|
|
Post by Regolyth on Dec 27, 2012 15:25:17 GMT -5
Spoiler Alert: In case you read The Amazing Spider-Man comics, and haven't read the latest issue, #700, the following will spoil the upcoming events. The Amazing Spider-Man #700 I don't mind the craziness and radical changes... if they were just permanent. If you're going to make Spider-Man a clone, then do it. If you're going to kill Peter Parker, Johnny Storm, Captain America, then do it. Stop retconning storylines. It's ridiculous. With that said... this is a horrible idea. Comics have been plagued for years with the publishers doing crazy stunts just to later bring the character back (the death of Superman comes to mind), all to make a buck. And if it's not to make money, then it's just a stupid idea to begin with (the clone saga in Spider-Man and One More Day, in which Marvel split MJ and Peter permanently, and changed the story to that they were never together).
|
|
|
|
Post by sinaedh on Dec 27, 2012 22:22:36 GMT -5
I haven't read/collected Spidey for a long time (since the 80s or so, to be honest), but have heard about this. While I don't like the end of stories, they do have to happen.
I absolutely agree, the 'alternate universes' and retconning that happens in comics is something I dislike intensely, and it seems that we sort of expect that now. Peter Parker dies, until... July 2013, when we find out it was all a dream brought on by indigestion that Jean Grey (who Petey all along thought was MJ Watson) had due to bad ice cream eaten by the Phoenix? A story should just be a story, but it should hold a touch of realism as well. Surely comic characters are fantastic enough that the story is sufficient without making it so fantastically unreal?
Then again, I'm playing SWTOR and enjoying it, while semi-ignoring general chat telling me it's a stupid horrible game. I guess that proves my viewpoint is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Regolyth on Dec 28, 2012 9:21:27 GMT -5
I still collect comics. I just started back about two years ago, after quitting for 14 years or so... and let me tell you, comics are way different now than they were in the mid-nineties. I can't believe they're doing something like this with such a flagship title. I don't know if anyone knows, but their is an alternate universe in Marvel right now and their is basically a similar version of all the Marvel characters in it. The titles are Ultimate this or that (Spider-Man, Avengers, X-Men, etc.). It's basically the Marvel universe's characters at a younger age (they have created it to appeal to a younger audience, to get more readers). Anyways, last year they killed off Spider-Man in that universe. It was a big deal. They have another Spider-Man taking his place (different suit, different powers), but Pete and the red and blue are dead. With that said, why would you kill off the regular universe Spider-Man too (or make such a drastic change)? That's just plain dumb. I'm fine with a title coming to an end. In fact, I think a lot of the characters and stories have run their course. The mantle should be passed on (such as Batman did in the cartoon Batman Beyond, or to any number of Robins). If done right, I think it work out fine. Just because Batman passed the torch to a new Batman, didn't mean Bruce Wayne was out of the picture, he just wasn't Batman any longer (he was actually and old, crotchety man in a wheel chair, showing the new Batman how to do things). It was a great concept. Superman could be one of the few exceptions, living on indefinitely. However those around him, villains and loved ones, should age and move on. Or they could end titles and learn how to create new, interesting characters, the way Lee and Ditko did back in 60's. I know this isn't a popular idea, as it could possibly hurt sales. But having a universe that's virtually unchanged for twenty or thirty years isn't exactly boosting sales either. I think what DC did with their New 52 launch was both bold and risky (in short, they relaunched all of their titles at #1 and basically started the DC universe from scratch... sort of). However, it paid off. It breathed new life into the DC universe and allowed old characters to become new again. It allowed a retelling of 60 year-old stories to become fresh and current with people born ten years ago. Anyways, I suppose I've complained enough. I guess I'll save my retconning rant for another time.  |
|
|
|
Post by Morreion on Dec 28, 2012 16:09:20 GMT -5
It's like making jumping the shark a regular event!
|
|
|
|
Post by Regolyth on Jan 2, 2013 13:42:18 GMT -5
Haha...
They jumped the shark on Spider-Man years ago. Then they jumped jumped a flaming pit of fiery spears dipped in poison being circled by ravenous zombie lions.
I have no idea what the heck they're jumping now. Good new though... it can't possibly get any worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Regolyth on Jan 4, 2013 10:27:23 GMT -5
Stan Lee, also, did not care for Amazing Spider-Man #700.  |
|
|
|
Post by Morreion on Jan 4, 2013 11:46:25 GMT -5
Haha!
|
|
|
|
Post by Loendal on Jan 9, 2013 1:57:02 GMT -5
It's the same phenomenon in television shows and movies (By the way, Hi again, I know I haven't posted for a while ). When was the last time you can recall a TV show having a beginning and an end? One clearly defined; a last grand huzzah; or at the very least the END of a story? I think the last one I can remember is Battlestar Gallactica (And I only know of it because of a friend of mine). They finally find Earth, the whole point of zipping across the universe fleeing from the Cylons. They realize that if they go there, the Cylons will only just follow and bork them all, destroying the last bastion of humanity, so they kept on going to preserve that life. The End. Now it's all about sequels, spin-offs, trilogies, prequels, you name it! Anything for the money. I don't really do the comic book thing, but even I, an uninformed outsider looking in, felt the seriousness of Superman dying. And felt a bit of resentment that suddenly there were what? 3 alternatives? He came back again or something, didn't he? I don't know the whole story, but I knew that was a big deal. Superman dying? That's just wrong... But that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen at some point. Pardon the cynicism  |
|
|
|
Post by Regolyth on Jan 9, 2013 12:14:19 GMT -5
I have touched on this before (in some other thread, long forgotten), but shows with endings are generally better. The thing is, you have a story to tell, and you know how long it's going to take. If it's never ending, then you have to water down plot elements to fill in the gaps, to stretch it as long as possible. This almost always hurts a show. Battlestar Galactica is a good example of a show with a story, and ending (even if they did extend it half a season). Breaking Bad is another show with a definitive end (it was originally meant to be five seasons, it's finishing up season five now). A good example of what happens when you break that is Lost. Lost was originally supposed to be five seasons long (that's what the story was written for). After the super success of season one, ABC got greedy and wanted to extend it. You can see the story beginning to wane in season two, it becomes less intense and exciting. The show lost a lot of viewers in season two (and it's still considered the worst season among fans). After the poor showing of season two, ABC realized their folly and went back to the original storyboards (more or less). They spent the first half of season three getting back on track (which you can tell). Then the show really picks up again (and becomes addicting once more). They ended the show with seven seasons (six full, one half). They season two they spent destroying what was originally planned and the half season it took to right the ship can be seen in this. I often allude to anime. Anime is (usually) a given number of episodes of a set story. I find this to be true with a lot of Asian programming (being married to a Korean, I end up watching K-dramas, if anyone knows what they are). Come to think of it, BBC programming does this too, about half the time. Anyways, it seems to come back to greed. It's not about good story telling, as it should be. A show goes on indefinitely; until it is ran in the ground, then the show is ended because of lack of viewing. These publicity stunts in comics are just more evidence of this. They kill of a major character and make a big deal out of it. Six months later, he returns. It's ridiculous. On a side note, the only characters to not return are the ones killed in the 60's - 80's, when good story telling was what drove books. Although some of those characters are not allowed to lay at rest, they're brought back two or three decades later (because they couldn't think of anything else to write about). In 1988, they killed off Robin (the second one). It was a big deal I mean this was Robin! What happens in 2005? They bring him back. Shameful. Recently, and I'm not kidding, Marvel brought back a character who had been dead for over 45 years! If anyone is familiar with the Spider-Man universe, you know of Betty Bryant. Her brother died in early issues of Amazing Spider-Man (the mid-sixties). There is currently an ongoing series named Venom (yes, the black costume from Spider-Man). They had been developing a story, over the last twenty issues or so, of a masked villain. It turns out the villain is the long lost brother of Betty (Betty is the main character's girlfriend). The poor guy had been resting peacefully for 45+ years, and now he gets jammed back into comics. Why? Was there really no other way to end this story? This story would be fine if it only happened once in a blue moon. But the fact that it is a standard plot device is ridiculous. *steps off of his soapbox* Sorry, I didn't realize I got on that until half-way through writing this novel.  |
|
|
|
Post by Morreion on Jan 9, 2013 12:32:19 GMT -5
What you're describing sounds like a general problem with 90% of entertainment these days- extreme lack, almost a fear, of originality.
|
|
