(1) Harry is back. Its about time. Always knew it would happen and have waited patiently. It could have been done a number of ways (I have my own crazy way I would have done it). So I don't like how it was done, but like the outcome.
(2) Web-shooters are back. Also a good thing. Peter's scientific skill is a major part of the comic book and needs to be there, and this is always a way to underline it. Besides, no good stories came out of the organic webs, so its not like there's any reason to miss it. Again, good end result, crappy way of going about it.
(3) obviously MJ and Pete's marriage. I've spoken at length here and in other threads. I didn't like it, but hated to see it handled this way. I'll of course be sticking around.
Overall, a very weird reboot of sorts. Of course the no one knowing he's Spidey thing is gone, and Marvel pretty much sealed the deal on Pete's marriage the minute he came out in Civil War #2. Because Spider-Man, above all other super-heroes, needs his secret identity to continue to exist as an entertaining comic book. Its almost as if the very idea of revealing his identity means the end result must be him regaining it back.
So, a few things I like, but all the result of a storyline that is pretty poor. Joe Q has a major interview as comicbookreserouces, but its hella-long so I'll read it tomorrow
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow...read a summary of OMD. Appears that Spidey got the kinda treatment the Legion did with what seems effectively a reboot (or a Bobby Ewing shower effect, at least) that may have wiped out the last twenty years of his continuity or altered it significantly and blurrily the way many of DC's icons who weren't completely started over after Crisis had been.
Seems Marvel's taking the first baby step down the path that has dogged DC's continuity constantly post-Crisis. Good luck with that.
And here I was worried they'd either kill MJ off or reveal her as a Skrull. I almost wish they did, frankly, rather than go this route. Good grief.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think JMS just summed up what this means for continuity @ Newsarama:
quote:JMS @ http://forum.newsarama.com/showpost.php?p=4946249&postcount=1 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."
Not that his solution would have been BETTER, since it'd all be the same result, but I think this shows the level of logical thinking that went into this clusterfrak.
-------------------- My views are my own and do not reflect those of everyone else... and I wouldn't have it any other way.
posted
Though I hate JMS' run so much that it pleases me to know that he kind of got screwed over here, it amazes me how this could have happened, given the last 20 years of DC continuity being perhaps the greatest example of why you don't do something like this.
But jeepers, 1971? Its more like 1982-ish.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read in newsarama JMS's comments and I want to clarify something. I had no idea that it was Joe Q's decision to make Gwen's kids Norman Osborn's children in that dreaded storlyine which helped seal my hate for the current run on Spider-Man. I'm not sure how accurate it is, since Joe Q denies, but if that's the case, I've been misled by Marvel (surprise! stupid me). So I guess I've been unfair to JMS for that, if it was really an editorial mandate for it to be Norman. Then again, JMS did agree to write those stories, so he's not exactly innocent.
If it was Peter & Gwen's kids, as originally planned, would I have been okay with it? Yes. But that's also because Norman aged them many years, so they wouldn't be an ongoing part of the series. But yeah, that would have been true to the spirit of Gwen. Anyone who thinks Pete and Gwen weren't having sex isn't big on history. Both comics history or the 1960's.
Stupid Joe Q. All of him, stupid! Bah! Feh!
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
www.comicbookresources.com had Quesada's side of the story, Des. Quesada confirms he vetoed JMS wanting ther kids to be Peter's. However, this was before the story was even begun, so JMS could've simply not written the story (if Quesada's telling the truth).
Check out the (five-part) interview there with him--it's pretty fascinating and clarifies some of the OMD controversies. Like, apparently, all of the post-marriage continuity DID happen with the exceptions that Peter and MJ never actually tied the knot, no one remembers Pete's identity being revealed and Harry's return being tied to Mephisto putting in that wrinkle.
Apparently, JMS (hence, his infamous blog denunciation of OMD part 4) wanted to reboot the whole thing with continuity having been altered so that Pete got Harry the help he needed circa Amazing 97 which would've kept Harry and MJ together and altering how things turned out.
But this is a lighter reboot nullifying their marriage, but not all the time they spent together as a couple since that time, if I'm understanding this correctly. And, of course, everyone has "forgotten" Pete's outing during Civil War.
So JMS was never against nullifying the marriage but wanted to bring about a more extensive change to Spidey's history...even to the point where he wanted to undo Gwen's death!
And I hate to admit it, but Quesada's p.o.v. as he explains in that series of articles, is pretty well thought-out.
That doesn't mean I accept it, but I'm more open to it than I was a few days ago. The general rationale for it, that is...not the complete piece of crap OMD itself was from a storytelling and plot device standpoint.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I read them after my above post. Joe Q does come off well, and actually, I agree with quite a bit of his logic regarding Pete's marriage, because it mirrors my own on this board for years.
I would definately have not liked JMS's idea to reboot back to 1971, x-ing out tons of my favorite stories which I've reviewed in detail in this thread.
Like you say, I don't really accept the reason for this, but its not as horrible as it at first seemed. In other words, yeah, its dumb, but I'm not outraged enough to quit my favorite super-hero (insert joke most likely by Pov involving 'I can't quite you' ). So yes, OMD = piece of crap. The soft reboot isn't horrendous but it ain't exactly great.
So...
(1) Pete & MJ never married but were together most of the time during the married years.
(2) No one remembers Pete unmasking
(3) Harry is somehow back, more of which will be explained later.
Most likely...
(4) Baby May from the Clone Saga won't be mentioned for the duration of Joe Q's reign as EiC (and probably a while after). But to assume she'll never be mentioned again is naive. It could take 20 years, but just look to Morrison using Batman's son with Talia 25 years later.
(5) The Norman Osborn/Gwen Stacy children...erased? Maybe. Maybe not. I certainly hope so.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not just divorce them? I know it seems like it would age Peter, but he's aged since his first story. Write MJ out completely, and in five years, it wouldn't even be mentioned.
Joe Q is right, a single Spidey has more potential. But the story used to make it happen, wasn't good. The undoing of Gwen's kids, bringing Harry back, the webshooters- it sounds like Joe wanted to tell stories and then reset things afterwards, like the Morrison undoing.
From: Denver, CO | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CJ Taylor: Why not just divorce them?
Quesada provided the best explanation yet for why they didn't go that route--what kind of message would it send kids if Spider-man, of all heroes, got a divorce from MJ? Maybe not too many kids read 616 Spidey, but you just know it would make some mainstream headlines!
Spidey, especially thanks to the movies, is beloved by many, many youngsters (my sons included), so I can see Quesada's point. A much better one than the "aging" point, anyway.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so "Deal with Devil" = Good, Morally Relatable; "Divorce" = "Worse than deal with Devil".
And before you say "but the Devil isn't real" - can I point out that a guy WHO BELIEVES THE WORLD IS 6000 YEARS OLD just took the first Republican primary in the US Prez race.
-------------------- My views are my own and do not reflect those of everyone else... and I wouldn't have it any other way.
posted
What Lardy may say is that it was MJ who made the deal not Peter. So then, essentially, Marvel has decided it would be better to assault MJ's morals than Peter's, which has a whole new series of implications (none good).
And on the Republicans 'Boot. I'll use that when I see any of my Republican buddies, possibly even tonight.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Peter said "Do it." He did the deal, and when Thanos' Special Friend does the dealing out, he's going to one of the MU's various hells. If not Mephisto's, then Hellstorm's or Satannish's or Lucifer's.
-------------------- My views are my own and do not reflect those of everyone else... and I wouldn't have it any other way.
posted
Aside from the deal with the devil, you have MJ sacrificing her happiness for the happiness of those she loves. Isn't that supposed to be a moral good?
I don't read Spider-man, but exactly how does a single Spidey have more potential? I could see a single Spidey being more identifiable to younger readers than a married Spider-man, but I don't see that there would be more potential story-wise.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.: Aside from the deal with the devil, you have MJ sacrificing her happiness for the happiness of those she loves. Isn't that supposed to be a moral good?
From that perspective though - doesn't that make Peter look even worse? Saying "yes" to a deal with the devil to make his life better and her life worse?
-------------------- My views are my own and do not reflect those of everyone else... and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). So yes, OMD = piece of crap. The soft reboot isn't horrendous but it ain't exactly great.![[LOL]](graemlins/lol.gif)
on the Republicans 'Boot. I'll use that when I see any of my Republican buddies, possibly even tonight.
