Did everyone see the story in yesterday's NY Post, and, distributed nationally? The current editor in chief at Marvel announced that by using the character Mephisto they are wiping out years of current continuity of Spider-Man.
Aunt May is alive again. Peter, and, MJ, are no longer separated, but also not married either. Peter Parker is not a struggling adult, but a struggling young man again. (But seemingly not as young as the "ultra" series Peter Parker.)
In his comments, Joe Quesida (SP?), said all of the above should never have happened. (no quotes, 'cause I'm using the context of his statement.) That Spider-Man should always have been young and, single.
I don't know what Don thinks, (I'm sure he'll post his thoughts,) or, what others think. But, I know recontinunity is a way of life in the comic book world. DC has done it couple times in the past couple of decades. However, as a fan of the daily strip, and, the movies-don't see many books anymore, I can't see what is wrong with a married Peter Parker, and, a struggling adult.
Naturally, I look to others thoughts on this topic.
Login to reply to this topic
Comments:
|
Posted by: Don Markstein
Posted on: 2008-01-16 at 06:05:36 AM
|
Personally, I think they should get Ditko back and wipe out everything that happened since then. And who was the original Green Goblin, anyway? You couldn't possibly cram Norman Osborne into that suit the way Ditko drew it.
I'm afraid, tho, I don't follow much of Marvel's goings-on these days, and this sort of thing is exactly why. Nothing ever changes -- not that I'm very much against that (it's series fiction after all), but the illusion of change, where they mess with stuff but always return it to the status quo after a while, using some ridiculous contrivance like Mephisto, gets me down. They're not manipulating events in their universe (a word I believe I was the first to use in this context, by the way). They're manipulating the reader.
When I heard they'd blown his secret identity, my first thought was, "I wonder how they'll undo that!
However, despite comments about Ditko up there, I don't really have an opinion on these changes, or rather, "de-changes". I haven't read Spider-Man in years, and don't see myself starting again soon.
By the way, Spidey and I graduated from high school at the same time. Oh, if only I had the secret of his enduring youth! And now they're making him even younger?!! Geez.
Quack, Don
I'm afraid, tho, I don't follow much of Marvel's goings-on these days, and this sort of thing is exactly why. Nothing ever changes -- not that I'm very much against that (it's series fiction after all), but the illusion of change, where they mess with stuff but always return it to the status quo after a while, using some ridiculous contrivance like Mephisto, gets me down. They're not manipulating events in their universe (a word I believe I was the first to use in this context, by the way). They're manipulating the reader.
When I heard they'd blown his secret identity, my first thought was, "I wonder how they'll undo that!
However, despite comments about Ditko up there, I don't really have an opinion on these changes, or rather, "de-changes". I haven't read Spider-Man in years, and don't see myself starting again soon.
By the way, Spidey and I graduated from high school at the same time. Oh, if only I had the secret of his enduring youth! And now they're making him even younger?!! Geez.
Quack, Don
|
|
Posted by: Small Town Hick
Posted on: 2008-01-23 at 03:20:03 PM
|
One of the problems with the characters published in major comic titles is that, unlike newspaper strips, they are not owned and created by a single person/team for their entire existance. Superman and Spider Man have been given to team afetr creative team, all with their own "vision" of the character. In a way, each character's history has been a series of pastiches by various authors, all based on the classic character.
Think of Sherlock Holmes, about whom many a pastiche has been written. The classic stories define him - his location, his mannerisms, his appearance. Later writers have sent him around the world, through outer space, and even into other eras. Imagine what the character would be like now if all these additions were considered "canon".
Unfortunately, the "canon" of comic book superheroes DO consist of all these pastiches strung together, and sometimes they irreversibly alter the character - and not always for the better. This happened with Sherlock as well - his deerstalker cap did not come from the original stories, for instance.
Pushing the reset button is sometimes necessary for a comic book character, to get back to the original, just like the re-imaging of Sherlock Holmes during the Jeremy Brett series got rid of the deerstalker and other nonsense. I do not cheer for the loss of history, and I would not recommend it for a character that has not changed radically over the years, nor for a creator-owned title that has developed normally and properly over the years. But for a publically-owned property like Spider Man, sometimes it is the only way to get rid of the clutter.
Think of Sherlock Holmes, about whom many a pastiche has been written. The classic stories define him - his location, his mannerisms, his appearance. Later writers have sent him around the world, through outer space, and even into other eras. Imagine what the character would be like now if all these additions were considered "canon".
Unfortunately, the "canon" of comic book superheroes DO consist of all these pastiches strung together, and sometimes they irreversibly alter the character - and not always for the better. This happened with Sherlock as well - his deerstalker cap did not come from the original stories, for instance.
Pushing the reset button is sometimes necessary for a comic book character, to get back to the original, just like the re-imaging of Sherlock Holmes during the Jeremy Brett series got rid of the deerstalker and other nonsense. I do not cheer for the loss of history, and I would not recommend it for a character that has not changed radically over the years, nor for a creator-owned title that has developed normally and properly over the years. But for a publically-owned property like Spider Man, sometimes it is the only way to get rid of the clutter.
|
|
Posted by: Don Markstein
Posted on: 2008-01-24 at 08:39:02 AM
|
True, the deerstalker wasn't part of the original canon -- and neither was the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson", which didn't appear in any of Doyle's stories. The deerstalker was contemporary with the original, however. Actors playing Holmes on stage wore it so the character could be identified from the back row.
Permanent changes in company-owned (FAR from publicly-owned) characters are usually cleared through the editor (and on rare occasions they're not, they should be). The editor represents the publisher, so the owner/custodian of the character is in control. Sometimes the publisher doesn't seem to care very much in the case of minor characters like, say, Spider-Woman, whose life underwent complete upheaval every time a new writer came on board, but with guys like Spider-Man, you bet changes are made only at management level. So that excuse for nullifying them
sounds good, but doesn't ultimately work.
But it's a good point, that changes made by any particular writer along the way are just spurious blips in characterization, and therefore have to be undone from time to time. But the characters don't belong to the writers, to alter any way they like. The stabilizing force of management is always there.
Quack, Don
Permanent changes in company-owned (FAR from publicly-owned) characters are usually cleared through the editor (and on rare occasions they're not, they should be). The editor represents the publisher, so the owner/custodian of the character is in control. Sometimes the publisher doesn't seem to care very much in the case of minor characters like, say, Spider-Woman, whose life underwent complete upheaval every time a new writer came on board, but with guys like Spider-Man, you bet changes are made only at management level. So that excuse for nullifying them
sounds good, but doesn't ultimately work.
But it's a good point, that changes made by any particular writer along the way are just spurious blips in characterization, and therefore have to be undone from time to time. But the characters don't belong to the writers, to alter any way they like. The stabilizing force of management is always there.
Quack, Don
