How badly do writers hate Spider-man fans?

I don't even follow comics anymore, like I'd prefer, but I never really read Spider-man anyway. Still, after the Brand New Day and One Moment in Time crap, you'd think they'd stop using fans as urinals that pay them money. Instead, I have just now found out about the Dying Wish storyline and the new Superior Spider-Man. Holy crap. At this point, they should just start selling comic books that resemble a hand giving the reader the finger.


If anyone else wants to look it up on Wikipedia and TV Tropes, go ahead, but that's some major BS, and you have to wonder why comic book fans stay loyal through all that kind of stuff.


Then you have to wonder how we can get some fans that loyal.


I stink at this whole "forum" thing, but suffice to say that after undoing 30 years worth of stuff in One More Day/Brand New Day, then showing the dumb part of history changed to make that happen in One Moment in Time, aka OMIT, they went and killed off Peter Parker in one of the worst ways possible. There, I'll say that much, especially because of how death is treated in comic books.


Oh they know exactly what they are doing, and it is actually something integral to writing a serial. After years and years of doing the same thing, a character gets stale (in a pro wrestling example --yes, pro wrestling is a serial--it is JOhn Cena, and that is why everyone hates him.)


When a character gets stale, you have to do something dramatic to shake things up. Comics do this every few years or so, (Crisis, Flashpoint, etc). It's very necessary. None of the changes last forever, and the Superior Spiderman stuff is actually very interesting.


One More Day and One Moment In Time were rough, but I'm agreeing with Craig about Superior Spider-Man. Great, interesting, fun comics - not without flaws, but the things I like massively outweigh them. Yes, Peter Parker will probably come back eventually, but hopefully that'll just make the story more interesting. I don't see any way in which the story is abusive to the fans - they're not there to give the character easy wins, they're meant to provide interesting, challenging, unpredictable comics and Superior is one of the best examples of that I've seen in the mainstream in a while.


I think Casanders made a very good point.


The longer a story runs, the more you have to do to keep it interesting.


A review of Tales of MU suggested that the serial went down that road. That the story had stalled and characters couldn't develop, so they started spinning in place. The end result felt like a soap opera.


My own story has had criticism that makes me wonder if it didn't run for too long. If I tightened up storylines and maybe didn't drag out tension so much in parts, I wonder if it wouldn't be a better work overall.


I read 'Dying Wish' and liked it. I almost wish I could've seen more of a brilliant person like Peter Parker making use of Octopus' body and powers, dealing with an opponent who truly is as powerful as Spider Man (over a series of episodes, not just a single book). Spider Sense is a bitch to deal with, if you'll excuse my French.


My thoughts on this start a few steps back from the actual comic, so bear with me a second...


Mainstream comics are in a bit of a bind in that they simultaneously have to keep things fresh, but also can't move too far from what appeals to people about the character or they'll stop making money. Thus a writer might tell a story that moves a character forward in his life, but if it gets too close to a point where a non-serial writer might end the story, they've got to shake things up, and move the character back to center.


Thus before "Brand New Day" you had Spider-man as a reasonably successful young professional who was married to a supermodel, and was about to have a kid.


At core though, I'd argue that Spider-man is a coming of age story where Peter Parker negotiates the perils of young adulthood. The thing is, by the time you've got a career, a marriage and a kid, young adulthood is over.


So, in a sense, Marvel's editor was right to revert him to the core of Spider-man.


At the same time, it understandably grates on a reader because it's a bit of a cheat.


How does that apply to the current situation?


It's the ideal "illusion of progress" story. With Peter "dead" and his body controlled by Dr. Octopus, you've got a big change that doesn't change the core of Spider-man like a marriage would. Plus when Peter does come back, he'll be dealing with the personal aftermath for a while, making it unlikely that a writer will move the character forward in a way that will require reversion very soon.


Hmmm...I have to agree with Psycho Gecko, and that's probably one of the reasons that although I followed many comics for years, I eventually gave them up, because of changes like these. I agree with a lot of the other arguments that have been made about having to change/shake up a character who's become too settled; my main disagreement is with the way many mainstream comics handle these changes. It's almost like you're watching a kid take a doll out of a dollhouse and suddenly smash it down in the middle of a sandbox; lots of times the changes they foist upon their characters seem to happen too far out of the blue and often don't make sense in the context of the larger story to that point. I'm sure part of that has to do with the fact that there are teams of writers and editors and that some things are seen as too scary of a risk for the company to take with the property (like Jim mentioned about how Spiderman really does begin as a coming-of-age story, and to continue along the normal path of the story would make it change its original essence...which is threatening for a company with an established cash cow and readership).


I find that life itself, and the natural consequences of your character's actions, will usually create all the drama you could want (and maybe more), as long as you're comfortable with letting the story reveal itself to you and you're not trying to fit everything into a more convenient box, whether for your own or the company's purposes.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Super: Sci-fi/Suspense/Adventure, with Superheroes


I thought that "Brand New Day" was rather clumsy. I like the way that DC handled their reboots, first with Crisis on Infinite Earths, then Infinite Crisis, Final Crisis, and Flashpoint. If you are going to break the world, make it EPIC! ;)


At least there seems to be no point hiding spoilers anymore.


I didn't like that Brand New Day had a lot of negative connotations. The idea of Peter Parker as a relatively successful man moving on with life with a wife was considered something that readers couldn't relate to. So instead, they made it where he never married a beautiful woman and lived with his aunt again. Because that's a way to tell readers who you think they are and who you think they should be. Then, on top of that, he gets drawn to resemble the writer and begins to date a girl named after the writer's daughter.


I don't see that one as being so much about the story, which features him supposedly doing something a little risky in Civil War, and then it being completely undone. A good commentary on a lot of risks taken in comic books, it seems.


Now this dying Wish and Superior Spider-Man stuff comes along, and it changes the story a great deal more than anything else. Gone is the idea of "With great power comes great responsibility". Ock never got that lesson, remember? He basically wants to show him up. Oh, and the villain won. I'm sure they'll come up with some way to bring back Peter Parker, but basically he got defeated in every possible way. Beat up, hated by all his allies and loved ones, and argued into seeming to be a worse person than a man who attempted to kill almost everyone on earth (I'm remembering Sally Floyd's speech to Captain America for some reason here).


Oh, and while we're at it, the villain also appears to be right because he's apparently also doing better than Peter did.


Wow. Well, that doesn't just spit on the character any. Make a character that you're supposed to relate to, then say that the forces of injustice he struggled against in the world not only win but are right to do so, that the a-holes you run into in life would be a better person than you and more competent?


As for John Cena, he's disliked a great deal because he's your standard all-American face that went stale in the early 90s who is invincible roughly on the level of Hulk Hogan, who has been over the hill since the early 90s, and because of his weak wrestling ability. There's a reason why The Rock, an iconic anti-hero of the late 90s, was so massively over when they faced off. That last part is only exacerbated by WWE being a poor representation of wrestling, especially with how much it favors big men and power styles.


I think people would be more willing to accept changes to characters if they weren't these sudden, messy retcons. Like Peter Parker's marriage in the first place. What gets on people's nerves more is the story equivalent of non sequiturs.


I think the actual Superior Spider-Man comics are a lot more ambivalent than that about whether the Otto Spider-Man actually is "superior" to Peter Parker - he clearly thinks he is, but he's crossing a lot of moral lines to do it. And Ock does explicitly get the greatest responsibility lesson in the climax of Dying Wish, which is the reason he's trying to be a superhero rather than just using Spidey's body to destroy the planet.


And as people have said above, both the BND and Superior stories are interesting examples of ways to continue a serial that has been running for 50 years and trying to both preserve its essence and seem "new". Brand New Day was interesting because it did have a lot of decent creators doing good work, but never seemed to quite connect with people just because it was so openly backward-looking. Whereas Superior seems to be doing well by seeming genuinely innovative.


Uh oh, Psycho Gecko answered my wrestling comment. Now you'll never get me off of this thread ;)


I agree with Cena being stale, but he's not a bad wrestler. He's not a good wrestler, certainly not on the level of Bryan, Punk, or Cesaro, but he's very good at telling a story in the ring (which is what Hogan was famous for). I think if he revamped his move set (and adding the STF was a great start) he would be better accepted by the Internet Wrestling Community.


Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, the fans got a few fantasies fulfilled by the book, instead of writer's finding new ways to reverse progress and all that? Maybe instead of Parker failing to stop Doc Ock like his hallucination of Uncle Ben urged him to do, they could have something called One Good Day.


If they're just going to undo all the development later, then it can't hurt, and at least it'll give fans a reason to keep reading despite knowing that all the stories they're seeing are about to be erased like Trotsky. They're keeping it fresh by hitting a reset button on character growth, so why not get some fanservice in there too. The good kind of fanservice, where awesome happens.


And Casanders, even Hogan had some wrestling ability, if early stories from Japan are to be believed, but the WWE likes to gut people's movesets, and it's generally not as friendly toward the indies, which is a shame if you see Bryan and Punk. I'd look forward to good things from Claudio too. His moves look great, particularly that European uppercut of his, the guy's good at working with smaller wrestlers, and he can move a little better than most people realize. I pimp this clip all the time, but it's actually relevant this time: www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_C4S1XOnTY


I'd keep an eye out for Sami Zayn if the talent of El Generico isn't handicapped.