Amazing Spider-Man 700: Discuss!

[enyawd72]

I just finished reading it, and I'm feeling very conflicted. Part of me feels the story was on some level brilliant, yet I cannot help feeling betrayed at the same time. I think Peter Parker deserved a better ending than this, but isn't that the reality of life? Sometimes the good guys lose.
Part of me says this story is no more or less absurd than the storyline from the 70's involving Doc Ock's scheme to marry Aunt May, but Doc Ock as Spider-Man? How long can it go on? Since Doc Ock retains all of Peter's memories and vice versa, was the mind transfer really complete or permanent?
My hope is that we'll see Peter's mind gradually take over his body again. The story poses an interesting question about what exactly makes us who we are. Do we really possess a "soul" or are we as individuals simply a collection of memories and experiences that shape our personalities? Doc Ock's entire personality is altered by experiencing the end of life flashback of Peter's existence. He experiences all his joy, pain, loss, and most importantly, feelings of responsibility.
This is all pretty heavy stuff. As much as I didn't want to like this story, I did. I feel almost compelled at this point to continue reading and see where all this is headed.

[hedrap]

Supergirl. Barry Allen. Hal Jordan.

It's a crock. I'm more offended by Marvel's hard sell that this switch is the real deal. As if they're not going to revert at some point.

Quesada has been throwing one desperate move after another for publicity since he took over. He has no shame.

Most of the comic industry is creatively bankrupt. Sorry to offend anyone here.

[The Toyroom]

The artwork sucked IMO....VERY distracting.

[enyawd72]

The artwork sucked IMO....VERY distracting.

I totally agree there...Humberto Ramos...ugh!

[bleit1701]

I wasn't reading the story but maybe they didn't tranfer minds but comingled and it's Peter thinking he's Ock.

[ctc]

>was the mind transfer really complete or permanent?

No. It never is. I think that's still the biggest problem for us oldsters: we KNOW there's gonna be a redo.... there always is.... so it takes some of the edge off. It's SUPPOSED to be a big event, but we don't feel it as such 'cos we've done this dance before:

http://www.milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=fullsize&issue=30663729872%2051

>I'm more offended by Marvel's hard sell that this switch is the real deal.

Yeah, like that. Once you know how a magic trick is done, it's not the same. Comics are like that. As a kid you didn't pay a lot of attention to the crew producing them, or the nuances of the publishing industry, or how marketing works.... you just read the funnybooks. As an adult you know all about that stuff, and it takes you out of the story. You can't say "OH NO! IS Petey really dead?!?!" like you would have when you were 10. Now the first reaction is "PFAUGH! This is just a cheapass publicity grab!" And you're right. Thing is, they were ALWAYS doing stuff like this but as a kid/newbie to the superhero thing you could let it slide; you could accept whatever was going on in the story 'cos that story was the whole world of the character for you.

>Doc Ock's entire personality is altered by experiencing the end of life flashback of Peter's existence.

Isn't THAT pretty heroic? A bad guy reformed, who must live with the guilt and seeks to make up for their past? It's a neat (if oft done idea) but given the nature of publishing, it's something that can't stand. (See my first point.)

I think if you want to be a Marvel or DC fan into your old age you gotta learn to roll with this stuff. It's not new, they've been doing shock stories just like this forever, and 'cos the books are perpetual it's never gonna change. It can't. And if you DO happen to like something like this, don't feel guilty.

Don C.

[enyawd72]

I'm not debating this is another let's kill off the hero then bring him back later scenario...we all know that. I'm just discussing how it was done...whether you think it was handled well, or badly, how long it will last, and it's impact on the MU.
As I said before, I think Peter Parker deserved a better end, but the Doc Ock as Spidey angle is interesting...although I'm reminded of "Kraven's Last Hunt" more than a little, where the villain defeats the hero, assumes his identity as an ultimate symbol of triumph and then self destructs.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I haven't read it yet, but after hearing more about this, it sounds like something that would occur in the Superman books in the Weisinger era. Luthor would do a mind transfer with Superman, and maybe the story would warrant a "3-part novel!" (which meant the whole issue) at best. Superman would somehow reverse the process, and status quo is restored by issue's end. OR, they'd treat it as an imaginary tale, and Luthor would permanently reside in Supes' body, but much like the Spidey storyline, the inherent goodness of ol' Kal-El would override Lex's evil tendencies.

The difference is this will be stretched out over who knows how long, and it's sold as the real deal. This is the way it is from now on. Now, we know better, but after years and years of stunts like this, I find creators get more and more defensive, and insulting. Their public responses are often "Well this is how it is now. If you don't like it go home. This is the new deal baby!" Which is really a bad tact to take, as no NEW comic readers are interested in a book where Spider-Man is really old nasty fat Doc Ock in Spidey's body (except maybe for speculative reasons, and we all know how that eventually turns out!). So you only have the fanboys left, and this stuff tends to torque them off. But they still buy it. So I guess that's all that matters. But eventually, you bite the hand that feeds you too many times, and the hand is pulled away for good.

I've beat this drum to death, but these characters have no stewards left. There are no Julius Schwartzes, no Archie Goodwins. No strong editors that look at the long-term ramifications of such things and say "no" to these type of stunts. I'm sure writers pitched crazy stuff like this back in the day, but they knew there was no way it was going to hit the press. The desire to make a splash, and make a quick buck is much greater than keeping a sense of continuity and credibility about the property.

Chris

[madmarva]

Like Anthony I thought the art was off putting. Kind of angular with ugly redesigns on classic villains, but I actually enjoyed the story and am interested in seeing where it goes. Probably wait for the trade, though.


If there were any chance this would stick, I might be upset, but as others have stated, the status quo will return. I don't begrudge Marvel pushing this as a permanent change. It 's like wrestling. The promoters have no illusions about the truth, but they can't admit it's fake or scripted. It would undermine the product. Same with Marvel.

[enyawd72]

I've beat this drum to death, but these characters have no stewards left. There are no Julius Schwartzes, no Archie Goodwins. No strong editors that look at the long-term ramifications of such things and say "no" to these type of stunts. I'm sure writers pitched crazy stuff like this back in the day, but they knew there was no way it was going to hit the press. The desire to make a splash, and make a quick buck is much greater than keeping a sense of continuity and credibility about the property.

Chris

You are so right about that. I think another problem too is that today's writers and artists are so wrapped up in trying to "leave their mark" by having a character serve them as opposed to them serving the character.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Yes. Although I'm not sure if it's always the writer/artist. I think editorial or even higher up often gives these edicts to shake things up. The creators need jobs, so they tow the company line. Behind the "it's the new direction deal with it" I wonder if they are really thinking "my kids need to eat. Please forgive me".

Chris

[ctc]

>The difference is this will be stretched out over who knows how long, and it's sold as the real deal.

Yeah.... I think your second point is kinda off 'cos this sort of thing was ALWAYS sold as the real deal (anyone remember the old Silver Age DC "NOT a dream, NOT an imaginary tale!" blurbs?) but your first point is the biggie. Stories like this usually took an issue or two, we didn't get months of hype ahead of time, and accordingly were allowed to make up our own minds when they happened. Since the 80's there's been an ever expanding tertiary market for comic book "insider" news; to the point that a lot of the hype outlives the actual books. (DC hadn't finished the reboot BEFORE "52" when we were already bludgeoned with what was gonna happen for "52.")

>after years and years of stunts like this, I find creators get more and more defensive, and insulting.

Yeah.... some guys were always jerks but there's a lot of defensiveness these days. I can understand it; these folks are sluggign it out in the trenches month after month (unless you're Jim Lee and decide to take a few months off) and they're getting it from both ends. The publishers want sales, the fans want something new.... but exactly like the old. Anything you do is already dissected.... in minutia.... months before it actually comes out, so people have made up their minds before reading it. You can't win.

That's why I can cut these guys some slack. They're not really doing anything their predecessors didn't, but they're catching the 40+ year pent up heat for it.

>no NEW comic readers are interested in a book where Spider-Man is really old nasty fat Doc Ock in Spidey's body

That hits on another problem, but I don't think it's that they don't want Petey/Doc.... it's that a new reader wouldn't have a good grip on the significance of such a story. Since the 80's (and the advent of continuity) there's been a tendency for the superheroes to ruminate on an ever diminishing number of stories, plots, events.... and if you don't have a good grip on them before reading the book you lose a lot of flavour. That's what scared off new readers since the 90's; the books are increasingly written for the fanboys, who are a diminishing market, which scares the publishers who double down, writing MORE for the fanboys, who are a diminishing market, scaring the publishers.... One of the big problems with all the reboots is that they start juggling elements from the past, and if you weren't here for them you have no clue why we should care. "GASP! Jason Todd is back?!?!?" If you hadn't read a story from TWENTY YEARS AGO that would mean NOTHING to you. So.... the reality sluggin' reboot.... meant to relaunch the new universe.... is ALREADY carrying baggage from (and I can't stress this enough) TWENTY YEARS prior! A time before the audience you're (presumably) trying to snag was born!

>these characters have no stewards left. There are no Julius Schwartzes, no Archie Goodwins. No strong editors that look at the long-term ramifications of such things and say "no" to these type of stunts.

Well.... again, there's some nuances. (Julie was known for his "put an ape in there!" marketing strategy. Not exactly condusive to good storytelling.) I don't think it's that the new directors don't care for the characters, or can't see the long term, or are intentionally raping your childhood; but the nature of the funnybook game changed. Back in the 80's. "Continuity" became a big selling point. Longer, more detailed stories, greater depth and variety in the writing, "comics 'aint just fer kids!!!" Things that would appeal to an older mind.... say, from a fan who read them as a kid in the 70's and was now in their teens. The problem is; you can't sustain ANY of that because you can't generally have lasting consequence in a perpetual book. For one, the characters are beholden to their core ideas (which are pretty threadbare) and because of that there are only SO MANY permutations possible before actual changes happen. On top of that, there's the rotating staff problem.... maintaining a thruline between new writers and artists. The old guys worked to maintain the episodic nature of the book; to better fit the publishing reality of the day. "ANY issue should be able to be someone's first issue" was a rule because you had an ever rotating stable of readers: kids coming in, teens going out, casual readers picking up an issue six months after the last one they read....

The early 80's were the era of the independent comic; books appealing to older readers who'd outgrown the kiddification of comics in the late 70's. Marvel and DC saw that as a threat and sought to emulate but couldn't.... not for long, and what we have now is the result. It's kinda the old system of rebooting as neccessary, sort of the post 80's running story thing.... but ultimately not as satisfying as going straight on with either. Adding to the problem: comics from the last decade have been dominated by import and independent books, both of which adhere to the no-reboot thing a lot more readily (and accordingly, feature the passage of actual time) meaning the current generation of readers has been socialized into an idea of "comic book" antithetical to the Marvel and DC perpetual monthly. (Which may help explain why a billion people seeing a Spiderman movie results in monthly comic sales of 75,000. A movie is an event. In the mind, it happens. A comic gets rejiggered every year or so.) The new paradigm means more stable creators for the books, which facilitates longer, more detailed, more EFFECTIVE stories. The fact that most books are sold in compilations means those events don't go away; new readers can ALWAYS start at volume 1. The writer can have more of a vision for the story, and allow it to unfold naturally. It creates a much more fulfiling experience for the reader. For someone who spent their formative comic fan years with those sort of things, the Marvel/DC thing can be pretty jarring. Characters looking completely different with each new artist, stories taking weird twists with each new writer, nothing lasting more than a year or so....

Someday someone will come up with a way to rectify this. Kinda like how the Silver Age happened to deal with sagging sales and a new audience. (I'm pulling for the "Zot" solution that it's just always 1965.) Until then we're just gonna hafta suck it up.

Don C.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Until then we're just gonna hafta suck it up.

Actually, I choose option B. I just don't buy it.

Chris

[GordoCrisp]

[IMG]h3fMk.jpg[/IMG]

Stan Lee reacts.

[BlackKnight]

I Haven't read a New Marvel Book in a Year & a Half .