|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 9, 2018 7:51:28 GMT -5
I feel the same way about the Avengers book that you feel about the Spider-man character. The current Avengers comic features the big three but all the add on heroes just doesn't add excitement for me. I even liked the Bendis version and felt it added new directions for the team but maybe I've been reading too long and there's nothing else to say these days.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 7:55:27 GMT -5
Confessor, I've spoken to many who didn't enjoy Parker as a CEO, believing it took him away from his roots. I did enjoy it, but as someone who tries hard to see another person's viewpoint, I definitely think people, such as yourself, made some compelling arguments as to why it didn't work.
On a related note, I didn't like the period when MJ was working for Stark - was that recently? - as it, well, there's a profound point I am trying to make about how when everyone is special, no-one is special. When Spidey is joined by countless web-slingers, and his supporting cast are all special in some way, Spidey loses his uniqueness a little.
I didn't mind such stories when they were "imaginary stories" (e.g. DC Silver Age where Lois Lane started flying or there was a "Son of Batman" or whatever). But nowadays, Marvel in particular, have de-uniqued the characters. It isn't for the better. I agree it's baffling to have brought Spider-Gwen and Miles Morales into the mainstream Marvel Universe.
I know I can never "stay in one lane" in my posts (sorry!), but this seems to happen in so much entertainment. Anyone familiar with the New World Order faction within World Championship Wrestling knows that they diluted the whole concept eventually; successful TV shows often have umpteen spin-offs; and, as discussed here, it's happening in comics.
With Spidey being unique in the early tales, there was something to contrast. He was larger than life because those around him were normal. The reprints I read now feature a Spidey who is one of many.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 9, 2018 8:01:00 GMT -5
Confessor, I've spoken to many who didn't enjoy Parker as a CEO, believing it took him away from his roots. I did enjoy it, but as someone who tries hard to see another person's viewpoint, I definitely think people, such as yourself, made some compelling arguments as to why it didn't work. On a related note, I didn't like the period when MJ was working for Stark - was that recently? - as it, well, there's a profound point I am trying to make about how when everyone is special, no-one is special. When Spidey is joined by countless web-slingers, and his supporting cast are all special in some way, Spidey loses his uniqueness a little. I didn't mind such stories when they were "imaginary stories" (e.g. DC Silver Age where Lois Lane started flying or there was a "Son of Batman" or whatever). But nowadays, Marvel in particular, have de-uniqued the characters. It isn't for the better. I agree it's baffling to have brought Spider-Gwen and Miles Morales into the mainstream Marvel Universe. I know I can never "stay in one lane" in my posts (sorry!), but this seems to happen in so much entertainment. Anyone familiar with the New World Order faction within World Championship Wrestling knows that they diluted the whole concept eventually; successful TV shows often have umpteen spin-offs; and, as discussed here, it's happening in comics.With Spidey being unique in the early tales, there was something to contrast. He was larger than life because those around him were normal. The reprints I read now feature a Spidey who is one of many. The simple answer is that when something is lucrative, you will try to copy it to make more money. Spin offs and sequels are sure money to producers and the same goes for comics. Over the last 5 years or so the market was flooded with Avengers books trying to capitalize on the movies, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Dec 9, 2018 10:39:30 GMT -5
I'm all for cashing in on a current book that becomes a hit...
...but when someone shows me a very recent Spider-Gwen Ghost Rider variant that's selling for around $700...nope, I'm not buying it.
If you have that money to spend on a comic, put it on a book that's stood the test of time...a nice high-grade silver-age book, preferably one with a first appearance.
Recent variants can lose 50% value in a matter of months.
You can get original art from top name artists for that. Why buy a print?
|
|
|
Post by String on Dec 9, 2018 11:01:50 GMT -5
Spider-Man has been my number 1 all-time favourite superhero since I was 11 or so, but Spidey comics were ruined for me after the One More Day/Brand New Day clusterf**k of 2007. That said, I actually continued buying Amazing Spider-Man until early-to-mid 2016. I felt that the initially year or two of post-OMD stories were, for the most part, really lacklustre, but Slott's run was a definite improvement. However, a lingering bad taste from OMD and the impact (read "character regression") that it had on much of Spidey's supporting cast, really stuck in my craw. I finally dropped all of the Spidey books shortly after Superior Spider-Man ended, because by making Peter the playboy CEO of Parker Industries, I felt that Slott had taken the character much too far away from his roots and what it is that I enjoy about him. If I want to read about Tony Stark, I'll buy Iron Man comics, not Spider-Man ones. The advent of characters like Spider-Gwen or bringing Miles Morales into the main Marvel-616 continuity just baffles me. And change is good. I like Dan Slott's "Spidey as CEO" storyline. That told some fascinating new tales for Mr. Parker within a different context. Change isn't always good, at all. That's a logical fallacy: it implies that everything in life is already imperfect and that change -- any change-- can only improve things. That's obviously not the case. As for Slott making Peter Parker a millionaire, globe-trotting CEO of Parker Industries, while I applaud Slott's decision to accentuate Peter's scientific abilities in the comics, I felt that, overall, the new, post- Superior Spider-Man direction was a step too far. I'm not gonna argue that it might be a "realistic" development, given Peter's genius level scientific abilities, but it unfortunately took the character so far away from his core that, for me, it was the final straw which made me drop Amazing Spider-Man after being a regular or semi-regular reader for 35 odd years. It essentially turned Peter Parker into Tony Stark and I have less than no interest in that. So instead Parker needs to be a lovable loser all his life? I don't buy that concept as much as you don't buy Peter as a CEO. Once again, having read that story line, Slott injected Parker morals & principles into the globe-trotting set of Stark's executive lifestyle. Peter was about using his new wealth, power,and influence (garnered for him by Doc Ock lest we forget so Peter didn't ask for this) along with his own genius to continue helping people even if his efforts hurt and/or damaged his company's bottom line and public perception. It was a play on 'great power, great responsibility' wherein Peter had far more power than he was ever accustomed to, wielded it in fulfilling his great responsibility to best of his ability and how ultimately, in calling back to the seemingly inevitable Parker loser luck, it all comes crashing down around him when he put the good of the public ahead of any sort of corporate greed as you seem willing to attach to him since Peter took on this type of role. It's a different focus on the character through which to examine his traditional values and themes and Slott nailed it. Plus, it was a change that didn't last. The best of all worlds.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Dec 9, 2018 11:38:26 GMT -5
The advent of characters like Spider-Gwen or bringing Miles Morales into the main Marvel-616 continuity just baffles me.
If this becomes a hit, it will only continue. I quite like her too....
The buzz is it is a very good movie.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,627
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 9, 2018 12:40:57 GMT -5
Spider-Man has been my number 1 all-time favourite superhero since I was 11 or so, but Spidey comics were ruined for me after the One More Day/Brand New Day clusterf**k of 2007. That said, I actually continued buying Amazing Spider-Man until early-to-mid 2016. I felt that the initially year or two of post-OMD stories were, for the most part, really lacklustre, but Slott's run was a definite improvement. However, a lingering bad taste from OMD and the impact (read "character regression") that it had on much of Spidey's supporting cast, really stuck in my craw. I finally dropped all of the Spidey books shortly after Superior Spider-Man ended, because by making Peter the playboy CEO of Parker Industries, I felt that Slott had taken the character much too far away from his roots and what it is that I enjoy about him. If I want to read about Tony Stark, I'll buy Iron Man comics, not Spider-Man ones. The advent of characters like Spider-Gwen or bringing Miles Morales into the main Marvel-616 continuity just baffles me. Change isn't always good, at all. That's a logical fallacy: it implies that everything in life is already imperfect and that change -- any change-- can only improve things. That's obviously not the case. As for Slott making Peter Parker a millionaire, globe-trotting CEO of Parker Industries, while I applaud Slott's decision to accentuate Peter's scientific abilities in the comics, I felt that, overall, the new, post- Superior Spider-Man direction was a step too far. I'm not gonna argue that it might be a "realistic" development, given Peter's genius level scientific abilities, but it unfortunately took the character so far away from his core that, for me, it was the final straw which made me drop Amazing Spider-Man after being a regular or semi-regular reader for 35 odd years. It essentially turned Peter Parker into Tony Stark and I have less than no interest in that. So instead Parker needs to be a lovable loser all his life? I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Peter isn't really a loveable loser anyway. Or at least, that's not his defining characteristic. He has hard luck sometimes, like anyone else (the so-called "Parker luck"), but he quite often has exceptionally good luck too. Not least in landing two stunning babes like MJ and Gwen Stacy. I don't buy that concept as much as you don't buy Peter as a CEO. Once again, having read that story line, Slott injected Parker morals & principles into the globe-trotting set of Stark's executive lifestyle. Peter was about using his new wealth, power,and influence (garnered for him by Doc Ock lest we forget so Peter didn't ask for this) along with his own genius to continue helping people even if his efforts hurt and/or damaged his company's bottom line and public perception. It was a play on 'great power, great responsibility' wherein Peter had far more power than he was ever accustomed to, wielded it in fulfilling his great responsibility to best of his ability and how ultimately, in calling back to the seemingly inevitable Parker loser luck, it all comes crashing down around him when he put the good of the public ahead of any sort of corporate greed as you seem willing to attach to him since Peter took on this type of role. It's a different focus on the character through which to examine his traditional values and themes and Slott nailed it. I don't disagree that Slott wrote that transition well...and it also came off of the back of the Superior Spider-Man period, which was by far the best of his run IMO. Plus, as I think I said earlier, having Parker finally reap the rewards of his considerable scientific intellect does make a fair bit of sense, but it also took something fundamental away from the core of the character. In fantasy fiction writing -- if you're couching it in a realistic setting -- it's ok to have a heroic Everyman character. The heroic Everyman is one of the basic archetypes of literature and drama. The Everyman is supposed to be someone with whom the audience can easily identify with, but who is placed in extraordinary situations. Peter's "extraordinary situation" is that he got bitten by a radioactive spider and became a superhero. That's his one remarkable exception. If you give him a further exceptions (ie. he's the playboy millionaire CEO of a multinational technology company), then you violate the literary terms or parameters that have existed for the previous 40 odd years. What I mean by that is that you can ask readers to suspend disbelief that the lead character in Spider-Man is a lottery jackpot winner once (in Peter's case, he got bitten by a radioactive spider), but if he wins the lottery jackpot for a second time, then that really stops him from being a heroic Everyman. That, coupled with the piss poor writing of the Brand New Day era and the damage and nonsensical character regression that had blighted Spider-Man comics ever since OMD, are what killed my interest in new Spider-Man comics. My Spider-Man died when he betrayed everything he once professed to believe in, by making a deal with Mephisto.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 12:59:18 GMT -5
If this becomes a hit, it will only continue. I quite like her too....
The buzz is it is a very good movie. So much so that prior to the film opening, they are already looking at a sequel and a spin-off for the film.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 15:20:38 GMT -5
One of the guys in our local comic scene was the former talent coordinator for Wizard World, and was invited to an early screening of Into the Spider-Verse in the area earlier this week and brought a bunch of peopleincluding family and some of his local creator friends with him. Every single one of them has said something to the effect that this is the best Spider-Man movie made so far. It was a pretty diverse group that went, with a diverse range of tastes, and it hit on all cylinders with all of them. Even better, many of them brought their kids, and all the kids loved it too. This went from something I wasn't all that interested in checking out (I outgrew my like of Spider-Man a couple decades ago), to something I want to go see in theatres just from what I have seen them post about it. I haven't had a chance to talk to any of them about it yet (I may see some of them next weekend at the Bell, Book and Comic warehouse sale), but they've demonstrated a lot of enthusiasm about this online the past few days.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 23:22:16 GMT -5
Re: Marvel Star Wars-I've read the first 3-4 trades from our local library and they were solid entertaining reads. There were over 65 variants for the first issue though, and I doubt any of them will hold value in the long run. They did drive sales on that first issue though.
-M
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 10, 2018 10:05:37 GMT -5
What do people think of the more recent Marvel Star Wars series compared to the first one?
These are 3 '1:50 variants' of #1, the one on the right being signed by cover artist Alex Ross (a tribute to #1 from 1977) and limited to 25 copies.
I read the first three or so years of the new Star Wars as well as the first Darth Vader series and they were solid, if unspectacular, books. My biggest problem with them is that, because of their place between New Hope and Empire, there's no suspense. The events that happen to Luke, Han, Chewie, and Leia are immaterial, because we know where they are at the beginning of Empire in terms of their relationships with one another and in their health and physical status. No peril can result in lasting injury or disability, no love interest ( or Han's wife, in this case) can stop Leia from falling for the rogue), and the heroes can't score an important win, all because we've already seen the next chapter in the story. The new tales are fun to an extent as gap-fillers, but they are not essential reading.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 10:24:56 GMT -5
That is a very valid view, but could one not have said the same about, say, Superboy? Or X-Men: The Hidden Years?
When I read Superboy comics during my childhood, I knew deep down that he'd escape Luthor's latest death trap or survive an encounter with Kryptonite, but I tried my best to live in the moment and just enjoy the journey without thinking about the destination too much.
And that's how I've tried to approach the Star Wars comic. Deep down, there isn't the same tension due to knowing what we know, but I try to take each issue on its own merits and approach it like I approached Superboy.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Dec 10, 2018 11:05:58 GMT -5
That is a very valid view, but could one not have said the same about, say, Superboy? Or X-Men: The Hidden Years? When I read Superboy comics during my childhood, I knew deep down that he'd escape Luthor's latest death trap or survive an encounter with Kryptonite, but I tried my best to live in the moment and just enjoy the journey without thinking about the destination too much. And that's how I've tried to approach the Star Wars comic. Deep down, there isn't the same tension due to knowing what we know, but I try to take each issue on its own merits and approach it like I approached Superboy. Or any other Star Wars novel for that matter. There was no chance that Luke or Leia was going to die in Splinter of the Mind's Eye or Heir to the Empire. Though George Lucas did ask Alan Dean Foster to kill off Darth Vader in Splinter, and Foster refused! So much for the grand, well-conceived Lucas plan.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Dec 10, 2018 21:41:38 GMT -5
What do people think of the more recent Marvel Star Wars series compared to the first one? Aside from the Lando and Han miniseries', each and every story I've read has disinterested me. Generic fanfic, the whole lot of it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 22:59:06 GMT -5
What do people think of the more recent Marvel Star Wars series compared to the first one? Aside from the Lando and Han miniseries', each and every story I've read has disinterested me. Generic fanfic, the whole lot of it. That describes 90% of the output of Marvel and DC for the last 40 years. -M
|
|