The Big Picture: Stuperior

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Heh. So, the debut issue "Superior Spider-Man" is on shelves now. And while I'm not generally one to say, well...

BIG SPOILER WARNING!

Anyone else a little leery about a critic regularly telling the audience that they should stop complaining about things?

Callate:
Anyone else a little leery about a critic regularly telling the audience that they should stop complaining about things?

Well, I think a critic is allowed to say that something isn't worth complaining about. They should know; after all, it's practically their job to complain about things.

OT: A lot of people are talking about the rape-by-fraud thing. While I think it takes a good eye to pick up on that, I don't really think it's an issue. Marvel just has to have Ock keep his waldos in his pants. Problem solved (no-one really wants to see Otto's waldos anyway).

I'm only bringing it up because some posters were going off at the writers for "letting rape into their comic." That's a bit silly. Firstly, I don't think the writers predicted any outrage based on what they would have assumed is a standard Freaky Friday plot that the comics industry has done approximately sixteen thousand times before. Secondly, almost all Freaky Friday plots or any plot where A impersonates B would have the exact same potential for rape-by-fraud so there's nothing especially offensive or callous about this instance.

If Otto actually does put his waldo where he shouldn't, then we've got something to raise a fuss about. Until then, everyone can put down the pitchforks.

I read Superior but i wasn't sold, i already went through Peter going through "I'm Dark and Hardcore" during the extreme 90s were he learnt the true meaning of Christmas when he had a baby. And that last page was like a little silly not bad as they have to represent it somehow but just felt a little disjointed i would have preferred he'd speak in inner-monologue only but that's me. But really a Bi-weekly spidey will never do it for me.

BTW, OMD retconed around 20years, I remember reading Kraven's hunt thinking "woah!" a part of me thinks Slott ruined the story by bringing him back because he not only killed a butch of women Kraven's resurrection was overall pointless in terms of HIS character, it was only so that Spider-Island would happen which was an okay story but reinforced what i began to dislike about spider-man these days.

It's a shame they won't be doing Spider-man: Noir anymore (Luke Cage too) those stories where great.

Azure Knight-Zeo:
I'm with Bob, Doc Ock as the new "Superior" Spider-man, is kinda interesting.

Not only that, but even if it does suck eggs, he's also right in that there's an easy undo here.

I thought it was dumb before, but the extra detail that Peter Parker sort of gives his "consent" by giving Doc Ock makes it less "WTF" that he's going to replace him as Spider-man.

Callate:
Anyone else a little leery about a critic regularly telling the audience that they should stop complaining about things?

Its getting more and more common, with media in general, in the end it really just hurts the industry that has the complaints, think about it if Coke brought out a new 'crap flavoured' variety to phase out the one everyone likes, they would/should appreciate feedback in the form of complaints that nobody likes it, so they can fix it and make something better (or stick with what works), shouting down criticism and telling people to stop complaining prevents the companies from getting honest feedback.

The Deadpool:

STILL, every argument I see of people going "fans shouldn't be upset" involves two, basic arguments:

1) There's been worse.

2) It'll blow over.

Using the coke example, 'hey there are worse tasting drinks out there, stop complaining! it only mildly tastes of crap', or 'they'll change it back eventually, so shut up and drink your poo flavoured coke'. Doest really help anyone, in fact if people stop complaining, suck it up and keep buying it, even if they don't like it, they'll just keep doing what they're doing, and you get horrible coke flavour forever lol.

In short, complaining is good, obviously going ape-shit over minor things is a bit much, but if they don't know they cant fix it. This age of 'instant outrage' is a good thing, they can adjust a lot quicker and in the end we theoretically should get better products quicker, and have to put up with crap less.

zombie711:

leviadragon99:
Huh... have to say, I don't understand the uproar either, it does sound like a temporary thing that could turn out pretty interesting if done well.

Temporary in comics useually means a year minimum.
Ben Riley lasted a few years

Yeah, and that's what, one issue a month? Can people really not deal with that for 12 issues of one Spidey incarnation?

I was told Peter fucked his Aunt, please tell me that was just a myth.

leviadragon99:

zombie711:

leviadragon99:
Huh... have to say, I don't understand the uproar either, it does sound like a temporary thing that could turn out pretty interesting if done well.

Temporary in comics useually means a year minimum.
Ben Riley lasted a few years

Yeah, and that's what, one issue a month? Can people really not deal with that for 12 issues of one Spidey incarnation?

Can they 'deal with that'? why should anyone have to deal with anything they don't like that they're paying for? your making this seem like its a 'eat your veggies, its good for you' sort of deal lol. It's a business, they are charging for every issue, its not some free community service lol, if there are people out there that don't like it, they have every right to complain (and potentially not buy any of the new issues), to be fair Marvel have every right to ignore this, but really, they are in business to sell comics, if that means listening to people that they don't like what they're doing, and changing it to make them happy so they'll see more $$$ then its a win win.

MovieBob:
Heh. So, the debut issue "Superior Spider-Man" is on shelves now. And while I'm not generally one to say, well...

BIG SPOILER WARNING!

And that makes this a good thing... How?

this is the part that I don't grasp. Yes, it's self evident that this is temporary, yes there have been worse stories, but how does this make THIS a good story? Why should someone who thinks this sucks NOT complain about it?

People aren't complaining THAT there is a new status quo, people are complaining WHAT the new status quo IS. They think it's stupid.

Personally, I don't care. I just never understand why people keep claiming that fans shouldn't complain about things they think sucks just because... Why exactly?

How is their rage over this any less justified than your rage over Transformers?

Patrick_and_the_ricks:
I was told Peter fucked his Aunt, please tell me that was just a myth.

Yes and no. When inside Ock's body, he gained all of Ock's memories. Including Ock having sex with Aunt May.

So no, he never did it, but he has first person recollection of the act.

bastardofmelbourne:
If Otto actually does put his waldo where he shouldn't, then we've got something to raise a fuss about. Until then, everyone can put down the pitchforks.

I have to agree with this. People do seem to be condemning this story for things it HASN'T done yet, but MIGHT. That seems excessive.

so im not going to comment on the whole doc oc thing but those dvd box sets what are theyt called and where can i buy them?

leviadragon99:

Yeah, and that's what, one issue a month? Can people really not deal with that for 12 issues of one Spidey incarnation?

it's Bi-weekly, twice a month for $4, so if this goes on for a year we're getting 2 years worth of decompressed stories.

And i liked Ben Riley's stint.

I'll happily take Octo-Spiderman over Token-Spiderman.
#@&% you Miles Morales.

leviadragon99:

zombie711:

leviadragon99:
Huh... have to say, I don't understand the uproar either, it does sound like a temporary thing that could turn out pretty interesting if done well.

Temporary in comics useually means a year minimum.
Ben Riley lasted a few years

Yeah, and that's what, one issue a month? Can people really not deal with that for 12 issues of one Spidey incarnation?

its more along the lines of 4 or 5 a month (avenging spider-man and Superior spider-man), so more like 60 issues in 1 year not counting any other comic Superior might join for a issue.

However at the end of Superior #1 they pretty much recond a lot of amazing 700#, so Im cool with that.

Still if something you enjoyed gets messed up, and you were told wait a few years it will be gone by then. You would probably be pissed. You dont want to wait a few years for what you want to come back to normal (as normal as comics go anyways)

Callate:
Anyone else a little leery about a critic regularly telling the audience that they should stop complaining about things?

That's kind of the new face of being a critic, things having gone full circle. If you take a look at other people in the same basic business as Bob, acting as critics of geek culture, you'll notice they all basically hold the same position being more or less pro-casual when it comes to games, and increasingly siding with the interests of the businessmen at the helm in the final equasion, even if they throw out a few slams here and there. Without knowing Bob, or other critics that seem to be following the same formula, it's impossible for me to say how much of this is genuine, and how much of it is simply motivated by the changing nature of the business, needs for a platform to be a critic from, and the control the business side of media has over those platforms.

Speaking for myself, Bob has a point that these kinds of stunts ARE typical for comics, however in recent years I've noticed a general tendency to want to utterly erase comics continuity in the belief that by keeping recognized names but erasing most of the rest of what went with them, they can make the comics more approachable and thus increase sales. The usual arguement is that the Baby Boomers are finally fading, and the belief that the audience wants characters "more like themselves" all the way back to their very audience, but at the same time they don't want to risk throwing in behind entirely new franchises due to their tendency to fizzle compared to the established ones. Not to mention the whole political correctness issue, and again the unwilliness to gamble too often on creating new characters, so they prefer to minoritize existing characters rather than try and create new ones, or simply wait for general interest to produce enough minority writers and creators in it's own time, which will happen if there is the interest for this to be a real issue rather than one simply born of ridicuous white-guilt to begin with.

The problem with some of these events in recent years is that they are intended to bring lasting change to a given franchise for business or political reasons. When you get down to it, the motivation for "One More Day" was arguably to make Spidey "availible" given that he was so heavily being promoted as a romantic interest. The bottom line is that readers of the right type want to be able to sort of insert themselves vicariously into being a potential match for their hero (sort of daydream fan fiction) and if the hero or heroine is permanantly fixed up, this kind of ruins it. Not to mention the simple fact that Hollywood (and Marvel's increasing multi-media base) wants to play fast and loose with who is going to be Spider Man's love interest in the movies. I kind of suspect they found it easier to cast a blonde than a redhead which is why they went with Gwen Stacy in the most recent Spidey movie but I have no way of proving that.

With the recent "Doc Ock" thing it's the kind of storyline that would be cool for a couple of issues, but not as a major event going on for dozens or hundreds of comics. The thing is with some of those "shock" covers and set ups Bob was talking about is that they were relatively self-contained and over with reasonably quickly (though like everything there are exceptions). This entire storyline is pretty much designed to leave a mark on the character indefinatly, long past the actual plot being run out, and Peter inevitably returned to control of his body. A fairly educated reader would look at it from outside the story and start making guesses as to the motivations and how this was intended to work out. Speaking for myself, my guess is that the point is to try and re-introduce Spidey as not only a swinging unmarried bachelor (previously set up) but to now give him a more "extreme" attitude left over from Doc Ock revenue. Sort of like how DC relaunched Superman, minus a lot of the whole "American Way" stuff and a more "edgy" attitude with the intention of it being permanant to better match the current viewpoint and morality rather than acting as the idealistic counterpoint Superman is supposed to represent. How that plays out (or played out) is unknown, but the point is that it's an extreme that has been being worked on for a while (Superman renouncing citizenship), and the formalization of it seems to be similar to what Marvel is trying to do with Spidey.

The thing is fans want comic continuities to move forward, and while re-boots get attention, people don't actually want to see changes to the fundemental nature of characters amount to more than what amounts to a quick "what if". You do see very slow, glaciar-like changes in comic characters, with the basics pretty much always staying the same, and that's pretty much how comics should be and are supposed to be.

At the end of the day the outrage here is more justified than I think Bob gives it credit for. The bottom line is nobody wants to spend the next year reading about a storyline that should have been over with in a few books. People don't want to wait that long to get the character they actually want to read about back. On top of that nobody wants to see the continuity that has kept them reading for all these years pretty much demolished with a wrecking ball. The relatively unchanging nature of comic characters is kind of their appeal.

I'll also say that this kind of garbage is why Marvel has their "Ultimate" universe. Doing it in the main "prime" continuity of course sells better and gets more attention. Besides I'd imagine after they already turned Ultimate Spider man permanantly into a Latino, turning Latino Spider-Man into Doc Ock would have just been "meh" and kind of ignored given that it's the kind of garbage you tend to expect from the Ultimate Universe nowadays. Truthfully just because they wrote themselves into a corner by trying to be "shocking" too often and playing with the characters too much in the universe they created for it, doesn't mean that they should run their experiments in the Prime universe. The fact that the "Ultimate Universe" remained at best a sideline (if a popular one at times) should kind of show exactly why they shouldn't be screwing around too much here.

You JUST had to take an unprofessional bash at the ASM movie didn't you? Good one.

I don't really have a huge stake in this particular issue; as I've said elsewhere, I pick up individual comics occasionally, piecemeal, grabbing the occasional collection when they show up at the library and maybe buying trade paperbacks if they particularly spark my interest, usually well after the actual individual comic run is well past. Generally speaking things like the "Superior Spider-Man" change-over or the "One More Day" story line or the blue-outfit-electrical-powers Superman revamp elicit very similar reactions in me; I kind of roll my eyes and know that this, too, shall pass, even as I quietly reflect that such stunts tend to reflect a somewhat unwholesome side of comics that sees the medium as a venue for marketing more than storytelling.

But I don't hold it against anyone who is more invested in Spider-Man, his continuity, or his character that they should take umbrage. Perhaps we should take half a step back to avoid sinking into "Worst... Plotline... Ever...!" dramatics that the "Comic Book Guy" in The Simpsons exists to parody, but I don't think we profit from every conversation having to start with justifying the need to complain even before the reasons for that complaint are addressed. And I don't think criticism is at its finest when it tries to stop discussions before they even start. It just foments the sense that critics view their medium at a different level on which the hoi polloi should not even attempt to intrude, to the detriment of critic and audience alike.

I don't follow superhero comics (I tend to just watch their various cartoon and movie adaptions) but this sounds like a really good idea. Heck, I love this idea. I think I just might pick up Spiderman #700 to see how it is; if it turns out to be good I just might follow The Superior Spiderman.
I don't get is why is everybody complaining about this.

Since Peter made a deal with the devil, Mephisto, when he dies, shouldn't he go to HELL?

Still, we ALL know this isn't going to last. It just won't. It's too silly, too stupid, and too short-term stunt sales gimmickry.

Then again, I said the same thing about "One More Day", and no matter what Bob says, that story was AWFUL. Not just in terms of concept and execution, it betrayed the KEY theme of the Spider-man mythos: "with great power comes great responsibility". So they told a story about dodging responsibility entirely, not having to deal with reality, betraying the wishes of your loved ones, and suffering no consequences whatsoever...

But this? This is just silly and stupid. It's not as outright offensive as One More Day was.

Callate:
I don't really have a huge stake in this particular issue; as I've said elsewhere, I pick up individual comics occasionally, piecemeal, grabbing the occasional collection when they show up at the library and maybe buying trade paperbacks if they particularly spark my interest, usually well after the actual individual comic run is well past. Generally speaking things like the "Superior Spider-Man" change-over or the "One More Day" story line or the blue-outfit-electrical-powers Superman revamp elicit very similar reactions in me; I kind of roll my eyes and know that this, too, shall pass, even as I quietly reflect that such stunts tend to reflect a somewhat unwholesome side of comics that sees the medium as a venue for marketing more than storytelling.

But I don't hold it against anyone who is more invested in Spider-Man, his continuity, or his character that they should take umbrage. Perhaps we should take half a step back to avoid sinking into "Worst... Plotline... Ever...!" dramatics that the "Comic Book Guy" in The Simpsons exists to parody, but I don't think we profit from every conversation having to start with justifying the need to complain even before the reasons for that complaint are addressed. And I don't think criticism is at its finest when it tries to stop discussions before they even start. It just foments the sense that critics view their medium at a different level on which the hoi polloi should not even attempt to intrude, to the detriment of critic and audience alike.

I know what you mean. One of the reasons I haven't really cared about comicbook superheroes is not that they have large continuities but rather because they never really feel like they change. The characters never make progress (or regress) in their live, interesting ideas never stay, and they seem to want to maintain the holy status quo no matter what. It never seems like they want to tell an interesting tale but rather sell me an escapist fantasy. I get that businesses will be businesses but that doesn't mean the art has ton reflect that. For example, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Cleary, it is supose to sell Hasbro's My Little Pony toys; but, when one watches the show they can see that Lauren Faust (the creator), the animators, writers, and everyone else who worked on the show really put a lot of thought and care into it. I'm not trying to imply that superhero comic writers don't have passion (they obviously do) but it always seems like comics always want to play it safe and give the audience what they want rather than give them art.

Seriously, people pour far more energy into serialized fiction, or indeed any form of fiction, then it's ultimately worth.

canadamus_prime:
Seriously, people pour far more energy into serialized fiction, or indeed any form of fiction, then it's ultimately worth.

Honestly, I don't see much difference between that and the lengths the fandoms to musicians and professional sports go to.

Bob, I have two questions, you say that you know your spider-man, can you name all of the host's for venom and carnage and where they are in comic continuity and also what is your opinion on Deadpool in general.

Caffeine_Bombed:
Didn't Spider-Man give birth to himself once?

Oh come on who hasn't done that these days? It's not even a little ridiculous anymore.

For me, the broad idea itself isn't that problematic. It's the very real ick that comes from the likely consequences, like Doc Ock using Peter's knowledge, and spider-enhanced body, so a 50+ year old guy can make his move on a 20 something chick without her knowing. It's JUST this side of Purple Man mind control rape.

huser:
For me, the broad idea itself isn't that problematic. It's the very real ick that comes from the likely consequences, like Doc Ock using Peter's knowledge, and spider-enhanced body, so a 50+ year old guy can make his move on a 20 something chick without her knowing. It's JUST this side of Purple Man mind control rape.

I honestly don't know why no-one has brought up the time Wolverine slept with a 16-year-old Mary Jane while in Peter Parker's body.

That's way creepier, and it happened ages ago.

KoDOmega:
... whoa.

The actual big bad issue, Bob.

You missed it.

If most people are getting their panties in a twist over Spidey dying, that's fine.

The thing they should ACTUALLY be mad about?

ANYONE, INCLUDING AFOREMENTIONED REDHEADED CIPHER, HAVING A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH SPIDER-MAN.

Basically, Doc HAS to either tell his sexual partners he's actually a reformed supervillain in a superhero's body or else ANYTHING they do could be considered rape by fraud, a very serious, very real crime that he could very easily perpetrate if he's not careful. Heck, by some definition, ANYTHING he does, regardless of what he tells people, could be considered rape... OF PETER PARKER.

Again, I AGREE with you on the fact that this story has a lot of potential for good, twist-on-the-mythos storytelling. But Doc better keep the pistol in his holster or else Spidey comics are going to get VERY uncomfortable VERY quickly.

Why is that rape by fraud but failing to tell a partner that you're a freakin' radioactive spider/human hybrid is hunky-dory? Unless everyone Peter's been with has been told up front the exact source of his powers and that he might be exposing them to, y'know, cancer (Spiderman: Reign as the admittedly very weak source). Or how about any X-men character who sleeps with a regular human who isn't aware they're a mutant (looking at Wolverine here). This is, of course, ignoring the fact we haven't even seen this issue addressed yet in the story (haven't read Superior #1 yet so this could end badly for me BUT NEVERTHELESS) pretty much any superhero romance where a secret identity is involved by default suffers all the capslock rage inducing dilemma's of rape-by-fraud that this one does, the ONLY difference is that there's an extra layer of Secret Identity behind it.

As an example, when Black Cat was making out with Spiderman but didn't want him to be Peter Parker? Was that Rape by Fraud because she didn't know he wasn't just a gestalt entity made up of pranksterism and Spider powers but an actual person?

Seriously, keep piling on the dirt to the mole-hill, maybe we'll top Everest.

SAMAS:

canadamus_prime:
Seriously, people pour far more energy into serialized fiction, or indeed any form of fiction, then it's ultimately worth.

Honestly, I don't see much difference between that and the lengths the fandoms to musicians and professional sports go to.

At least the outrage, uproars and protests by comic/videogame/movie fans mainly happens on the internet, as far as I'm aware there hasn't been any soccer hooligan style rampages lol.

CaptainMarvelous:

KoDOmega:
... whoa.

The actual big bad issue, Bob.

You missed it.

If most people are getting their panties in a twist over Spidey dying, that's fine.

The thing they should ACTUALLY be mad about?

ANYONE, INCLUDING AFOREMENTIONED REDHEADED CIPHER, HAVING A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH SPIDER-MAN.

Basically, Doc HAS to either tell his sexual partners he's actually a reformed supervillain in a superhero's body or else ANYTHING they do could be considered rape by fraud, a very serious, very real crime that he could very easily perpetrate if he's not careful. Heck, by some definition, ANYTHING he does, regardless of what he tells people, could be considered rape... OF PETER PARKER.

Again, I AGREE with you on the fact that this story has a lot of potential for good, twist-on-the-mythos storytelling. But Doc better keep the pistol in his holster or else Spidey comics are going to get VERY uncomfortable VERY quickly.

Why is that rape by fraud but failing to tell a partner that you're a freakin' radioactive spider/human hybrid is hunky-dory? Unless everyone Peter's been with has been told up front the exact source of his powers and that he might be exposing them to, y'know, cancer (Spiderman: Reign as the admittedly very weak source). Or how about any X-men character who sleeps with a regular human who isn't aware they're a mutant (looking at Wolverine here). This is, of course, ignoring the fact we haven't even seen this issue addressed yet in the story (haven't read Superior #1 yet so this could end badly for me BUT NEVERTHELESS) pretty much any superhero romance where a secret identity is involved by default suffers all the capslock rage inducing dilemma's of rape-by-fraud that this one does, the ONLY difference is that there's an extra layer of Secret Identity behind it.

As an example, when Black Cat was making out with Spiderman but didn't want him to be Peter Parker? Was that Rape by Fraud because she didn't know he wasn't just a gestalt entity made up of pranksterism and Spider powers but an actual person?

Seriously, keep piling on the dirt to the mole-hill, maybe we'll top Everest.

... see, here's the thing. For all of those things, you do really have a point. Is it lying about your identity if you don't talk about BOTH of them? Is it more gray if the other person in question hasn't expressed a specific distaste for the alternate identity in question (would it be clearer for JJJ than it would be for Betty Brant, can only Friends of Humanity members claim it)? It's a really fascinating discussion that I think has merit.

But the thing is... there is, if even a bit small, room for discussion on that. On THIS particular issue? On Spider-Ock and Mary Jane? It's pretty clear-cut, all things considered. It's comparing an apple with a brown spot to an apple that's been at the bottom of the crisper for a month. You probably don't want to eat one, but you DEFINITELY do not want to eat the other.

I haven't read Marvel since the 80s, but I could understand how Doc Octupus fans could be pissed if the comic wasn't set in it's own continuity. I can also think of ways to resolve the end, & I don;t even know the story.

So, let's get this straight.

Bob hates the ASM movie, which was perfectly fine, but he loves the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon which is terrible and he's perfectly okay with genocidal rapist Spider-Ock. Yep. Okay. Bob, I'll give you one thing, you are at least better than Linkara, who's a talentless hack just like the Nostalgia Critic, but I think you dropped the ball on this one. I mean, I know you couldn't read the issue, but you should have at least tried to look up a scan or something on this issue, but nope, you decided to not focus on the main reason people are so upset over this.

CaptainMarvelous:
Rape?

KoDOmega:
Everybody's getting raped!

ShadowDude112:
Spider rape, spider rape, friendly neighbourhood spider rape.

I could (mis)quote more people, a lot more people actually, but the point is moot in this case considering the events of One More Day because...

Unless they just use contraceptives until they say their I-dos, but I'd need to see evidence of it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here