View Poll Results: 10 Years Later, was the deal with Mephisto worth it?

Voters
184. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    37 20.11%
  • No

    147 79.89%
Page 36 of 53 FirstFirst ... 2632333435363738394046 ... LastLast
Results 526 to 540 of 788
  1. #526
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    I wouldn't say my opposition to OMD and its effects is centered around MJ; to be honest, while I'm a fan of the character and have her as the preferred Spider-Man love interest to me, I'm far more irritated at the message of OMD, it's direct effects on Spider-Man's status quo, and it's simple existence as a really *bad* story with a total reversal of Spider-Man's creed that's now intrinsic to the serialized adventures of Spider-Man.

    Let's start at the back and work our way up:

    -It's a bad, BAD, story. On a holistic level within the Marvel Universe, it's central argument that all these great powers and scientists can't save an old woman from a gunshot is laughably bad. The idea of sacrificing a healthy marriage to the devil in exchange for a contented old woman's life isn't "with great power comes great responsibility"; it's the makings of a villain's backstory. None of the story's tropes are noble, and you can feel that as well in the writing. It's impossible to respect a choice that is demonstrated *in-story* to have far more negative consequences, and where the method is clearly malevolent. And the story runs on internal logic both counter to the rest of the series and inconsistent within itself.

    -The central "benefit" to its change in the status quo is, ostensibly, that a single, sad-sack Peter operating in a throwback to his dating days while still somewhat dependent on his aunt is supposedly a boon to new readers, that it will attract thousands to his audience, and that it will make old readers return. I haven't seen that. And quite frankly, I really don't give a rat's butt about restarting the Parker Luck Soap Opera Of Romance. I have a very finite amount of patience for superhero romance, and I despise inorganic methods to attempt to prolong it; I dislike all cosmically retconned relationships in comics, because I don't need to see the Eternal Will They Or Won't They, let alone the Dating Show Ad Infinatum.

    -And the main message of OMD is really stupid: "If we convince ourselves that Spider-Man is broken in some way, try to fix him organically through writing, and then get proven wrong, that's alright; we'll just use a $#!++ier option to force to the change, no matter how stupid, illogical, or unneccesary it may be." I already despise most "fix what isn't broken" retcons; like in the New 52, I can see why they felt that Wonder Woman and Superman needed a remix, but they'd already fixed Flash and Green Lantern organically, and the Batfamily was flying high. Marvel, to their credit, have traditionally been far more willing to take risks and simply write intelligent status quo changes. And then came OMD, where they hammered a horrible story into the serialized story to attain a regressive status quo through cheap and ugly editorial fiat.

  2. #527
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    3,414

    Default

    Cup O'Joe panel presently going on at D23

    https://www.newsarama.com/35365-d23-...joe-panel.html

    Quesada's first mandates as Editor in Chief was to fix Spider-Man and the X-Men. "It's not unlike Disney's return to prominence, when they realized that animation was at the core of their business," Quesada said. "Marvel had just lost its way... the stories had no longer been about us, but were love letters to our childhood. Writers wrote stories that reflected what they read as kids.


    Quesada wrote letters to the Marvel staff, and said that after reading a large stack of black and white review copies, "we still have a long way to go." Critiquing the insular nature of the books at the time, Quesada wrote, "you still need a road map, Atlas and Famer's Almanac to understand some of our books... if someone wants to be a dinosaur, you're in the wrong business. My office is a virtual La Brea tar pit for antiquated ideas."

    "
    ,

  3. #528
    BANNED dragonmp93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miles To Go View Post
    Cup O'Joe panel presently going on at D23

    https://www.newsarama.com/35365-d23-...joe-panel.html

    ,
    "Fixing" it; yeah right.

  4. #529
    Astonishing Member Tuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    2,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonmp93 View Post
    "Fixing" it; yeah right.
    He did fix it.

    The book was in the middle of one of its most detested runs, and JMS came onto the book under Quesada.

  5. #530
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
    He did fix it.

    The book was in the middle of one of its most detested runs, and JMS came onto the book under Quesada.
    And then many people will say he ruined it with One More Day. I personally think "ruined" is a bit too strong of a word that tends to be used a little more often that it should, but I stand by that One More Day was a big mistake that really didn't "fix" anything.

  6. #531
    BANNED dragonmp93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
    He did fix it.

    The book was in the middle of one of its most detested runs, and JMS came onto the book under Quesada.
    And made an event so bad that pissed everyone so bad that everyone forgot about that run.

  7. #532
    Mighty Member phantom1592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    1) Two of those animated series were from over 40 years ago. Spider-Man has kind of evolved in that time.
    Has it? Constantly restarting the character and reimaginging is kind of the opposite of Evolving.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    2) Even if Spectacular Spider-Man didn't have MJ as the main love interest, she was still there in an important supporting role. Plus, the show sort of met a premature end. We don't know what their plans were for her in the long run, especially since Gwen was the main love interest. Do people really expect Gwen Stacy to make a comeback?
    What they planned to do, and what they did are really irrelevant. MJ was not the main love interest in that show. This so called 'essential' element was completely missing, and I still hear fans rant and rave over how awesome that show was and how stupid Marvel was for canceling it and how it was the perfect series... Which, while again, I wasn't a fan of it. That amount of popularity WITHOUT MJ at the center seems to contradict the 'essential' aspect. There has so far been ZERO Superman shows that have had NO Lois Lane in them. Even Smallville which had NOTHING to do with his Lois years... still found a way to squeeze her in.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    3) Again, the Amazing Spider-Man movies were going to include Mary Jane. They had the actress already locked down and even filmed her scenes. It was a last minute decision to exclude them, but even so, the plan was obviously to then focus on her and Peter's relationship in the third movie because they could no longer use Gwen as the main love interest. Spoiler alert: that girl is dead. But, of course, we know they didn't get that far because of the critical backlash to those movies. But, yes, their plans were to include Mary Jane and have her as the main love interest for the third movie.

    Again, 'Were going to' doesn't count. What we have now, is SIX Live action Spider-man movies... and only half of them have Mary Jane in them. And basically we're now looking at two out of three franchise that have not featured MJ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    4) I'm not that familiar with the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon, but from what I've gathered from it, again Mary Jane is there in probably the most important supporting role in the series. She and Peter have been friends since childhood and she first appears in the first episode (so I don't understand how she's not there for "most" of it). She also plays the role of a flirtatious romantic interest that just never materialized in an actual romance. Plus, you know, that series is based on the Ultimate Marvel comics, in which MJ was Peter's main romantic interest and which ended with Peter and MJ pretty much driving off into the sunset together.
    Ultimate I'll admit was a weird addition. Mary Jane was there off an on in season one with the hints of long term relationship that we would have expected. Then the whole show took a nosedive with excessive guest stars and a change of setting. Spidey moved to the Helicarrier and started leading and recruiting his own team of up to 15 other heroes on various missions and MJ was dropped cold till the last few episodes.

    She wasn't actually replaced with a different love interest... it was just a show WITHOUT a love interest and the entirety of Spidey's civilian supporting cast got the shaft there. But it still goes to show that her as a love interest was 'ESSENTIAL' to a successful Spider-man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    5) MJ being reworked is not really that strange for any character. Many characters have been warped by the movies. I mean, in the DCEU, they completely gender-swapped Jimmy Olsen to be "Jenny" or at least that's what I heard. Though, this is assuming that Michelle is actually supposed to be Mary Jane and we don't accept Feige's explanation that she's not and it was just a throwaway homage line. My guess is that she might have been intended to be some version of Mary Jane, with the actual name Mary Jane Watson, but that they changed it. And since the MCU Spider-Man is supposed to be a 5-movie deal, I doubt that there won't be at least some major changes in his supporting cast and some shakeups in regards to love interests. I doubt they would do 5 movies and not mention Gwen Stacy (or her death) for instance. So why not eventually introduce Mary Jane?
    This is the problem I have with 'reworked' characters though... What is it that the MJ fans want? What do they love? Do they love the party girl who was hooking up with Harry and the soap opera star who eventually became Mrs. Parker?? Because that character hasn't been seen yet.

    90's cartoon wasn't that version... McGuire's version wasn't that version (though she WAS close..) Ultimate's Girl next door childhood friend??? that's not classic MJ. Unkempt political protestor and social outcast??? Even if they DO try to say that Michelle is the 'official' MJ... THAT will never be Mary Jane. That's the OPPOSITE of what Mary Jane was.

    Is there anything that the REAL Mary Jane provides to Peter, that Garfield's Pete wasn't getting from his Gwen? If they had changed the Name to MJ would that have been fine?

    So how much tweaking and modernizing do you accept before it's just not that character anymore? I really don't consider the scrawny, fellow Decathalon nerd who is Jealous of Peter's brains to EVER be Star Quarterback Flash Thompson. Doesn't matter what they call him, the REAL Flash would have shoved him in a locker right next puny Parker.

  8. #533
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonmp93 View Post
    "Fixing" it; yeah right.
    It's fixed the way my dog is fixed ... What was there functioned fine, but wasn't what I wanted to deal with ...

    I don't expect Spiderman to age with me, but I also wouldn't compare Quesada and Lassader in the same breath; only one actually understood only some of those love letters were bad; the good needed to be updated and brought to the forefront because a bunch of Hollywood douchebags let them fall into disrepair to make a quick buck on what the brand meant to people.

    I don't remember seeing Bambi 3 - where it's revealed that Bambi's dad put a hit out on the mom. I do remember those direct to video sequels disappearing.

    Ups and downs happen - but the stuff that most on this board are pissed about are from the early 70s - mid 80s, not the 90s. By that measure - it did revamp childhoods, not love letters to them.

  9. #534
    BANNED dragonmp93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom1592 View Post
    Has it? Constantly restarting the character and reimaginging is kind of the opposite of Evolving.




    What they planned to do, and what they did are really irrelevant. MJ was not the main love interest in that show. This so called 'essential' element was completely missing, and I still hear fans rant and rave over how awesome that show was and how stupid Marvel was for canceling it and how it was the perfect series... Which, while again, I wasn't a fan of it. That amount of popularity WITHOUT MJ at the center seems to contradict the 'essential' aspect. There has so far been ZERO Superman shows that have had NO Lois Lane in them. Even Smallville which had NOTHING to do with his Lois years... still found a way to squeeze her in.





    Again, 'Were going to' doesn't count. What we have now, is SIX Live action Spider-man movies... and only half of them have Mary Jane in them. And basically we're now looking at two out of three franchise that have not featured MJ.



    Ultimate I'll admit was a weird addition. Mary Jane was there off an on in season one with the hints of long term relationship that we would have expected. Then the whole show took a nosedive with excessive guest stars and a change of setting. Spidey moved to the Helicarrier and started leading and recruiting his own team of up to 15 other heroes on various missions and MJ was dropped cold till the last few episodes.

    She wasn't actually replaced with a different love interest... it was just a show WITHOUT a love interest and the entirety of Spidey's civilian supporting cast got the shaft there. But it still goes to show that her as a love interest was 'ESSENTIAL' to a successful Spider-man.



    This is the problem I have with 'reworked' characters though... What is it that the MJ fans want? What do they love? Do they love the party girl who was hooking up with Harry and the soap opera star who eventually became Mrs. Parker?? Because that character hasn't been seen yet.

    90's cartoon wasn't that version... McGuire's version wasn't that version (though she WAS close..) Ultimate's Girl next door childhood friend??? that's not classic MJ. Unkempt political protestor and social outcast??? Even if they DO try to say that Michelle is the 'official' MJ... THAT will never be Mary Jane. That's the OPPOSITE of what Mary Jane was.

    Is there anything that the REAL Mary Jane provides to Peter, that Garfield's Pete wasn't getting from his Gwen? If they had changed the Name to MJ would that have been fine?

    So how much tweaking and modernizing do you accept before it's just not that character anymore? I really don't consider the scrawny, fellow Decathalon nerd who is Jealous of Peter's brains to EVER be Star Quarterback Flash Thompson. Doesn't matter what they call him, the REAL Flash would have shoved him in a locker right next puny Parker.
    Besides of an stronger neck ?.

  10. #535
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom1592 View Post
    This is the problem I have with 'reworked' characters though... What is it that the MJ fans want? What do they love? Do they love the party girl who was hooking up with Harry and the soap opera star who eventually became Mrs. Parker?? Because that character hasn't been seen yet.

    90's cartoon wasn't that version... McGuire's version wasn't that version (though she WAS close..) Ultimate's Girl next door childhood friend??? that's not classic MJ. Unkempt political protestor and social outcast??? Even if they DO try to say that Michelle is the 'official' MJ... THAT will never be Mary Jane. That's the OPPOSITE of what Mary Jane was.

    Is there anything that the REAL Mary Jane provides to Peter, that Garfield's Pete wasn't getting from his Gwen? If they had changed the Name to MJ would that have been fine?

    So how much tweaking and modernizing do you accept before it's just not that character anymore? I really don't consider the scrawny, fellow Decathalon nerd who is Jealous of Peter's brains to EVER be Star Quarterback Flash Thompson. Doesn't matter what they call him, the REAL Flash would have shoved him in a locker right next puny Parker.
    I agree. There is a lot to examine, if we follow the primary premise that Mary Jane is absolutely necessary to telling a Spider-Man story and the secondary premise that the Mary Janes of various adaptations (Ultimate comics, movies, Ultimate cartoon etc) fulfilled the requirements of the character.

    There are more differences than commonalities between the Marvel Universe version and the Ultimate Universe version.

    How did they meet? Blind date set up by Aunt May shortly after Peter started college, or did they know each other simply through school and/or being next door neighbours?

    What is Mary Jane's personality like? Is she a huge extrovert who loves the attention of others, or is she a nice sweet girl next door type?

    What are her interests? Does she dream of acting and modelling and being a star, or is she a brainy girl interested in journalism?

    How does everyone else view her? Is she a mega babe all the guys are attracted to and some of the girls feel threatened or irritated by, or is she just a relatively popular, middle of the road girl?

    How did she find out Peter was Spider-Man? Did she discover it by accident and try to keep it to herself for a long time, or did Peter actively share his secret with her?

    A lot of this applies to the movies too, although they got some things right, like the acting career.

    Comparing Ultimate MJ to the classic MJ, the main commonalities are:

    1. She is a white female with red hair, around the same age as Peter.
    2. After a while she knows Peter is Spider-Man.
    3. She becomes Peter's girlfriend.
    4. Her name is Mary Jane Watson.
    5. She's generally a decent human being.

    Are these the essential traits that are required of the character in order for a Spider-Man story to be a Spider-Man story? Are the personality, interests, social standing and history of the character merely optional window dressing?

    Spider-Man must have a girlfriend called Mary Jane who has red hair and is nice. Is that what we should take?

  11. #536
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    I agree. There is a lot to examine, if we follow the primary premise that Mary Jane is absolutely necessary to telling a Spider-Man story and the secondary premise that the Mary Janes of various adaptations (Ultimate comics, movies, Ultimate cartoon etc) fulfilled the requirements of the character.

    There are more differences than commonalities between the Marvel Universe version and the Ultimate Universe version.

    How did they meet? Blind date set up by Aunt May shortly after Peter started college, or did they know each other simply through school and/or being next door neighbours?

    What is Mary Jane's personality like? Is she a huge extrovert who loves the attention of others, or is she a nice sweet girl next door type?

    What are her interests? Does she dream of acting and modelling and being a star, or is she a brainy girl interested in journalism?

    How does everyone else view her? Is she a mega babe all the guys are attracted to and some of the girls feel threatened or irritated by, or is she just a relatively popular, middle of the road girl?

    How did she find out Peter was Spider-Man? Did she discover it by accident and try to keep it to herself for a long time, or did Peter actively share his secret with her?

    A lot of this applies to the movies too, although they got some things right, like the acting career.

    Comparing Ultimate MJ to the classic MJ, the main commonalities are:

    1. She is a white female with red hair, around the same age as Peter.
    2. After a while she knows Peter is Spider-Man.
    3. She becomes Peter's girlfriend.
    4. Her name is Mary Jane Watson.
    5. She's generally a decent human being.

    Are these the essential traits that are required of the character in order for a Spider-Man story to be a Spider-Man story? Are the personality, interests, social standing and history of the character merely optional window dressing?

    Spider-Man must have a girlfriend called Mary Jane who has red hair and is nice. Is that what we should take?
    Think it's more on a sliding scale -

    You have attributes (ex - physical look)
    You have interests (ex - modeling)
    You have characteristics ( ex - she's kind)
    And
    You have details (ex - little details, scenarios, experiences that the writers threw in over the years)

    If you look at Gwen - she had a lot of attributes, some thin interestsand experiences .. But not much that didn't exist outside of being a foil for Peter or Spiderman.

    If you back out Gwen from MJ - you are left with a list of differences.

    The more those differences are repeated over time, the more engrained they are.

    The more they overlap with Peter, without being all about him, the harder she is to remove and replace

    And when so many of those experienced are shared, and positive... It's almost impossible to seperate

    You cant quantify it - much in the way identical twins can be night and day different, and it can't be replicated

    The first time round - it aged out. Gwens still dead, and folks that grew up with it are 55+. She morphed into a parody of a real girl.

    This time - the history of the book is a lot more accessible, and there are dozens of competing items for the entertainment dollar. So while you can get away with a lot in a book that sells - 200k? A month; you have to give a little in movies that are expected to gross close to a billion world wide.

    Marvel gets that formula better than anyone - and Disney will toss another few Billion on the pile from Kung fu grip action figures and merch.... So i can expect to see odd sanitized versions of classic charectors ... Which is acceptable to s point; but when multiple threads are running asking of that charector is even going to be MJ - they may have gone a bit too far with the changes.

    As far as the books - I like Spiderman in a real relationship, because 1) Ben wouldn't want Peter to miss out on what gave him the most joy in life in his name 2) he needs a risk/reward, and someone to care about him for the person behind the mask, and he needs something beyond work. MJ was great because before they turned on her - they made her great. Sure she's a bit of a male fantasy - but she's light years ahead of how comics have historically portrayed women - (look to other books in the 70s or 80s for comparisons) and that resonates with fans ... Most of us like that combo.

    Throw in 30 years of detail and now going to be replaced in the hearts and minds of fans. So you'll either need new fans overtime or to make concessions as tastes evolve and you face attrition.

    Look at RYV as a barometer - there has to be a lot of consumption overlap between the books, and moves pretty well in comparison to ASM. An else worlds tale about a hero, his wife and their kid.... I get 616 is all that matters to a lot, but that's something .. Bet the demographic skews older too. May not win the 18-29 war, but a lot of merch is bought by older demos - especially if people live at home longer. If anything, drop ASM and just buy that or make sure to buy the TPB when published.
    Last edited by Vixx; 07-14-2017 at 06:17 PM.

  12. #537
    Astonishing Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    2,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom1592 View Post
    What they planned to do, and what they did are really irrelevant.
    As a creative-minded person who has worked on his own private fictional projects and RPG campaigns, I can say that that's not the case. Besides, the fact that they were planning to go that route does say something.

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom1592 View Post
    What we have now, is SIX Live action Spider-man movies... and only half of them have Mary Jane in them. And basically we're now looking at two out of three franchise that have not featured MJ.
    Not exactly. The original three movies had Mary Jane. The Mark Webb movies had a Gwen Stacy who was an adaptation of the Ultimate comics version of Mary Jane (I'm a huge Ultimate Spider-Man comics fan and can confirm this from first hand observation) and were planning to have an actual Mary Jane before the series was cut short. Can't speak for Homecoming, since I haven't seen that yet. But no matter how you slice it, in some shape or form, Mary Jane has been or defined the leading lady of over half the movies made and two of the three franchises.

  13. #538
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miles To Go View Post
    Cup O'Joe panel presently going on at D23

    https://www.newsarama.com/35365-d23-...joe-panel.html

    ,
    I wish this man's influence over the books and direction of Marvel comics was put out to pasture. So...regressing Peter back to a late 60's early 70's status quo isn't an "antiquated idea"?

  14. #539
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
    He did fix it.

    The book was in the middle of one of its most detested runs, and JMS came onto the book under Quesada.
    So...a book that was selling 80,000 to 90.000 units a month before OMD and has since that time consistently been losing sales and readership is a "fix"? How is a book that now only sells about 50,000 units or so now better exactly and not in a detested state? What exactly was "fixed"?

  15. #540
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmyb52 View Post
    So...a book that was selling 80,000 to 90.000 units a month before OMD and has since that time consistently been losing sales and readership is a "fix"? How is a book that now only sells about 50,000 units or so now better exactly and not in a detested state? What exactly was "fixed"?
    I think Tuck was referring to Quesada fixing the book after Howard Mackie's run.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •