say you love, you either have no understanding of what morality is or how it works, or you’re illiterate. After all, this is *literally threatening to exterminate humankind.* Annihilus-level evil here. You think Spider-Man is worse than that?

Do you have any idea of what scale of evil is?

Yes, I have proof. I actually linked to the comic. What do you have? A comic you haven’t read and a moral compass that reads genocide as morally superior to protecting human life?

ReplyReply
mygif

Oh, and the thing about ‘nobody likes Spidey’s Jokes’ is irrelevant. Why? In what twisted misunderstanding of the English language is ‘Impudent Whelps’ a joke? Emulating Dick Dastardly in a bad routine based on Dudley Do-Right? Even Marvel Supervillains no longer do the Lee-Ditko era hamming it up. If someone randomly revives Silver Age rhetoric, that’s neither funny nor is it something that would pass without at least some commentary. For that to work, you need Dr. Doom to have replaced the entire set of people here with Doombots. And again, that’s already been done in Secret Invasion. A story that bloats Doc Ock out of proportion to write a pitifully written characterization of Ock and Spider-Man like this, with extremely simple plot holes….

I mean let’s face it, there are instances where people deliberately masquerading as another character slips through. When this has been done in the past, like with the Clone Saga and the Xorn-Go-Round, people have hated this. HATED it with a passionate enough furor, in fact, to divide the fandoms in question. Now this nonsense happens again, and not with a clone, but with a pathetic Spider-Man and a more pathetic Doc Ock. But this is somehow good writing with depth? This is writing a foot wide and a nanometer deep.

ReplyReply
mygif
SIlverHammerMan said on July 25th, 2013 at 10:45 pm

Hey Kai, how is Scarlet Spider right now? I read it for a few issues after the .1, but I dropped it when Kaine turned into a Man-Spider and have been reluctant to pick it up since. Was that resolved well and has the book picked up again? Could I safely pick up the next issue without being lost or would I need to get properly caught up?

ReplyReply
mygif

What have I got? Well for one thing I’m not wasting tens of thousands of words getting upset about imaginary superheroes and what other people think of them. I’d call that a win.

Also it’s kind of great how you’re calling people out for ad hominem attacking K-Box when ad hominems are literally all K-Box brings to the table. K-Box kept going on about how nobody was “engaging with his points,” but that K-Box actually has/had any points worth engaging is thus far an unsupported premise.

The onus isn’t on other people to force themselves to engage with a raging asshole’s insult-laden word salad in order to have a rational debate with him, it’s on the asshole to stop acting like an asshole if he wants people to actually engage with him. K-Box doesn’t want that though, if he did he wouldn’t be acting like that in the first place.

“This is me being NICE.” – said by nobody actually being nice ever.

“Hey Kai, how is Scarlet Spider right now?”

Scarlet Spider is really good and I’d say it’s one of the better current Marvel comics that probably not enough people are reading. Him turning into a freaky man-spider mutant sounds like you came in somewhere in the middle of the current run. I’d try and pick it up from the beginning; the full run so far is only something like 16 or 17 issues. It’s got a good mix of humor and action and has a nice supporting cast, and while the latest issues have brought Wolverine and the X-Men into things for the most part it sort of stands as its own little island apart from everything else going on in the Marvel universe at the moment.

ReplyReply
mygif

You know the reall stupid thing here? That Hitler, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot analogy? It’s a failure no matter what angle you analyze it from. Pol Pot is so randomly placed next to the other two vermin that you don’t even see why he’s brought up. Hitler tried to overrun a continent, did overrun a large part of it, then crashed and burned. Genghis Khan smashed enemies far outside his weight class and successfully overran a continent. Pol Pot? Rode on Ho Chih Minh’s coattails and then crashed and burned and primarily affected his own country. It’s two elephants and a jackass.

What angers me is not the fictional characters, it’s Dan Slott’s grotesque insult to the memory of Hitler’s victims and the victims of the Killing Fields. *That* kind of reference has no business being in comics in the first place.

You know, K-Box didn’t mind-control any of you into responding that way. If it really bothers you, why not take the moral high ground? Oh, wait, this is talking with people who see threatening extermination of the human race as the moral superior to protecting people.

BTW, if you’re not in fact concerned about, why are you responding to or acknowledging it at all? See in the realm of mature people who have actual things to do with their time (I qualify for the first but not at present the second), the answer to that kind of thing is simple. Scroll past something and ignore it. That one guy comes on the Internet and gets under your skin is actually quite fascinating in a way.

He didn’t do anything but express points vehemently. You people, OTOH, used his tendency to capitalize words and phrases like there’s some refutation in that. Newsflash: you stated a fact about someone else’s typing. You addressed none of his points, and showed yourself to be incapable of addressing even basic points stated bluntly.

Oh, and I’m not upset, BTW. People have made that statement about how I type on the Internet a lot without ever actually seeing me upset. See, I can be vehement and abrasive, but that’s not the same thing as actual, genuine anger. No, see, anger is an emotion. My posts are genuinely rather too elaborate to reflect genuine anger or being upset. And even if I was, what difference does it make? It would neither invalidate my points nor his.

I also love it that I literally linked to a post where the ‘Superior Spider-Man’ pre-Body Snatching said he was going to outdo three genocidal monsters from real-reality, and none of you seem to think that has anything to do with the relative morality here. I mean really, people, this is not rocket science here: if you consider threatening to outdo the architects of the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, and the Butchering of Baghdad to be a morally superior statement to With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility, I again must ask if you are capable of understanding what the word ‘genocide’ and phrase ‘moral superiority’ mean. Because one of these things is NOT like the other.

And the only way you can say that it’s outrage over fictional characters is to argue that Hitler was fictional, along with Pol Pot. Because if you have read my posts, you’ll see that *this* is the major reason I consider this Doc Ock to be a grotesque insult to a hitherto-actually-kinda-awesome supervillain. If you’re considering being angered by trivializing real genocides as anger over fictional characters, well….perhaps English means that to you, but it does not to me. See, to me, genocide is real. Outrage over misuse of it and claiming wanting to outdo it is morally superior to the idea of protecting people as an underdog is a moral obscenity.

ReplyReply
mygif

That’s right, it’s not the asshole’s problem for being an asshole, it’s everybody else’s problem for choosing to point out what an asshole he is. What do you have to say NOW, MGK posters? Hmm? Makes you think.

Keep accusing people of being in favor of genocide though, that really shows how interested you are in having a discussion rather than spouting from a soapbox.

ReplyReply
mygif

Also, I love this faux persecution complex. One guy comes in and disagrees with some of you, and the others of you happen to presume you speak for all of you. I mean really, K-Box is abrasive, yes. Does that make him an asshole? I don’t know. What does being presented with a panel of a supervillain boasting about outdoing real architects of genocide and ignoring it make you?

I have never understood the myopia of people on the Internet being shown evidence right in front of their faces and ignoring it. I have lost arguments on the Internet before. I have been caught red-handed in factual errors. I just accept the point and move on. Nothing is more fascinating than the person who when shown evidence not only ignores it, but presumes being caught blatantly in precisely the things denied is somehow convincing. That might work if the other person in the argument didn’t have a memory or eyes that see.

Also, calling him an asshole still doesn’t invalidate the points he made about turning Ock into a sad sack waffling not-quite-a-rapist and presenting an omnicidal maniac as the moral superior to a superhero. Again, this is Argumentum Ad Hominem. Assholes have points, too. Saying ‘You’re an asshole’ occasionally leads to the bridge saying ‘Yes, he’s an asshole and he’s my cousin.’ Then you’re surrounded by assholes and you’re still incapable of admitting that the character in the story you claim to have read has claimed to want to outdo Hitler, Pol Pot, and Genghis Khan and see this as morally superior to SPIDER-MAN. GENOCIDE is morally superior to being a SUPERHERO.

ReplyReply
mygif

Hey man, if you don’t like the points I’m making you don’t have to keep addressing them, y’know. You could always just ignore’em.

Oh shit, wait, hang on. I had my mind control turned on by mistake, sorry about that. Should be fixed now.

ReplyReply
mygif

Oh, I know I could. Thing is that I take insulting genocide victims in a comic book story of all things to be serious business. And I find ignoring this point and failing to refute anything I’ve said to be another case of a mentality I see all too often all over the Internet. I find discussing things with that mentality to be the equivalent of watching a fluffy poodle pretend it’s Cujo.

Are you going to address the panel where Ock said he was going to outdo Hitler and the morality issue? Yes or no will do. Evading the question is simply proof that you don’t care about the reality issue, as last time I checked Hitler and Pol Pot and Genghis Khan were real. And so were the piles of corpses each made.

Remember, you said that it’s merely about fictional characters. I seem to have missed when anyone but David Irving proclaimed anything any of these people did was fictional. I also seem to have missed when you actually showed anything I said was incorrect. Again, I provided a panel from the story itself that shows how morally offensive this story is. Do you have anything of substance to back your point of view?

ReplyReply
mygif

BTW, not liking the points you make would dignify the one-liner responses you make as points. I refuse to debase the English language that way. So far your counterarguments are things like this: “That’s right, it’s not the asshole’s problem for being an asshole, it’s everybody else’s problem for choosing to point out what an asshole he is. What do you have to say NOW, MGK posters? Hmm? Makes you think.

Keep accusing people of being in favor of genocide though, that really shows how interested you are in having a discussion rather than spouting from a soapbox.”

Arguing against two people is not a point. A point requires an actual tenet held that has a premise and a means of supporting this tenet. You also claimed I was upset about this, which is neither accurate nor any kind of refutation, and claimed that there’s some winning or losing factor here.

No, see, I pointed out that Doc Ock boasted about outdoing the real architects of genocide, and you’re just insulting me and K-Box. Arguments require an actual logic. And so far, the logic here rates between ‘Warrgarbl’ and ‘Fhqwgad’.

ReplyReply
mygif

Oh, and in reference to the idea of Golden Age Superman as a simple boy scout….that’s a pretty stupid comment all by itself. I mean Golden Age Superman was the guy who broke doors because he could and comes across as a Man of Steel in the Red sense to a modern audience. Golden Age Superman, in fact, invented the idea of Superdickery. I think you meant the strawman ideal of Silver Age Superman.

ReplyReply
mygif

So, Underlankers, I take it you have mixed feelings about the current Superior Spider-Man story arc.

ReplyReply
mygif

Hmm, what an odd coincidence. One loudmouth who over-equates comics with genocide, writes back to back massive posts that come across as mentally ill, and insults everyone gets banned, and another immediately comes back to take his place, even going so far as to defend his noble, unjustly persecuted “friend.”

Yep, I bet they are two totally different people who have no connection to one another except for their love of absolute justice and morality. Yep. Their need to fight rape and Nazis by yelling at people who like Spider-Man comics is inspiring. Two true heroes, those. It’s actually kind of a miracle that they met here. Kismet, even.

If I didn’t know better, because they said so and their word is unimpeachable, I’d guess they were in fact THE SAME DAMN PERSON.

Seriously dude, you’re not fooling anyone.

ReplyReply
mygif
Ian Austin said on July 26th, 2013 at 2:35 am

I apologise for these ridiculous trolls MGK.

ReplyReply
mygif

“You know, K-Box didn’t mind-control any of you into responding that way. If it really bothers you, why not take the moral high ground? Oh, wait, this is talking with people who see threatening extermination of the human race as the moral superior to protecting people.

BTW, if you’re not in fact concerned about, why are you responding to or acknowledging it at all? See in the realm of mature people who have actual things to do with their time (I qualify for the first but not at present the second), the answer to that kind of thing is simple. Scroll past something and ignore it. That one guy comes on the Internet and gets under your skin is actually quite fascinating in a way.

He didn’t do anything but express points vehemently. You people, OTOH, used his tendency to capitalize words and phrases like there’s some refutation in that. Newsflash: you stated a fact about someone else’s typing. You addressed none of his points, and showed yourself to be incapable of addressing even basic points stated bluntly.”

Points here:

1) No-one here, absolutely no-one has suggested in the least that Ock is morally superior to Spider-Man.

2) K-Box’s points were not unaddressed. We asked him for sources for loads of his claims, which he did not give. We made arguments against a lot of his points. As a whole, he didn’t really actually make much of a cogent argument for or against anything we were actually saying, as far as I can see.

3) Ad Hominem attacks are those which ignore what has been said to focus on other aspects of the character of arguer. That is not what has generally been done here. Criticising the way an argument is made is not ad hominem. “Sprawling, ranting, venomous screeds that seem to be against anyone who doesn’t hate his hate-object in EXACTLY the way he does and say so LOUDLY on the INTERNET” seems to be the form he chose to argue in. This hasn’t actually really resulted in a hugely cogent argument in favour of anything other than “I think that the new status quo of Spider-Man is bad, I think that the people writing it are bad people for writing an [as yet uncompleted] story about things I don’t like, and look, the stuff they say in marketing backs up this interpretation!”

Actually, his original ranted ended with the summary: “People who wholeheartedly enjoy the “Superior” Spider-Man masturbate to Dick Cheney’s ideology and the Villain Sue fanfics of short-sighted small minds who are emotionally frozen in the most self-centered yet totally non-self-aware aspects of adolescence.”

Which rhetoric is, you will note, an Ad Hominem attack in itself.

When you note that he additionally spammed a lot of comments with a lot of bile, saying a lot of things, much of which is insane rhetoric, delusional or plainly attacking everyone who disagrees with him, he didn’t present much of a coherent point to argue against.

I’ve not read any SSM. MGK’s review makes it sound interesting and I might check it out. K-Box’s rant tells me he doesn’t like the set-up for this storyline. He doesn’t seem to really look at the literary benefits of the storyline, instead choosing to morally judge fictional characters for their actions. Plus he slagged loads of people off for not agreeing with them. That almost, but not quite, makes me more interested in reading.

ReplyReply
mygif

Inclusion of Genghis Khan now that I think about it, is odd. He was a brutal conqueror, sure (though he’s supposed to have been pretty fair as a head of state) but he wasn’t out to rework his country or his world on the fanatical lines of Pol Pot, let alone Hitler. I’ve often suspected it’s the Yellow Peril aspect that makes him seem scarier and more monstrous than, say, Napoleon.

ReplyReply
mygif

Thing is that I take insulting genocide victims in a comic book story of all things to be serious business.

Really dude? Insulting? If you find that to be insulting how did you make it through high school.

Are you going to address the panel where Ock said he was going to outdo Hitler and the morality issue?

This is the insulting comment in question. Doc is a villain. Anybody in any profession wants to be at the top. I see nothing wrong with him wanting to be the best. He is setting the bar high for himself and why shouldnt he. Once he became “Spider-Man” he had a change of heart. People are allowed to change their minds.

You might also do well to note why Doc Ock, never before the Slott era shown as a rapist at all, suddenly goes Rapey in thought toward Mary Jane.

Did Ock do it? No. There was no attempt, just thoughts and lets all be honest here, damn near everyone of us wou;d have thought about banging Mary Jane if we were Ock. Seriously “rapey” who says that?

See in the realm of mature people who have actual things to do with their time (I qualify for the first but not at present the second

You and your boy K box have a lot in common.

That one guy comes on the Internet and gets under your skin is actually quite fascinating in a way.

The only thing I am fascinated by is how you been on here none stop for 2 days and wrote a novel on why you dislike this comic.

Assholes have points, too.

Yes they do but you pal are a DOUCHE.

ReplyReply
mygif

I would suggest that the people alleging I am a sockpuppet check my IP address. You will discover that I am a completely different person, which is why I am using a username derived from my own set of fiction, the Omniverse Tales. Underlankers is an Anglicization of the term Underlankinirir, which is based on the House of Underlan in the Tales. So no, actually, I’m not K-Box. I happen to have a rather different approach than he does.

And I might also note that if you do not see the problems involved in having an entirely fictional character boast about outdoing genocide as insulting, let me rephrase again to see if people understand it this way: Doc Ock is fictional. He does not exist. Hitler, Pol Pot, and the piles of corpses both left behind them did exist. For a fictional character to boast about outdoing atrocities that have scarred the real world and left behind infamy in one case, relative obscurity in another, and a random link to a completely different era, to boot, is an insult. Why? He. is. a. comic. book. character. Comic. books. are. not. any. thing. serious. in. this. regard.

Dan Slott is not Allan Moore, and could not write a major political reference like this in any kind of internally consistent factor to show the most rudimentary modicum of research.

Oh, and again: if people don’t think he is better than Spider-Man, why is it that nobody is addressing that Dan Slott *has* said that Ock *is* morally superior *after* he had Ock threaten to commit Omnicide?

It’s not merely the Hitler-Pol Pot-Genghis Khan mishmash of a bizarre analogy, it’s doing that, planning the annihilation of the human race, taking over Spider-Man’s body, and going from Annihilus to Dr. Drakken.

ReplyReply
mygif

Perhaps you would, if you were Doc Ock. If you were Doc Ock pretending to be Spider-Man, you’d be committing a double-rape by proxy. I mean let’s face it, she wouldn’t be sleeping with Doc Ock in Doc Ock’s body for love or money. Sleeping with Doc Ock in Spider-Man’s body is, well…….I mean let’s face it, Ock wanted to *marry* an older woman. He is *old fashioned* enough to know that dog don’t hunt.

I mean let’s face it, Ock could plan and carry out an attempt to exterminate humanity as a supervillain. He becomes a superhero and one wonders what the point of killing off Spider-Man to replace him with Ock was in the first place. Ock goes from high-level mass-murdering supervillainy to be just as much a pathetic sad sack as Slott’s version of Peter Parker.

ReplyReply
mygif

And what literary benefits are you talking about? Every element of this storyline has been done before, well and poorly, in other storylines. Rehashing a cliche story with bad writing and pitiful characterizations and a ridiculously offensive moral characterization of two characters written in a completely alien fashion to how they actually behave has no literary benefit. You might as well suggest to a Harry Potter fan to read League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Volume III Part III. You might as well tell Godzilla fans to enjoy the Emmerich-Devlin monstrosity instead of the original Gojira. You might as well tell a superhero fan to enjoy a story where the supervillain is set up to be superior and ends up no different than what they’re supposedly superior to. Using cliches nobody uses anymore, and acting like the worst twist on the 60s-era supervillain in the form of a superhero when nobody even comments on bringing up archaic rhetoric.

Liking this story for ‘literary’ benefit is the same thing as liking My Immortal or Manos: The Hands of Fate in terms of taste. It has no literary benefit, and God willing will be as obscure as Perry White getting Superpowers or Jimmy Olsen turning Superman into the Devil.

ReplyReply
mygif
Eren_Jaeger said on July 26th, 2013 at 8:25 am

This is the best Spidey comic in years! Very entertaining. Nobody reads comics for their literary benefit. They read it to be entertained.

ReplyReply
mygif

You find killing off Peter Parker for the purpose of replacing him with a supervillain that acts very similar to Slott’s not exactly heroic portrayal of Peter Parker to be entertaining? It’s not even that. It’s the kind of story that makes comics look bad.

See here: “’ve not read any SSM. MGK’s review makes it sound interesting and I might check it out. K-Box’s rant tells me he doesn’t like the set-up for this storyline. He doesn’t seem to really look at the literary benefits of the storyline, instead choosing to morally judge fictional characters for their actions. Plus he slagged loads of people off for not agreeing with them. That almost, but not quite, makes me more interested in reading.”

To imply that there are literary benefits here is an insult to good storytelling. Even Joel and the Bots couldn’t salvage this. Twilight was actually a better story. And I consider *that* series to be an insult to the vampire genre founded by Bram Stoker.

BTW, I might note that K-Box defended his argument by noting that ‘acid-boarding’ thing was why he was making comparisons like this, along with statements made by the actual authors. Objecting to points with evidence to support them with ‘You’re an asshole’ K-Box just means you’re on a bridge surrounded by assholes without actually noting the point he raised. That’s pretty basic literacy, in fact, noting how he went from Point A to Point C. And looking through that thread, I see a bunch of handwringing about Scans_Daily and zero attempts to actually discuss anything he said. Perhaps that explains how people who have no comprehension of what logic is and how people who go from Point A to Conclusion C come up with and defend a premise can claim there is literary merit to a storyline worse than My Immortal and Twilight.

ReplyReply
mygif
Eren_Jaeger said on July 26th, 2013 at 8:44 am

Yes I find it entertaining. Its a comic and I dont take it to seriously. Peter Parker had grown kind of stale and this might just be the thing to bring some life back to his character. Stop being such a fanboy. Im sure Peter Parker will be back ;)

ReplyReply
mygif

Oh, and again: if people don’t think he is better than Spider-Man, why is it that nobody is addressing that Dan Slott *has* said that Ock *is* morally superior *after* he had Ock threaten to commit Omnicide?

Two reasons. First of all, like MGK said, what people say about an ongoing storyline of a major corporate property like Spider-Man is highly likely to be puffery and therefore particularly unreliable. And secondly, many people have alluded to the “death of the author” theory, although not in so many words, so there’s a link.

I don’t think the character who calls himself the Superior Spider-Man is a good person, certainly not a better person than Peter Parker. I mean, obviously. That would be ridiculous. Aside from his history going back to his time as Otto, he’s acting like a clichéd, hammy villain. However, I think the book titled Superior Spider-Man is a good book, at least judging by what I’ve read of it so far. (For the record, that’s only nine issues so far, and not all in order, but I’m working on it.)

ReplyReply
mygif

Regarding the genocide thing (and I think I may regret taking part in this):

As YouKNo pointed out that panel was pre-Parker mind whammy which led Ock to change his priorities.

Also one must keep in mind that Ock was at that point dying and in full crazy villain mode and also there is the possibility he was taunting Peter (who places a high value on human life.)

And again no one on here is saying Ock is a better or morally superior Spider-Man than Peter Parker was/will inevitably be again. Slott and Wacket may be saying that but as MGK has pointed out a few times here, that is PR crap and should not be taken seriously. And no one is supporting genocide here. This is akin to saying that by going to see Fast and Furious 6 you are endorsing car theft or something.

ReplyReply
mygif

It’s not being a fanboy. It’s wondering if people realize that this supposed superior Spider-Man really is not all that different from the inferior Spider-Man that preceded him. There is no fresh breath of air, there’s a cheap gimmick that has led to no meaningful change whatsoever. As P.T. Barnum said, there is a sucker born every minute. You see, if the word ‘superior’ appears in a title, one might be forgiven for expecting something genuinely superior in the title.

I mean just a pinch of superiority. What I see is that Doc Ock is the same character as Peter Parker in many ways, and morally worse than others. So it’s taking one character who is obviously identified as inferior (which in today’s dictionary lesson is the antonym of superior) and replacing them with a supposedly superior character who is neither superior nor even really all that distinguishable. Ock may not have made a Deal with the Devil, but he threatened omnicide. If you think that’s superior to superheroes, go read Wanted.

ReplyReply
mygif

Thing is that the title itself indicates that Doc Ock is to be a Superior Spider-Man. So not only does the title (unless people don’t know what superior means, which given this is the Internet…..) indicate that the Peter Parker Spider-Man was inferior (and this, too has been done before. The Clone Saga, f’rex), but the authors have literally said that anyone who disagrees that a man who went from Annihilus level supervillainy to being as much a loser as the guy he replaced as not only superior, but morally superior to Peter Parker doesn’t understand Spider-Man. If you think Slott and company are right on this, you’re welcome to do so.

MGK hasn’t pointed out anything to say that it’s PR crap, and even if it is, what kind of writer goes in to write a character and insults the very fiction they’re supposed to be writing?

And if I’m going to be reading a series entitled ‘Superior’ anything, I expect the writing to showcase this superiority in some fashion. And this story is a cliche that takes a number of storylines done repeatedly not just in Marvel but in Spider-Man writing itself and turns out dreck of Augean proportions, without a single factor to redeem itself as literature even on its own terms. Perhaps that’s because unlike others I don’t take kindly to have writers insult my intelligence by saying “I’m a comics writer LULZ you don’t know what I’m writing any better than I do. I am superior to you and I can do whatever I want whenever I want because it’s just comics.” Storytelling matters, and if this was the only experience I had with Spider-Man, I’d ditch the whole series and consider it not worth any attention at all. Why? Because nobody reads Spider-Man to see Doc Ock acting like the poor man’s Spider-Man.

ReplyReply
mygif

Also, I’m not saying you can’t state your opinion or anything, but hating something this vehemently and spending time writing these long posts against it seems like a waste of energy to me, especially given that there no way in hell this is a permanent stays quo for Spidey. It may be another year or two but Peter Parker will be back eventually.

ReplyReply
mygif

Just out of curiosity, when I’ve repeatedly stated that I do not hate this or even really have any emotional investment in it and people are neglecting that to claim I do, are you either not reading what I’m saying or are you simply deciding on an utter lack of evidence that there is some emotional investment here? I am not the kind of person who when in a strong rage is capable of turning out any kind of elaborate writing that reflects coherence or a consistent point.

No, I am simply morbidly fascinated at how people who claim to be Spider-Man fans like a story that involves directly transforming Doc Ock into exactly the same kind of character that the already-tarred-as-loser-Peter-Parker-was and being told that this is superior and believing it. I can’t decide if it’s simply being snookered or if you are genuinely believing that.

Perhaps it’s not a permanent status quo, but nonetheless it’s not any ddifferent from authors who wrote stories where the dialogue includes ‘points too complicated for MJ to understand’ and Carlie ‘I have no consistent design or hair color and am named after Joe Quesada’s daughter’ Cooper. If this is good storytelling, real authors are rolling in the grave at a speed sufficient to resolve the energy crisis. Stephanie Meyer could write better dreck than that.

I’m a Godzilla fan, I have greater tolerance for bad writing than most. This is not merely bad writing, this is the kind of writing that would be used in a Clockwork Orange to torture a bad person into becoming a good one.

ReplyReply
mygif

So now, it’s the TITLE?

Because I think you may be surprised by a little movie called “The Great Dictator”, or the book “Brave New World”.

Does nobody understand irony or ambiguity or nuance anymore?

ReplyReply
mygif

Also the title doesn’t indicate Ock is the superior Spider-Man, it indicates that he thinks he is the Superior Spider-Man (something that already is being proven wrong in the book itself as stuff is starting to unravel.)

Edited: Thank you Eren, I was trying to think of satirical titles and was drawing a blank. Glad you beat me to it.

ReplyReply
mygif
Eren_Jaeger said on July 26th, 2013 at 9:13 am

How would you know if its bad writing or not? You havent read any of it. As far as you hating this book… You have never said that but your actions are showing otherwise. Unless you just love to write long winded essays on books you havent read based on the reviews of others :/

ReplyReply
mygif

By the way, I might note that the people who think that the Spider-Marriage or MJ *are* coming back should remember so long as Joe Quesada wants a single Spider-Man who’s not entertaining but merely pathetic to be the main character of the Spider-Man series, you’re deluding yourselves. Quesada and company go out of their way in-story to insult Mary Jane, even when this is quite obviously and blatantly insulting not only the characters but those fans impertinent enough to mouth off to them about how they don’t like this trait.

They don’t care what you want, and they know that you’ll buy literally an issue about anything so long as it has Spider-Man on the title. Why? Because it’s not about the character or even consistent storytelling, it’s simple, mindless fanboyism. I refuse to touch some storylines with a 400 and a half foot pole for good reason. Mindless acceptance of storytelling and author’s prerogatives is how storylines and characters crash and burn.

I mean let’s face it, Spider-Man has committed one of the most basic sins of literature in making a deal with the Devil, this in a world where he’s fought demons before and knows this is a bad idea. He’s literally gotten a Satanic divorce (one wonders how readers with families affected by divorce felt reading that, incidentally. It might even seem an insult to them and to the idea of marriage in general). Spider-Man post-Satantic Divorce proves to be a pathetic, unlikeable loser worse than the protagonist of a Seth Rogen movie. Spider-Man, supposedly having stories that could be told without the marriage, is slain in favor of a lousy Doc Ock Bodysnatcher story.

Wow. Such marvelous storytelling. I am in deep awe of all the consistency, lack of any deeply and profoundly troubling messages, and the great appreciation for any kind of consistent moral sense here. Because acting like a twisted combination of Faust and the main characters of a Seth Rogen movie is pure responsibility…..for Bizarro!

ReplyReply
mygif

Actually, no I would not. Because in that book and film, the authors went well out of their way to show they disagreed with the premises (and Brave New World in any event referenced Shakespeare). Here the authors have indicated that they do agree with the title. Again, if people are incapable of reading basic English, that might explain a lot about how the authors literally tell you people that you’re wrong for thinking the way you do and then what? You genuinely think they’re good writers who understand what they’re doing for calling you stupid, bad fans who don’t like their supposed genius!

If someone calls me stupid for not enjoying something they wrote, I will not like that very much. If someone calls you stupid for not liking what they wrote and you do like it and the story involved very much, well……you seem to be under the impression that “You’re stupid and bad and should feel bad” is both 1) effective public relations, and 2)) a sign of some basic respect for other people as human beings.

K-Box made this point and none of you addressed it. I suppose if an author of this story held out a stick and told you to fetch it that you’d do *that.*

Oh, and I understand nuance just fine. It’s not me who happens to note that the authors of this story are insulting people like you and taking your money while laughing all the way to the bank and then arguing about nuance. You see, what that’s called is at minimum myopia and at worst a kind of literary masochism.

ReplyReply
mygif

Just out of curiosity, when I’ve repeatedly stated that I do not hate this or even really have any emotional investment in it and people are neglecting that to claim I do, are you either not reading what I’m saying or are you simply deciding on an utter lack of evidence that there is some emotional investment here?

Personally, I find it more likely that there is a emotional investment. You are not acting how I would act if I was dispassionately curious about something, you are acting how I would act if I was really irate over and emotionally invested in something, and if I were in that state over something like this, I might deny it, because it would be a bit embarrassing. That being said, you’re denying it and I’ll take you’re word for it, clearly we’re different people. Doesn’t matter either way.

No, I am simply morbidly fascinated at how people who claim to be Spider-Man fans like a story that involves directly transforming Doc Ock into exactly the same kind of character that the already-tarred-as-loser-Peter-Parker-was and being told that this is superior and believing it.

This reflects an understanding of the title, and for that matter titles in general, that I don’t share. “Superior Spider-Man” is what he calls himself. It is not a statement that this Spider-Man is superior to the previous one in every way, or even to anything in any way. To the extent that it is such a statement, it is (or probably is) ironic. That’s all. As for titles in general, they are often ironic, or in-universe appellations even if not strictly accurate (the title character of Invincible is not invincible), or just plain used because someone thinks they sound good.

ReplyReply
mygif

I’m going tell you a secret here, uh, Cyrus. I’m not you. I don’t think like you, I don’t have any experience to know you or how you’d think or react in something. I, in fact, am a completely different person than you, with completely different experiences, who reacts in a completely different fashion from you. It’s a staggering secret, I know, but them’s the breaks.

It actually wouldn’t embarrass me all that much because it’s the Internet. I don’t have much reason to pussyfoot around with my emotions. Even if I was, that still doesn’t invalidate a point as it’s again Argumentum Ad Hominem. For reference, logical fallacies do not have anything to do with proving an argument.

Did you read anything I said? I have noted that it’s the author indicating that they agree with the title and the message it indicates that is the real issue. If this is too complicated for you, let me know how I can dumb it down for you so you can understand it better. I’m perfectly willing to do that.

ReplyReply
mygif

I find it disheartening no one had answered the Unstoppable Gravy Express’ question yet.

He’s been split into two electric Supermen, a red one and a blue one.

ReplyReply
mygif

We should probably stop engaging Underlankers. Let him dig his own grave.

ReplyReply
mygif
Eren_Jaeger said on July 26th, 2013 at 9:34 am

I find it disheartening that K box was banned…. Or was he…

ReplyReply
mygif

I, too, find it disheartening that nobody’s addressed anything I’ve said yet. No, wait, actually that’s extremely predictable. On the Internet one might as well try to find Bigfoot partying with Batboy as get a direct question to a simple answer backed up by actual evidence to show that it’s not made up as it goes along.

I, too, also find it disheartening that people genuinely read things from authors who insult people like you and are enjoying their pocketbooks getting bigger from the proverbial suckers. But it’s entirely predictable that when presented with evidence people flail and prefer to claim “You’re an asshole.” Fellas, I been called everything from an anarchist to a libertarian to a Nazi to a Stalinist to a hardline Republican to a fan of Nietzsche. Unstoppable Gravy Express is a new one but I kind of like it. That I *have* been called all of that also indicates that my points have a repeated tendency to confuse the unwary. Which leads right back to the original point:

All the labeling in the world neither addresses the point nor provides any proof of your own, if there are any points to begin with other than “You’re an asshole!”.

ReplyReply
mygif
Eren_Jaeger said on July 26th, 2013 at 9:38 am

When were you called an asshole?

ReplyReply
mygif

Did you read anything I said? I have noted that it’s the author indicating that they agree with the title and the message it indicates that is the real issue.

And I have noted (here, for reference) that the author’s stated opinion is irrelevant in general, and particularly unreliable in this case. MGK and others have said the same thing previously. Did you read those?

There have been hints all along that SpOck’s efforts are going to fail tragically. (References: within the first five issues, a guy in a Green Goblin costume recruits some of the Vulture’s minions, in a way that indicates SpOck isn’t in control as much as he thinks. In #14, it ends on the reveal of a SPOILERS! goblin army.) Something is clearly building up.

I do not think SpOck is superior to Peter in any relevant sense. I’m willing to bet that most fans of series do not believe he is either, and those that say they do are either missing the point or trolling.

ReplyReply
mygif
Eren_Jaeger said on July 26th, 2013 at 9:40 am

Ohh wait.. My bad thats right.. It was when you were going by K Box.. How silly of me to forget. Personally I agree with youkno who said you are a douche :))

ReplyReply
mygif

Buddy, I wouldn’t tell you to check the IP address if I was K-Box. Refuge in Audacity when one damn well would get caught is simple stupidity. And I’m not surprised that people aren’t trying to address me, as I get the feeling that when required to provide the most rudimentary logical defenses of particular points of view people buck that. I mean it’s extremely simple. Dan Slott and Steve Wacker think you’re all gullible suckers who’ll buy anything they put out, even when they kill Spider-Mn and put him through an excruciatingly stupid plot-line while insulting anyone who disagrees with them as not merely a fan who doesn’t like the work, but a bad person.

If anything I’ve said there, anything at all, can be refuted in even the most elementary fashion, I welcome that. Until then I’ll just keep asking and expecting more ‘You’re an asshole! You’re a sockpuppet!’ non-arguments made to satisfy the small minds of people who think that they find some kind of a refutation that never was.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Fellas, I been called everything from an anarchist to a libertarian to a Nazi to a Stalinist to a hardline Republican to a fan of Nietzsche. Unstoppable Gravy Express is a new one but I kind of like it. That I *have* been called all of that also indicates that my points have a repeated tendency to confuse the unwary.”

Call me unwary, but I’m pretty sure that it just indicates you’re kind of an asshole.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Because I dislike being quoted I find I lie almost constantly when talking about my work.”- Terry Gilliam

I mean, look, it’s indeed possible that Slott and Co. think Otto is a better Spider-Man. But if you don’t think that this eventually is going to lead to the return of Peter Parker, an iconic character with a movie franchise still in progress, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell.

ReplyReply
mygif
Eren_Jaeger said on July 26th, 2013 at 9:44 am

Easy to say when you know I cant check either IP. Its funny how you came into the picture an hour after he gets banned starting off by defending him.

ReplyReply
mygif

Oh, I wasn’t specifically called an asshole. I was, however, called a douche (douche, really? What, is douchebag too much typing for your fingers or something? Douche is such an incomplete thing anyway). I’ve never gone by K-Box anything in my life. Or Box_in_the_Box, either.

Again, MGK, you’re welcome to check the IP addresses. I have seen people do the sockpuppet thing, sometimes to godawfully hilarious extremes. *My* being accused of being a sockpuppet is a new one.

http://underlankers.livejournal.com/tag/under%20l%20sez

^That’s my LJ. I use the Journal-name ‘Fiat Lux’ because 1) Biblical allusions are sadly underdone these days, and 2) Latin needs more use on the Internet.

If you’re willing to accept a guy using a username based on his own sci-fi multiverse as a sockpuppet, again: check the IP addresses.

And then start addressing the points I’ve made with actual logic. Ya’ll claim to be smart people, so where’s the logic?

ReplyReply
mygif

FWIW, Eren, I don’t think he’s K-Box. He’s got a blog link that doesn’t look like K-Box’s stuff, and there are other differences. And even if he is, frankly, it’s beside the point.

ReplyReply
mygif

Actually, no. What it really indicated was that my particular moral calculus literally screwed up everyone who came in contact with it. I was called that in the sequence of a set of political debates where everyone played Pin the Ideology On the Under L and nobody ever managed to do it. :)

Now, that being said, I still want to hear how Doc Ock is somehow heroic after he wanted to exterminate the human race and then turns into Peter Parker with more Silver Age supervillainy rhetoric. What’s the point of Doc Ock Spidey if he doesn’t even do anything actually, well….super? He’s a supervillain. If he acts dramatically out of character, that’s not actually a problem by the storyline’s own internal logic.

ReplyReply
mygif

Did you read anything I said? I have noted that it’s the author indicating that they agree with the title and the message it indicates that is the real issue. If this is too complicated for you, let me know how I can dumb it down for you so you can understand it better. I’m perfectly willing to do that.

Have you not read any of the responses?

1) We don’t actually believe that statements by the authors in publicity should be taken at face value.

2) Even if it did: I believe the concept of the “The Death of the Author” has been explained (ibid.). We do not think the views of Dan Slott on the views of his characters matter, on the whole, outside of what is explicitly in the text.

3) “Superior Spider-Man” clearly uses irony, and reflects Octavius’s opinion that he is superior. This much is pretty clear to anyone.

Occam’s razor. Either:
A) Disney are producing a series called “Superior Spider-Man” starring an evil super-genius because they think an evil super-genius is morally superior to Peter Parker, a hero who is one of their major IP brands, who they are currently making a film about

Or
B) Disney are producing a series called “Superior Spider-Man” starring an evil super-genius in Spider-Man’s body because “Superior” is the sort of styling that a supergenius would give to himself?

Seriously, B) is an obvious, straightforward joke. A) seems to require huge amounts of staggering incompetence by many people aiming to promote evil, rather than recognising that not all communication is totally earnest.

(Also, “Brave New World” was used ironically by Shakespeare, too.)

You see, if the word ‘superior’ appears in a title, one might be forgiven for expecting something genuinely superior in the title.

Well, I’m not sure what’s Uncanny about Avengers or X-Force, what’s so Astonishing about a lot of Marvel series, etc.

ReplyReply
mygif
Eren_Jaeger said on July 26th, 2013 at 9:55 am

Your right about it being beside the point Cyrus. By me typing “douche” you got what I was saying so what… Ahhh nevermind.. its not worth it

ReplyReply
mygif

1) And you base this on assertion made by the authors themselves or based on an idea that means you can pick and choose whatever you want to believe whenever it’s most convenient? I know you think it doesn’t matter, but you’ve never shown where they think it doesn’t matter. Given my experiences with how personal both took disagreement with their stories, I strongly, indeed very vehemently doubt that. People don’t randomly show up on personal Livejournals where people dislike their stories because they’re lying to children in public.

2) Again, based on what? Picking and choosing what’s most convenient to pretend that a badly written story is somehow redeemable? This is the Godzilla’s Revenge of Spider-Stories. It’s the worst piece of crap I’ve seen in this series. And that says *a lot.*

3) You trust the morality of the Disney Corporation? A company that has literally made films like Song of the South and only dials back racism when it might cost them something? Sorry, that dog don’t hunt either. That dog, in fact, is throwing its sick up all over the carpet.

If you’re not sure what’s uncanny about the X-Men, the word means the opposite of what is familiar. People who had powers because they were born into them and basing a series on the Civil Rights movement was anything but familiar at the time. A scientist turning into a big, green, super-strong Mr. Hyde and back again is indeed Incredible.

So…..you know, if you’re that confused about words and what they mean: http://dictionary.reference.com/

ReplyReply
mygif

Yeah, but they’ve not let Song of the South out of the vault (except abroad), because that would be controversial and bad for business. They’re not randomly evil, they’re businesspeople. They will eventually bring back Peter Parker after an absence because that will sell more comics. And there will be much rejoicing at the return of the one true Spider-Man.

ReplyReply
mygif

1) No, we take this based on the fact that authors do lie to stretch the truth and … seriously, have you read anything Mark Millar or Stan Lee said? Amazing hype-men, but don’t take them at their words. Self-mythologisation and selling things is useful.

Why do we care about what the author thinks matters?

2) Seriously?! Have you not read the basic primer on the subject Cyrus has posted in response.

Why should we care?

3) I’m not banking on their morality. I’m banking on their fear of bad PR, their extensive money spent on promoting things.

I am not basing this on basis of trust in any morality: I’m basing this on the fact that the reading by everyone except you makes a lot more sense on an intellectual, literary and marketing sense than literalism.

There is nothing Uncanny about X-Force: it was a continuation of a series called X-Force. Similiarly, Marvel’s “Astonishing” series are not particularly astonishing. Expecting promotional titles to be literally true, particularly from Marvel (“X-Treme X-Men”, etc.) is naive and … intellectually uninquisitive to the point of idiocy.

ReplyReply
mygif

1) Exactly. They objected not on any kind of grounds about the story, but pure business. If this thing really is selling (and there are reasons to believe it’s another poor choice on the Slott machine), then they have no reason whatsoever to ditch it.

2) No, because Death of the Author is a wretched principle that needs to be thrown in shark-infested waters covered in chum wearing concrete shoes.

3) You’re banking badly. Expecting it to be based on titles alone when I have indicated repeatedly that it is not based on titles alone and furthermore than I reject the Death of the Author conceit is either a sign of tenacity or illiteracy. Going with the latter.

ReplyReply
mygif

1) What? This just … doesn’t really cohere as a paragraph.

2) You’d not previously said that you rejected the Death of the Author. Merely ignored all attempts at reason.

3) You seem to ignore all of our responses to our points. Your final answer to me there doesn’t seem to actually say much, and I have not got a clue as to what you’re even referring to by “it”.

In conclusion, I refer you to Paul O’Brien’s review of Astonishing X-Men (v2) #3.

ReplyReply
mygif

Because I don’t have time to reread this monster of a thread, can someone find and quote all of the times where someone involved in this discussion stated that Doc Ock was morally superior to Peter Parker?

Thanks, because while it’s possible I missed it, I don’t recall seeing anybody say that. What I have gotten is that a bunch of people are liking the story while still being of the opinion that Spider-Doc is ultimately going to crash and burn because he’s a villain who’s trying to act the hero and is fucking it up in ways he can’t see because of his particular blind spots.

Now, I have not read any of said story. It may be crap, it may be great, I don’t know. All I’m seeing is a bunch of back and forth that seems to boil down to “If you like this story, it means you agree with DocOck and are history’s greatest monster.” VS “Dude, quit calling me a monster for liking a damn comic.”

Not having read the comic, I can only use my own experiences as a guide. Back in the day I read the Knightfall storyline in Batman and overall liked it. (I haven’t read it since, so I can’t speak to how it holds up. Not Well would be my guess.) At the time I was not on what limited internet there was, so I don’t get into arguments there, I had the next best thing however, random strangers in comic shops. At the time I ran into a few with strong opinions on the matter, most of which were along the lines of “This is horrible, they ruined Batman so they could appeal to kids who want all superheros to be mindless killers.” At the time my opinion was that they were not replacing Bruce permanently, and that the storyline was setting up Azbat as a Grim’n’Gritty alternative, only to tear him down and show how he was actually a terrible Batman who made everything worse. My defense of the storyline went over better in real life than similar defenses seem to be going over here, at least in that I wasn’t called names. I got some “Well, we’ll see” and a few “They shouldn’t be trying it in the first place, it’s stupid” but what I didn’t get was anybody assuming to my face that I was in favor of ex-assassins with auto-batblade launchers being the moral superior to Bruce Wayne because I was continuing to read the comic.

I blame the internet and it’s inherent limitations as a medium of communication.

ReplyReply
mygif

1) I spoke very plainly. Disney doesn’t release Song of the South in the USA because it’s bad for business. Assuming this story really is selling, it’s good for business so they’re not going to decide not to go with the current storyline. If I was too complicated for you, I sincerely apologize.

2) I would think that arguing in favor of what the author does say is rather an argument in its own right. If I insulted your intelligence by presuming you were smart enough to understand why I said what I said when I said it as I said it, I apologize.

3) I was definitely insulting your intelligence to assume that in a discussion about the meaning of titles when authors indicate that they agree with the meaning in that title you could stick to the topic in a mere two comments in succession. I forget that people on the Internet are like goldfish, everything has to be bluntly stated all the time lest their minds be overwhelmed by the challenge of continuing a discussion from comment to comment.

4) Well, for starters all the people who say that neglect that the authors have said the exact opposite. This is intended to be a status quo, and Doc Ock is intended to be a greater hero than Spider-Man and anyone who disagrees with this is a horrible person. That is their POV of looking at it. And since I don’t selectively reject reality while creating a new one in its place, I tend to presume that people petty enough to show up on random corners of the Internet in response to mild critiques of their work in fact *do* mean what they say.

ReplyReply
mygif

The default posision around here concerning the author’s statements about the status quo seems to be “They’re lying, either because they were told to or because they think it will sell more comics. (or both)” If they said “Naa, Peter will be back as soon as we finish this story arc, which by the way is about Doc Ock trying to be a hero and failing.” they’d probably lose readers who would decide to wait things out until Peter comes back.

Given that the entire history of comics for the last 20 years supports this view, I can see why it’s an attractive one.

ReplyReply
mygif

No writer is going to spoil how his arc ends, even if it’s obvious. Now the solicitations on the other hand…

Underlankers… I don’t want to engage you because it might get me banned too, but… well, you’re doing EXACTLY what the other poster did. And he got banned. So perhaps you could let it go instead of implying everyone here is an idiot for either not agreeing with you, or just not answering your essay questions.

ReplyReply
mygif
XPlanted said on July 26th, 2013 at 11:46 am

“well, you’re doing EXACTLY what the other poster did”

Saw that too. Hubris is always ugly, and proving how much you have is redundant.

ReplyReply
mygif

Hubris? No. Hubris would be claiming someone else didn’t provide evidence right there for everyone to see and refusing to address it until I hammered it to the point you had no other option. Hubris is denying reality for convenience.

ReplyReply
mygif
XPlanted said on July 26th, 2013 at 12:40 pm

You need to read a dictionary’s definition of hubris. Seriously. Now you’re making up your own definition. Hubris is exactly what it seems, and providing an alternate to the reality of the definition is, actually, hubris.

ReplyReply
mygif
William Kendall said on July 26th, 2013 at 1:55 pm

Mein gott, did this discussion spin out of control!

ReplyReply
mygif

Did anyone else smile at Otto’s new four-limbed “spider pack”?

Not only is it an accessory that screams “Doc Ock” but it gave me flashbacks to Slott using the Thing to poke fun of the Iron Spider suit’s three mechanical legs. I don’t think Otto is superior to Peter but clearly he can count better than Tony Stark.

ReplyReply
mygif
Candlejack said on July 26th, 2013 at 2:24 pm

Underlankers, “Unstoppable Gravy Express” is a long-time poster here. As you’d know, if you ever read the blog, instead of just coming here because Kbox whined on his blog, and livejournal, and probably forum, that MGK IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET and THIS CANNOT STAND. That post had nothing at all to do with you. Some people would like to talk about things other than you and Kbox. Astonishing, I know.

ReplyReply
mygif

Hubris is a mythological term applied when people defied fate, which was greater than the Gods. If ya’ll think ya’ll worth more than the Gods of mythology…..ya’ll may be right. Not saying y’are, but ya’ll may be.

And ya’ll overestimate ya’ll own importance. I didn’t come here because he whined on the Internet. Again, you mistake this for an actual emotional investment of some sort. But the noticeable lack of answers to anything I’ve said still stands.

ReplyReply
mygif
Savage Wombat said on July 26th, 2013 at 4:10 pm

Not listening when people answer your points is on you, not on them.

ReplyReply
mygif

I was definitely insulting your intelligence to assume that in a discussion about the meaning of titles when authors indicate that they agree with the meaning in that title you could stick to the topic in a mere two comments in succession. I forget that people on the Internet are like goldfish, everything has to be bluntly stated all the time lest their minds be overwhelmed by the challenge of continuing a discussion from comment to comment.

And now I’m giving warning #2 in the same damn thread.

Seriously, what the hell.

ReplyReply
mygif
Scavenger said on July 26th, 2013 at 4:27 pm

Why is Jonny advocating to murder Dan Slott? I thought he liked the book.

ReplyReply
mygif

To arms! To arms! Trolls invade the Mighty God Kingdom!

I’m an issue or two behind, but so far I’m enjoying the Superior title (and the Avenging issues as well). I admit I was a little uncomfortable with the MJ romance angle, so I’m glad they’ve put the kibosh on it.

And of course this isn’t the new status quo. Of course this is temporary. And of course anyone who reads and believes any of that kind of hype deserves the rude awakening they get when things do NOT, in fact, CHANGE FOREVERRRRRR.

ReplyReply
mygif

“If this thing really is selling (and there are reasons to believe it’s another poor choice on the Slott machine), then they have no reason whatsoever to ditch it.”

Either way it will run its course. The financial lure of “PETER PARKER IS BACK!” is too strong.

ReplyReply
mygif

That presumes that the writers of the new story actually *care* about the financial lure of Peter Parker. They killed him in favor of a would-be omnicidal maniac and a lousily written story and you think they have any such mundane concern? Sure, tell yourself that.

ReplyReply
mygif
XPlanted said on July 26th, 2013 at 6:33 pm

“Hubris is a mythological term applied when people defied fate, which was greater than the Gods. If ya’ll think ya’ll worth more than the Gods of mythology…..ya’ll may be right. Not saying y’are, but ya’ll may be.”

And of course, you pick the only nonrelevant definition. How utterly predictable. You continue to prove my point.

ReplyReply
mygif

Since when did the writers ever call the shots at the Big Two? They bow to the editors, publishers, and other executives. It is the natural tendency of said executives to drift back towards the established- Peter Parker’s almost a household name, he’s the lead of an in-progress movie series, etc.

There is no more reason to assume this is a permanent change than there was to assume the same for Batman post RIP, Superman after Doomsday, Hal Jordan, Barry Allen, Jean fucking Grey, Oliver Queen, Colossus, Kitty Pryde, J’onn J’onzz, the New Gods…

Sure there are a few heroes who stayed down. But not anyone with Parker’s marquee value. He’s too well known. It’s only a matter of time.

ReplyReply
mygif

Wait hang on, there are seriously people who think this is going to be a permanent change? I lost track somewhere around the 40th Godwin and something something moral cowardice hubris comics are serious business.

I think that’s the funniest part of people getting bent out of shape over the latest Big Comic Event, it’s like getting angry at the Sweeping Events in soap operas only those actually have a greater chance of effecting lasting change than anything that happens in comics before someone punches time or breaks the speed force barrier or Dan Didio wakes up in the morning.

P.S. You should still read Scarlet Spider.

ReplyReply
mygif

At first I thought “holy hell is that a lot of comments!”

Then I discovered, like, 80% of the posts are by the same two people.

ReplyReply
mygif
Archie 5 said on July 27th, 2013 at 2:09 am

Sigh.
Welcome to your new reality MGK. I am very sorry. :(

ReplyReply
mygif

Look, all MGK has to do to make this stop is accept the One True Peter Parker as his spectacular spider-savior, it’s not that hard guys, jeez.

ReplyReply
mygif
William Kendall said on July 27th, 2013 at 11:28 am

“At first I thought “holy hell is that a lot of comments!”

Then I discovered, like, 80% of the posts are by the same two people.”

Yes, it’s astonishing. The thing’s taken on a life of its own.

MGK, I think you’re going to have to shut it down…

ReplyReply
mygif

THE UNIVERSE WILL BREAK. SHUT THE ENGINES DOWN. EVERYONE YOU LOVE DIES. FIGHT TO SAVE EVERYTHING.

The emergence of Miles Morales into the 616 may cause a spider-schism.

ReplyReply
mygif
Aardy R. DeVarque said on July 27th, 2013 at 3:59 pm

Wow. An MGK.com comments thread that spun off way beyond what the WordPress layout’s background generator is apparently set up to handle. I find this screen after screen of plain white-on-white… disturbing, a little; much like the pictures I’ve seen of the broken level screen that appears when you beat an original Pac-Man game.

ReplyReply
mygif

Is this the kill screen? Have we reached the end? IS THIS THE END OF JOHNNY?

ReplyReply
mygif
Mitchell Hundred said on July 28th, 2013 at 9:05 am

We can’t stop now, guys! There are only a few more comments until we reach 250! That’s a nice round number, so let’s keep striving for it and end on a high note.

ReplyReply
mygif

Wow…I just spent the better part of the last hour and a half reading these comments…and I honestly have no memory of it. Beware! This thread is a psychic black hole! You may never escape!

ReplyReply
mygif
bunnyofdoom said on July 28th, 2013 at 7:06 pm

So, um, does Ock-Spider wear shades? Cause that’d be pretty baller.

ReplyReply
mygif

Well, the eye-pieces have that three dimensional quality that the movie ones have, so you could think of them as shades.

ReplyReply
mygif
MrFroggie said on July 28th, 2013 at 7:43 pm

Comment 250.

I’ll get the champagne and MGK some muscle relaxants for having to deal with all this horse hockey.

ReplyReply
mygif

Next time I read a thread like this, someone has to buy me a drink first.

ReplyReply
mygif
billionsofthem said on August 25th, 2013 at 8:37 am

Yo but for real these comics sound fucking terrible.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments