|
Post by woodside on Dec 28, 2007 22:28:54 GMT -5
SPOILER!
. . . Worse ending ever.
Okay, reality has changed, right? So what does this mean? How in the heck does this book work in the larger MU?
Of all the ways for this story to end, I can't believe that it concluded like that. I understand the want/need of MJ and Peter breaking up, but there are far better ways to do it?
And Harry returning?
It's not very often that I bash the crap outta Quesada, but c'mon dude . . . you practically have a new "Clone Saga" on your hands. This destroys important stories and the general continuity of Spider-Man's history.
Man, this was terrible.
|
|
|
Post by goldenfist on Dec 28, 2007 22:56:40 GMT -5
Blame the writer who wrote it.
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Dec 28, 2007 23:56:58 GMT -5
I do. Joe Q.
Didn't you hear? JMS actually wanted his name off this issue. If you read all four of them, you can see a difference in terms of style and script between this issue and the others.
I don't have a problem with the end of the marriage, but I do have a problem with the end of this story. It was awful.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Dec 29, 2007 0:11:02 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with the end of the marriage, but I do have a problem with the end of this story. It was awful. More spoilers I agree. It was like a House of M story coming at us again. However, like you said in your other post, how does this fit in with the rest of the MU? I don't like this new trend toward altering history. It's a lot like Sentry being involved with so much Marvel history even though it doesn't make sense or reinventing the world with Heroes Reborn. And why does MJ not being with Peter make Harry alive again? Also, now that Peter never revealed his identity to the world and May never got shot, does that mean he's still pro-registration and still Ironman's flunky? I'm so confused.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Dec 29, 2007 9:34:05 GMT -5
I actually have no major problems with this arc, and the reason is simple;
The premise; getting rid of the marriage, I have no feelings on. I have no opinion one way or the other, Spider-Man has been married for as long as I've read him but I understand how some stories are better told with him unmarried.
The idea of returning him to better days, with a supporting cast, new villains etc, I wholly approve of.
The means of execution of said idea is very poor; the whole "Mephisto! Magical retcon! Everyone's back! Yay!" Quite awful.
BUT- and here's the clincher- the writing is fantastic and the art is beautiful. QUesada's art is flat out brilliant, I cannot deny that. And the writing itself... is very, very good. JMS "gets" Peter. He "gets" MJ. He "gets" Mephisto. And that's all it needs for this to work. He gets them, he writes them well, and that's that.
This "story" is just a vehicle to bring Spidey to Brand New Day, and it's a rusted, d**n poor quality vehicle, but it's one driven by an excellent driver with a very nice coat of paint. And despite how many people will scream at Marvel for getting rid of the marriage, I think they did it with respect. They could have just wished it away with no fanfare, they could have split them up, they could have done any number of things, but what they did was give it one last, very moving fanfare and acknowledgement before they got rid of it- the double page spread, Peter and MJ's last day, if the marriage had to go, I don't think Mephisto was the way to do it but the last moments themselves were spectacular.
Harry's back? I'm all for it, as is a majority of the fanbase if spiderfan's polls can be believed. Mechanical webshooters? Sure, I guess, no real feeling one way or the other. The status quo in general I shall reserve my feelings on until I've read BND.
As for the magical retcon, I had previously assumed that this would just change people's memories etc, rather than all out altering history, but Harry's return suggests otherwise. Okay, I'm willing to gived them the benefit of the doubt and let them explain it. I assume it won't affect continuity outside old webhead *too* much. And as for JMS nearly taking his name off, all I can say is this: he didn't. He considered it... but he didn#t. In the end, he *did* consider the story worth having his name on it, and he *did* write it, so he can't have totally despised it.
For the issue itself, it's not the right way to send JMS off in terms if content- annuling a marriage he liked, undoing stories he wrote. But in execution, it was moving and in character and all around outstanding, so it's a good way for him to go in that regard.
Bye JMS, an era really is over. Now bring on Brand New Day.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Dec 29, 2007 13:10:45 GMT -5
This whole storyline reeks of cowardice. Quesada and others wanted to make Peter single again, and didn't have the balls to do it in any realistic fashion - which is surprising given that they've moved every other aspect of their comics line into a much more hard-nosed, realistic world. But apparently having Spider-Man get divorced was just a little too real I guess.
The use of Mephisto as a deus ex machina is just pathetic. It also makes Peter look like one surpremely selfish son of a pregnant dog, willing to toss away his marriage because he doesn't want to feel the pain of being responsible for his aunt's death. Wow, what a hero. I don't know how this makes him look better than if he or Mary Jane were to request a divorce.
To be honest, I really don't understand this driving need Marvel seems to feel to turn back the clock and return Peter to his college-age days. Do we really need to see him back living with Aunt May, or working his way through a string of different girls? I thought this was why we had Ultimate Spider-Man.
They've also managed to screw up a huge piece of continuity, something I thought only DC was good at. I'm very disappointed with this direction and I doubt I'll continue reading ASM. I've already seen Peter live at home and go out on dates and hang out at the soda shop. Whoopeee.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Dec 29, 2007 15:05:23 GMT -5
I wonder if (and how...) Spider-Man's still gonna be part of the New Avengers... After all (I think), a big part of why he was hanging so tight with them was that his life as Peter Parker was utterly destroyed... It's absurd, of course, even if at this point nothing Marvel does will surprise me anymore, though I must admit to liking the fact that his organic web-shooters are gone... hopefully he lost all those other "ultra-realistic" spider powers as well... But please, pleaseee...!!! Tell me that the one best consecuence of this mess of a story is that Gwen never did the dirty deed with Harry's old man...!!! Sigh, this one can dream, can't he...?
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Dec 29, 2007 15:36:30 GMT -5
I wonder if (and how...) Spider-Man's still gonna be part of the New Avengers... After all (I think), a big part of why he was hanging so tight with them was that his life as Peter Parker was utterly destroyed... quote] Actually he was hanging with them even before revealing his identity and having his life go to pot. Of course, at that time the team included Ironman and if Peter has no reason to have fallen out with him, wouldn't he fit in better with the Mighty Avengers? This thing is so full of holes, it isn't even funny. Clearly, this was not just a device to break up Peter and MJ but to undo the "Whole world knows who Spider-man really is" thing as well. Of course, that makes me feel like the whole last year or so never happened and the character developments involving Betty, Flash, Deb, etc. never happened and Pam just woke up to find Bobby in the shower. Come to think of it, that's precisely when I stopped watching Dallas.
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Dec 29, 2007 18:50:47 GMT -5
I'm seeing that the vast majority of fans didn't quite like this.
I think some are screaming Clone Saga, Part 2.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Dec 30, 2007 7:37:04 GMT -5
I got into Spidey in the Clone Saga, the comparison does not remotely fit. Firstly, the Clone Saga was a good surface idea marred down by absolutely awful writing and an insanely long, twisted plotline. One More Day is a poor concept buoyed up by very good writing, even if the concept itself is broken, and is precisely 4 issues long. Plus, the Clone Saga was meant to be an "epic story" in itself, One More Day is just a tool to lead to a new status quo. Not to mention that Spidey pre Clone Saga and Spidey post Clone Saga were mostly identical and that's clearly not the case for One More Day. And that there has been an end in sight for One More Day for months before it started, a clearly defined one- not the case with the Clone Saga, where even the writers had no idea how it would end. Plus One More Day's ending didn't change, the Clone Saga was reworked halfway through when no one liked Ben Reilly as Spidey. AND the Clone Saga was ruined by conflicting editors and writers, whereas One More Day had one writer and one editorial mandate, and they didn't come into too much conflict.
In short, there is absolutely NO way they are similar unless you want to say they both sucked, but even then comparing a 4 issue storyline which most people accept to have had decent writing and excellent art with a 100 issue+ storyline is pretty silly.
As for opinion being against it, leaving aside how rarely internet opinion is a barameter for either overall opinion or for success, let's not forget the internet was VOCALLY against the unmasking, against Civil War in general, and against Cap's death, all of which were huge successes at least in sales- quality is of course up to the individual.
The thing I'm most pissed off about with OMD isn't the storytelling, the retcon, the continuity, the marriage, the deus ex machina, any of that. It's about the undoing of the Unmasking! SO MANY awesome stories never got to be told, only Peter David even BEGAN to explore most of the reprucssions and it can never really be repeated! Biggest wasted oppurtunity in comics!
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Dec 30, 2007 11:25:05 GMT -5
Oy, Doom. I'm not going to argue this too much, but surely you see the similarities? Both OMD and Clone Saga undid years of story. The big difference is only that Clone Saga stated (though it was reversed) that it was the clone of Spider-Man, not the real one, that was the hero for the past number of years. Though we haven't seen the full extent of the damage OMD did, it is apparent it has undone stories. At the end of the day, stories are ruined because of these two retcons. Furthermore, there was conflict with the writer and editor. JMS wanted his name removed from this issue. As for the bemoaning, how different were the numbers than this: forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=141208
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Dec 30, 2007 13:41:31 GMT -5
I don't see the similarities, I'm afraid. Sure, the Clone Saga wanted to replace Peter with Ben Reilly but ultimately, it did not. There were NO permanent aftereffects, which is the opposite of OMD.
And there was some conflict between writer and editor but in this case, the writer wrote the story anyway, as asked, and most importantly, he did not remove his name. He wrote it, his name is on it, and thus whatever his reservations, he trusted Joe Quesada and Marvel enough in the end. He considered otherwise, but he trusted them, and that's professionalism in my book. With the Clone Saga, writers OPENLY contradicted the wills of their editors, and editors had different ideas about where the story should go. It was much different.
And yeah, that's quite a poll. But I'd be willing to make several bets at this juncture:
1. If a similar poll were held about Cap's death at the time it happened, you'd get similar results with that same audience.
2. If that exact poll were held in a month or two's time, away from the "moment" and the exact same people voted, the results would be very different.
3. Of those who "hated" the story, half at least will buy Brand New Day.
And incidentally, as I've said before, *NO* stories were ruined by these. No story EVER has been ruined for me due to a retcon.
Does Kingdom Come stop being a masterful work of art because it's not "in continuity"? Is every single Ultimate book AWFUL for that same reason?
If Gwen Stacy comes back, does that mean that people *didn't* feel shocked and blown away by her death?
If Captain America pops up tomorrow and is best friends with Tony, does that mean I *didn't* enjoy Civil War and it will suck when I read it again? Of course not!
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Dec 30, 2007 16:13:12 GMT -5
Ruined not in a personal way, but in an in-continuity way. From all appearances, those previous stories have been altered so that MJ and Peter were never married.
Now, there are questions that need to be answered come "Brand New Day," but still . . .
And I bet you dollars to doughnuts that JMS did not write that last issue, as per my statements above. It's a drastic shift in terms of style from the earlier issues.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Dec 30, 2007 16:52:02 GMT -5
I doubt his name would be on it, even as co-writer, if he didn't, and I further doubt they would write his last ever issue of Spidey and then stick his name on it.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Dec 31, 2007 15:38:06 GMT -5
1stly... this is a horrible, contrived development. The art was very good, and I know I annoyed the guy at my local shop by swapping out the variants for the Quesada covers. I loved those covers, by the way... they really harkened back to the covers of my comics-glory youth.
Also, the obvious "escape hatch" out of this whole story is what is even more ridiculous. Obviously MJ made a side bet with Mephisto of some sort. It will all get undone, sooner or later, by either what she said to him, or becuase of the whole Secret Invasion thing.
With that said, ASM is coming off my pull list... which I am sure will not make my local shop owner happy at all, especially since it was going to 3 issues a month.
Now I got to figure out what will replace it, since I have to have 5 titles on my pull list. Hrmmm...
Here are the 4 still on it...
1. Cap (natch) 2. Nova 3. Thor 4. FF 5. Any suggestions? only Marvel titles please, I can't spend my time getting mad at 2 different comics publishers, so I will just stick with the Devil I Know... so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jan 1, 2008 10:10:56 GMT -5
Comic Book Resources is currently doing a series of interviews with Joe Q. They're interesting.
Newsama did a "roundtable review" of the series that - basically - made me feel so much better.
Tone-Loc, as far as suggestions go, there's always Ultimate Spider-Man. I think even Balok liked that book.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 3, 2008 9:38:32 GMT -5
Well, many- if not most- of my doubts have been cleared away by the CBR interview. Continuity was NOT wiped out, it all happened just with MJ and Peter together rather than married. The unmasking DID happen, it's just that Mephisto has done a "cosmic mindwipe" and destroyed the evidence, much as happened with Sentry and has happened many times, really. So basically, every Spidey story happened in continuity- not one story was wiped out so that it never happened. The ONLY difference is that no one remembers the last two stories- "Back in Black" and "One More Day", or some of the events of the Civil War tie-ins. Also found this very amusing, shows that no matter what folk say about Civil War or One More Day or whatever, some things never change... Check out these reactions to a story now considered one of the absolute DEFINITIVE Spidey stories: img134.imageshack.us/img134/2838/gwen2in8.jpg
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jan 3, 2008 10:16:21 GMT -5
Well, many- if not most- of my doubts have been cleared away by the CBR interview. Continuity was NOT wiped out, it all happened just with MJ and Peter together rather than married. The unmasking DID happen, it's just that Mephisto has done a "cosmic mindwipe" and destroyed the evidence, much as happened with Sentry and has happened many times, really. So basically, every Spidey story happened in continuity- not one story was wiped out so that it never happened. The ONLY difference is that no one remembers the last two stories- "Back in Black" and "One More Day", or some of the events of the Civil War tie-ins. That makes no sense. (I'm aiming that statement at Marvel, not you, Doom) And honestly, I find it profoundly stupid. Mind-wipe or not, it was a poor comic and terrible execution. I'm still rather undecided if I'll stay on, but I'm sticking to my guns as far as my opinion of "OMD." And it seems a lot of people agree with me. I can swallow the whole "they were together, but not married" concept -- but why not make that clear at the end of OMD instead of in a Comic Book Resources interview? And why mind-wipe the unmasking? That's what I don't like. I shouldn't have to read an interview to get a clarification on a story. Surely, written by a young Balok.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Jan 3, 2008 12:38:02 GMT -5
News-a-rama, has a massive explainatory article on this, with JMS's own thoughts following the JoeQ interviews at CBR. Yikes. Here's a link, or you can read it below... forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=141756 ONE MORE (MORE) DAY? JMS EXPLAINS HIS ENDING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s no doubt whatsoever that “One More Day” has been the most controversial Spider-Man story for fans in decades, dwarfing even the reaction to 2006’s unmasking at the end of Civil War #2.
As readers who’ve followed the story behind the story know, that controversy even extends to the story’s creators. On December 4th, “One More Day” writer J. Michael Straczynski posted a response to questions about his involvement with the story to rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe (which was archived at the JMSNews site).
Responding to questions about the quality of the story, and reconciling the story with JMS’ larger body of work, Straczynski wrote:
Speak of the devil and he shall appear....
For whatever it's worth, the situation is not as clear cut as one might hope. The reality of any writer working for any company, DC or Marvel or Image, is that when you're handed a franchise character, you're basically entrusted with something that the company owns, and the company has final say in what happens to that character, because as a writer, you're only there for a certain amount of time and then the next guy has to come in. Spider-Man belongs to Marvel, not to me, and at the end of the day, however much I may disagree with things, and however much I may make it very CLEAR to all parties that I disagree, I have to honor their position.
In the Gwen storyline, yes, I wanted it to be Peter's kids, Joe over-rode that, which is his right as EIC. I got the flack for that decision, but them's the breaks.
In the current storyline, there's a lot that I don't agree with, and I made this very clear to everybody within shouting distance at Marvel, especially Joe. I'll be honest: there was a point where I made the decision, and told Joe, that I was going to take my name off the last two issues of the OMD arc. Eventually Joe talked me out of that decision because at the end of the day, I don't want to sabotage Joe or Marvel, and I have a lot of respect for both of those. As an executive producer as well as a writer, I've sometimes had to insist that my writers make changes that they did not want to make, often loudly so. They were sure I was wrong. Mostly I was right. Sometimes I was wrong. But whoever sits in the editor's chair, or the executive producer's chair, wears the pointy hat of authority, and as Dave Sim once noted, you can't argue with a pointy hat.
So at the end of the day, all one can do is try to do the best one can with the notes one is given, and try to execute them in a professional way...because who knows, the other guy may be right. The only thing I *can* tell you, with absolute certainty, is that what Joe does with Spidey and all the rest of the Marvel characters, he does out of a genuine love of the character. He's not looking to sabotage anything, he's not looking to piss off the fans, he genuinely believes in the rightness of his views not out of a sense of "I'm the boss" but because he loves these characters and the Marvel universe.
And right or wrong, you have to respect that.
Straczynski’s message added gasoline to a smoldering fire of fan expectations and concerns about the ending to and ramifications of the story, and was interpreted in a variety of ways by readers.
In a series of interviews with Quesada about “One More Day,” Comic Book Resource’s Jonah Weiland asked the Marvel Editor-in-Chief about Straczynski’s posted comments, noting that, “In the end, we didn't publish the story he wanted to write.”
Quesada went on to explain that Straczynski’s original conclusion for “One More Day” wasn't what Quesada and Marvel were expecting and would have negatively affected the upcoming “Brand New Day” issues of Amazing Spider-Man, which were already underway.
Quesada also explained that he wasn’t comfortable with Straczynski’s method of retconning the marriage out of existence, saying: “Also, the science that Joe was going to apply to the retcon of the marriage would have made over 30 years of Spider-Man books worthless, because they never would have had happened. We would have also had a "Crisis" in the Marvel Universe because it would have reset way too many things outside of the Spider-Man titles. We just couldn't go there and in the end we weren't expecting that kind of story.
“I also think fans are misreading what Joe meant by disagreeing with the story. When we came up with the idea and methodology behind "One More Day," Joe was a part of the group that came up with the story. When we were done and felt we had it nailed, Joe told me that he was going to cycle off of Amazing Spider-Man and that he wanted to move on to other stuff. I told Joe that it was his call: He could close out his Amazing Spider-Man run however he wanted, or he could end it with the story we all created for "One More Day." He said he really wanted to write "One More Day." So Joe never said anything that indicated he disagreed with Peter and MJ's marriage being dissolved. If he had disagreed with the idea, he certainly would have told us and he certainly would not have asked to write the story. So like I said, I think people were reading into his on-line comments as opposed what I believe he was saying.”
Earlier in the week, Newsarama had contacted Straczynski to see if he would be willing to talk about “One More Day,” now that the storyline had concluded. He declined.
Yesterday, in part three of CBR’s interview with Quesada, the E-i-C further discussed the changes that were made to Straczynski’s original storyline, saying that when he, Axel Alonso and Tom Brevoort received the script for part four: “the script we had just received was not the one we were expecting, and the events that were being set forth in that issue were going to conflict with the work that was already being done on “Brand New Day.” I thought that perhaps Joe had forgotten some of the stuff discussed at the summit meetings and the subsequent e-mails and discussions that followed, but that didn’t seem to be the case; this was the story he wanted to tell. In his story, Mephisto was going to change continuity from as far back as issues #96-98 from 1971. In Joe’s story, Peter drops the dime on Harry, and that helps get him into rehab right away. Consequently, MJ stays with Harry, and Gwen never dies and never has her affair with Norman, etc., etc. And in the end, Peter and MJ are never married.”
To Quesada, that solution discounted every issue of Amazing Spider-Man since that 1971 story arc, and by doing that, would have caused far-reaching and unmanageable changes throughout the larger Marvel Universe. “In other words, there was just no way to tell Joe’s story without blowing up the entire Marvel U and every Spider-Man’s fan’s collection,” Quesada said.
“What we originally discussed with Joe and the group was much simpler and cleaner: The wedding? Something happened on the wedding day that prevented it from happening. The unsmasking? Mephisto makes people forget it; much like the Sentry, it happened -- it’s just no longer remembered. And Harry? Well, there’s always a price to pay when you make a deal with the devil. Is it a perfect solution? Absolutely not. Does it get us to where we want to be? Yes.”
Quesada ended his explanation of the changes made by publicly apologizing to Straczynski for having to change his original story.
Thursday morning, Newsarama received an unsolicited e-mail from Straczynski, in which, he wrote:
Having seen Joe's third interview on OMD, I think he raised a lot of fair issues. I think most of it represents accurately our conversations. It does, however, omit some of the main concerns I had with the resolution...concerns not mentioned therein, most probably as an oversight. As you know from my prior email, I was content not to respond to the prior interviews because I don't need to have the last word. (Newsarama Note: this last was in reference to Straczynski’s earlier e-mail mentioned earlier in which he declined a “One More Day” post mortem conversation.)
But there are some vital omissions in the interview, including the primary reason I finally threw up my hands on the book, which had mainly to do with how the resolution was handled.
To explain, here's the conversation I had with Marvel, in sum:
"So what does Mephisto do?" I ask.
"He makes everybody forget Peter's Spider-Man."
"Uh, huh. So Aunt May's still in the hospital --"
"No, he saves Aunt May."
"But if all he does is save her life and make everybody forget he's Spidey, she still has a scar on her midsection."
"No, he makes that go away too."
"Okay...:
"Then he wakes up in her house."
"The house that was burned down?"
"Right."
"But how --"
"Mephisto undoes that as well."
"Okay. And the guys who shot at Peter and May and were killed, they're alive too? Mephisto can bring guys back from the dead?"
"It's all part of the spell."
"And Doc Strange can't tell?"
"No,"
"And the newspaper articles? News footage?"
"Joe, it's been forgotten."
"I'm just asking is that stuff there or not there?"
"Not there. And Peter's web shooters are back."
"Is this the same spell or a different spell?"
"Same spell."
"How does making people forget he's Spidey bring back his web shooters?"
"It's magic, okay?"
"I see. And Harry's back."
"Right."
"And Mephisto does this too."
"Yep."
"So is Harry back from the dead, or has he been alive? If they ask him, hey Harry, what did you do last summer, will he remember? And the year before? And the year before? If he says they all went on a picnic two years ago, will they remember it?"
"It's --"
"Because if he now has a life he remembers, if he's not back from the dead, then you've changed the continuity you said you didn't want to change. Those are your only options: he was brought back from the dead, and there's a grave, and people remember him dying --"
"Mephisto changes THEIR memories too."
"-- or he's effectively been alive as far as our characters know, so he's been alive all along, so either way as far as our characters are concerned, continuity's been violated going back to 1971.
How do you explain that?"
"It's magic, we don't have to explain it."
And that's the part I had a real problem with, maybe the single biggest problem. There's this notion that magic fixes everything. It doesn't. "It's magic, we don't have to explain it." Well, actually, yes, you do. Magic has to have rules. And this is clearly not just a case of one spell making everybody forget he's Spidey...suddenly you're bringing back the dead, undoing wounds, erasing records, reinstating web shooters, on and on and on.
What I wanted to do was to make one small change to history, a tiny thing, whose ripples we could control to only touch what editorial wanted to touch, making changes we could explain logically. I worked for weeks to come up with a timeline that would leave every other bit of continuity in place. It was rigorous, and as logical as I could make it. In the end of OMD as published, Harry is alive and he's always been alive as far as the characters know...so how is that different than he was alive the whole time?
It made no sense to me.
Still doesn't. It's sloppy. It violates every rule of writing fiction of the fantastic that I and every other SF/Fantasy writer knows you can't violate. It's fantasy 101.
It troubled me that it's MJ and not Peter who is the one to actively make the decision.
I'd originally written the first issue of OMD to take place directly after May gets shot, and in fact turned in the first script directly after she gets nailed. Editorial decided to build in a block of issues for One More Day...meaning May would be in that bed for almost a *year* which I thought was just too long to make work.
And yes, I wanted to retcon the Gwen twins out of continuity, which was something I always assumed I could do at the end of my run. I wasn't allowed to do this, and yes, it pissed me off. I felt I was left holding the bag for something I wanted to get rid of, and taking the rap for a writing lapse that I had never committed. Why this aspect was not brought up in the other interview, you'd have to ask Joe.
Mainly, the book was rewritten in the editorial offices to a degree that the words weren't mine any longer, to a certain degree in three, and massively in four. If the work represents me, I leave the name there and take the rap; if it doesn't, then that's a different situation. There's just not much of my work there, especially once you get to the last dong of midnight...everything after that was written by editorial.
Whether my work is good or it sucks, it's mine. What came out of the end of OMD wasn't, hence my desire to omit the writing credit. Joe graciously offered to share it on the last issue. I think that helped. Credit where credit is due.
What I don't want is for this to turn into a public pissing match. Joe did what he did because he thought it was the right thing to do, and as EIC that's his call, not mine. I respect and admire him. I hope this will be the end of the matter.
I just felt that there were some important bits not addressed, that needed to be.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on Jan 3, 2008 14:08:03 GMT -5
Thank you Tone-Loc I was just getting ready to post this myself.
Here is the perfect example of Joe Q imposing in a very bad way, his personal likes onto a major comic. The story is horrible.
And magic as the crux of how it all happened. Please..
On for anyone to try and say this does not alter old stories, go ahead and explain the webshoters, there goes the other, and Harry being alive, there goes a ton of stories.
Yep this is a mess on Crisis level, that marvel has joyfully written themselves into, and I hope it finally backfires on them.
I have droped spidey, and doubt I will ever buy it again.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 3, 2008 14:23:59 GMT -5
T Here is the perfect example of Joe Q imposing in a very bad way, his personal likes onto a major comic. Personal likes? You mean a single Spidey? because if so, it's also the likes of JMS. And of Tom Brevoort. And of Brian Bendis. And of Mark Millar. And of Dan Slott. And of Jeph Loeb. And Axel Alonso. And Ed Brubaker. Because they all had some input on One More Day. And we know it's to the liking of Sam Raimi. And presumably Marc Guggenheim. And presumably Zeb Wells. And presumably Bob Gale. We can also assume Steve Wacker, Steve McNiven, Salvador Larocca, John Romita Jr, Phil Jiminez and Chris Bachalo have no problems with it. So basically, it's not so much "personal likes" as "what pretty much everyone at Marvel" seems to like, as I haven't heard ONE Marvel creator speak out in strong favour of the marriage. No one said it doesn't ALTER them. But as for getting rid of them, it gets rid of exactly one: "The Other". Nothing else that I can see. (Well, the wedding itself, I suppose.) LOL. Sorry man, I don't mean to be insulting, but wowza, either you have NOT read Crisis and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, or else you have very, very different views on tihngs than me. This is something which raises question marks to several Spider-Man stories. Crisis was something which wiped out over forty years of continuity in every single book DC published. Slight difference.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Jan 3, 2008 15:56:05 GMT -5
Here's my problem... and its with JMS. Obviously he now has the guts to speak his mind about things, so why did he allow his name to be on the last part of the story?
I can see Marvel's dilemma, at least in how to get things to the new state that they desired (even if I disagree with their ultimate aim or the even the need for it). JMS's proposed solution was to alter one tiny even in the past, and therefore creating the ripples (the ones he talked about in the News-a-rama article) of change to get to the desired state.
What is the one single caveat of time at Marvel? You can't change your past, you can only create alternate futures.
So JMS's proposal is rubbish. I suspect from his comments, and his recount of the events surrounding the OMD story, that he didn't agree with the premise to begin with. I wonder if he wrote a story that he knew they wouldn't aree to, in order to get major re-writes from Editorial, so he could either get his name off the story, or at least generate enough controversy that he could come out and explain events as he has now done.
How much more compelling would a tortured divorce scenario for Spidey be that just rebooting back to the good ol' days of Spidey of over two decades ago? How would that affect his personality? What if he lost Mary Jane and then ultimately lost Aunt May too (which he no doubt will do... this a deal with Mephisto he's made for cripes sake). It's probably a story that will be explored later on, but was it necessary to have this contrived storyline to get us there?
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on Jan 3, 2008 15:59:23 GMT -5
T Here is the perfect example of Joe Q imposing in a very bad way, his personal likes onto a major comic. Personal likes? You mean a single Spidey? because if so, it's also the likes of JMS. And of Tom Brevoort. And of Brian Bendis. And of Mark Millar. And of Dan Slott. And of Jeph Loeb. And Axel Alonso. And Ed Brubaker. Because they all had some input on One More Day. And we know it's to the liking of Sam Raimi. And presumably Marc Guggenheim. And presumably Zeb Wells. And presumably Bob Gale. We can also assume Steve Wacker, Steve McNiven, Salvador Larocca, John Romita Jr, Phil Jiminez and Chris Bachalo have no problems with it. So basically, it's not so much "personal likes" as "what pretty much everyone at Marvel" seems to like, as I haven't heard ONE Marvel creator speak out in strong favour of the marriage. No one said it doesn't ALTER them. But as for getting rid of them, it gets rid of exactly one: "The Other". Nothing else that I can see. (Well, the wedding itself, I suppose.) LOL. Sorry man, I don't mean to be insulting, but wowza, either you have NOT read Crisis and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, or else you have very, very different views on tihngs than me. This is something which raises question marks to several Spider-Man stories. Crisis was something which wiped out over forty years of continuity in every single book DC published. Slight difference. Thank you doom, as usually I can't have an opinion without having you telling me I am wrong based only on your opinion. Many writers do put there personal likes into a story, but when the level of Joe Q starts doing it, then there is a problem. If you can't see a problem with that, well there is no reason to continue the discussion. And yes you do mean to be insulting, people who have to say they don't mean to be insulting, generally do mean it. And thanks I do know what I am talking about, I bought the whole of the orginal crisis on infinite earths as it was coming out. Thanks again for trying to tell me what to think, I was not surprised to see the post from you. I will have no problem with you liking this in my opinion garabage, how about you let me not like it without your insults for once. thanks
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 3, 2008 16:01:39 GMT -5
Keep in mind that I haven't read a Spider-Man ongoing in the Marvel Universe since the second clone saga...
From my vantage point, this is an admission on Marvel's part that the past 35 years of Spider-Man storytelling have for the most part been garbage, and after about 1990, I'd say I have to agree! What is a memorable, "classic" story after that time? I would offer that there aren't any, or at the most certainly not many. And you could say this for the Avengers and the FF as well.
As much as I dislike current Marvel, and as messy as this all seems to be, maybe someone has figured out that what old cranks like me have been clamoring for isn't so archaic, was cleaner and more manageable, and might actually still sell -- and that is good, solid super-hero yarns told by comic book writers and drawn by artists who know human anatomy, story pacing, and how to choreograph a good fight scene.
And thanks from me, too, Tone, for posting the above article!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 3, 2008 16:15:09 GMT -5
Thank you doom, as usually I can't have an opinion without having you telling me I am wrong based only on your opinion. We may disagree, but I'd like you to point out a SINGLE instance where I have said definitively that you were wrong and it was NOT in regard to a specific fact or prefaced with "I disagree" or some such thing. No, I don't. If I did, I'd insult you. I didn't. Then you will note my alternative to you not having bought COIE was that we had completely different views on things. Clearly, this is the case. Now either you think this is an insult or else... well, I didn't insult you. Firstly- again, point out a SINGLE insult in what I said. I said EITHER you had no idea what you were talking about and hadn't read COIE OR we had different views on things. Since you HAVE read COIE, that means we have different views on things. Again, is that an insult? And again, did I try to tell you how to think at all? I told you facts, which were that this does not remove most of those past stories, that the creators I named disagreed with the marriage and the stated differences between Crisis and One More Day. I have been much less argumentative lately, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore your allegations when they are patently false. I'd be happy to continue this discussion over PM if you'd like, but I won't post on it more in the forum and I do not appreciate your false claims about what I have said to you. I can think of many which are considered classic anyway. Millar's MK: Spider-Man 12 issue run is often held to be a modern classic. Several of JMS's stories, including his first one with JRJR usually make the list as well. As for Avengers, well I'd argue the Busiek run certainly makes the cut. The one I'm certain about is FF though, I'd have to argue not only were there classic stories after 1990, but one of the three BEST FF runs ever in the form of the Waid run.
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jan 3, 2008 16:16:36 GMT -5
T Here is the perfect example of Joe Q imposing in a very bad way, his personal likes onto a major comic. Personal likes? You mean a single Spidey? because if so, it's also the likes of JMS. And of Tom Brevoort. And of Brian Bendis. And of Mark Millar. And of Dan Slott. And of Jeph Loeb. And Axel Alonso. And Ed Brubaker. Because they all had some input on One More Day. And we know it's to the liking of Sam Raimi. And presumably Marc Guggenheim. And presumably Zeb Wells. And presumably Bob Gale. We can also assume Steve Wacker, Steve McNiven, Salvador Larocca, John Romita Jr, Phil Jiminez and Chris Bachalo have no problems with it. So basically, it's not so much "personal likes" as "what pretty much everyone at Marvel" seems to like, as I haven't heard ONE Marvel creator speak out in strong favour of the marriage. Other than JMS, Joe Quesada, and the Spidey Editors, I've never seen a quote from any one of those other creators about the Spider-Man/MJ marriage. Care to share? Let's a deep breath, everyone. I'm concerned about this debate getting a little too heated.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 3, 2008 16:20:01 GMT -5
Joe Q specifically named Brian Bendis, Jeph Loeb and Mark Millar in addition to the others you mentioned as being in the room when they came up with One More Day and all contributing to it (Mark indicated as much at the Marvel panel in Dublin Comic Con) and said Dan Slott and Ed Brubaker also contributed to the story later, so one would assume they are in favour of the break-up. In fact, we KNOW Dan Slott is, he's publically said so repeatedly. And Gale, Guggenheim, Wells and the artists are assumptions given they all agreed to work on it and the writers in particular were pretty enthused about what they could do with Spidey under this status quo.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 3, 2008 16:27:38 GMT -5
I can think of many which are considered classic anyway. Millar's MK: Spider-Man 12 issue run is often held to be a modern classic. Several of JMS's stories, including his first one with JRJR usually make the list as well. As for Avengers, well I'd argue the Busiek run certainly makes the cut. The one I'm certain about is FF though, I'd have to argue not only were there classic stories after 1990, but one of the three BEST FF runs ever in the form of the Waid run. Fair enough, and of course it's a matter of opinion. My main argument is, and has been for years, that Marvel's big changes -- bringing in Hollywood screenwriters, marketing for the trade paperback, contriving stories to fit their films or making films to fit their stories... all of this has combined over the past 15 years to create a company that is too large to adequately shepherd its product. If more attention were paid to solid storytelling and less to making a gazillion dollars from Gen. Y'ers (yes, yes, I know it's a capitalist enterprise and I know I'm stereotyping their current market... ), then I'm not sure I'd feel this way! Doom, while the Busiek Avengers and Waid FF may stand as good runs, "back in my day" (insert "You old fart" comment here , I could grab any number of titles off the spinner rack and be treated to stories told with continuity, characterization, and a creator-born passion inherent within that muddy-colored newsprint. Brings a smile to my face...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 3, 2008 16:35:32 GMT -5
I'd argue you still can- but then, I'd argue that Waid Fantastic Four is far, far better than any FF run that existed "back in your day" *EXCEPT* the Lee and Byrne runs (and even then, it's not far off the Byrne one) anyway, so I guess it is all a matter of opinion. But by contrast, many would argue that aside from Frank Miller's run in the 80s, the Daredevil series today has maintained over a hundred issues of consistent excellence, far better than the Daredevil title of old- not to mention that many oldschool Cap fans refer to the current run as the best ever- so I guess it's all down to the individual, and the title!
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Jan 3, 2008 16:36:35 GMT -5
Other than those that have been known to endorse the idea of OMD, I think presuming other's endorsement of it is implied by their contributions is getting a little ahead of ourselves.
Just because someone doesn't like a story doesn't presuppose that they will withold any and all support and contribution of a story, especially when asked for directly, or if its an open topic of conversation.
In my more traditional southern vernacular, if my company is deadset on laying a turd, well they least I can do is help them dress it up as much as possible, even if I have to hold my nose while doing it. Afterall, I depend on them for my house and car payments every month.
|
|