Did anyone enjoy Spider-Man in spite of One More Day?

[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4362502]To me subversion is changing the way we were previously familiar with the characters and story, genre, while also bringing in stuff that we didn’t think would work in the story as we came to expect it. It basically defamiliarises how we see the convention.

TDKR did that to Batman. At the time showing Batman as an over the hill old guy in a story where Reagan is a president and superheroes outside of Superman are driven underground was a totally new approach to how we saw the characters and their stories.

What do you think subversion is?[/QUOTE]

a challenge or undermining of a systemic authority.

so in that way, the clone saga wouldn't be subversive (to me) since it was really about replacing one system with another as [I]familiar[/I] as possible, a streamlined version of the existing paradigm. it doubled down on all the [I]same[/I] constructs.

there can be overlap with some of the other stuff being discussed here, but reinvention, swerves, twists, retcons, reinterpretation, modernising, revamps, heel turns, bait and switch etc aren't subversive per se. they [I]might[/I] be tools of subversion, but using them doesn't necessarily lead to it

[QUOTE=boots;4362509]a challenge or undermining of a systemic authority.

so in that way, the clone saga wouldn't be subversive (to me) since it was really about replacing one system with another as [I]familiar[/I] as possible, a streamlined version of the existing paradigm. it doubled down on all the [I]same[/I] constructs.

there can be overlap with some of the other stuff being discussed here, but reinvention, swerves, twists, retcons, reinterpretation, modernising, revamps, heel turns, bait and switch etc aren't subversive per se. they [I]might[/I] be tools of subversion, but using them doesn't necessarily lead to it[/QUOTE]

Right. Subversion literally means to turn over. It gained use during the cold war when we were afraid the communists would overturn our government.

In storytelling, subversion means using the well tried cliches and tropes on purpose and to new effect, to undercut the traditional meaning. I’m not convinced that all of the prior examples are subversion, some are, some aren’t. A lot of what we talk about with subverting expectations is a big thing going on in storytelling right now. Think about that literal meaning of subversion, to turn over. Big clues are laid out to expect X to happen. Instead, Y happens. Now, proper storytelling should also have had plot indications for Y to be apparent as well. People tend to forget that portion when writing. Subverting expectations cannot come out of left field, it cannot be without a lead in.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this quick lesson on subversion and storytelling.

On OMD. I’d not much enjoyed Spider-Man in the, ooh, fifteen or so years before the marriage dissolution. This wasn’t because I was against the marriage or because I hated MJ. I think much of it, including a lot of JMS, all of Byrne and Mackie, even Jenkins, is poorly written nonsense. I just don’t like it. BND was a lot of fun for me. I liked the new writers, I liked the new characters, it worked for me. Not everything was great but I believe the good outweighed the bad. I don’t care for the mechanism that got us there, but Spidey was good again and remained that way since.

[QUOTE=DT Winslow;4362685]BND was a lot of fun for me. I liked the new writers, I liked the new characters, it worked for me. Not everything was great but I believe the good outweighed the bad. I don’t care for the mechanism that got us there, but Spidey was good again and remained that way since.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. For me and many, the last ten years were a chore to get through and the bad far outweighed the good. JMS (and now Spencer) easily write rings around the BND crew.

When you say JMS' mature, adult, heartwarming and inspirational writing is "poorly written nonsense" and don't even attempt to back up your opinion with examples, you'd best be prepared for the paddling to come.

[QUOTE=Miles To Go;4362767]I disagree. For me and many, the last ten years were a chore to get through and the bad far outweighed the good. JMS (and now Spencer) easily write rings around the BND crew.

When you say JMS' mature, adult, heartwarming and inspirational writing is "poorly written nonsense" and don't even attempt to back up your opinion with examples, you'd best be prepared for the paddling to come.[/QUOTE]

‘Paddling?’ Nice way to prove we have a toxic community.

I don’t like JMS. I’ve not liked almost anything he’s ever written. You don’t like Dan Slott. That’s okay too. That’s how it goes. Sometimes it’s not for you. The key to life is understanding these differences and not attacking people for having them.

You’ve edited but I’m leaving it until someone else takes it away from me.

[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4362502]To me subversion is changing the way we were previously familiar with the characters and story, genre, while also bringing in stuff that we didn’t think would work in the story as we came to expect it. It basically defamiliarises how we see the convention...[/QUOTE]

A good summation. The above is what I've was thought the term meant.

[QUOTE=DT Winslow;4362685]...In storytelling, subversion means using the well tried cliches and tropes on purpose and to new effect, to undercut the traditional meaning. I’m not convinced that all of the prior examples are subversion, some are, some aren’t. A lot of what we talk about with subverting expectations is a big thing going on in storytelling right now. Think about that literal meaning of subversion, to turn over. Big clues are laid out to expect X to happen. Instead, Y happens. Now, proper storytelling should also have had plot indications for Y to be apparent as well. People tend to forget that portion when writing. Subverting expectations cannot come out of left field, it cannot be without a lead in....[/QUOTE]

The examples I've provided conform to this formula. I still contend there is good subversion and bad subversion. One such example of bad subversion is subversion for the sake of subversion without any long-term constructive goal in mind. Although I'd argue OMD is not subversion so much as character revision via retcon.

[QUOTE=boots;4362509]a challenge or undermining of a systemic authority.[/quote]

In different contexts that can mean different things. Stan Lee was challenging the authority of pre-established silver age conventions when he started -- real city, serial continuity, real-time aging and progression, dysfunctional tense dynamics, teenager-as-full-time-hero. Likewise, Spider-Man's Drug Trilogy was certainly subversive of the kinds of stories a superhero comic could tackle and deal with, while also literally defying the Comics' Code.

Of course some people will argue that you can't be truly subversive in any superhero comic.

[quote]there can be overlap with some of the other stuff being discussed here, but reinvention, swerves, twists, retcons, reinterpretation, modernising, revamps, heel turns, bait and switch etc aren't subversive per se. they [I]might[/I] be tools of subversion, but using them doesn't necessarily lead to it[/QUOTE]

Exactly, I agree. But it's interesting that a lot of what people think of subversion involves stuff like "bait and switch", "twists", "swerves" etc.

[QUOTE=DT Winslow;4362685]In storytelling, subversion means using the well tried cliches and tropes on purpose and to new effect, to undercut the traditional meaning. I’m not convinced that all of the prior examples are subversion, some are, some aren’t. A lot of what we talk about with subverting expectations is a big thing going on in storytelling right now. Think about that literal meaning of subversion, to turn over. Big clues are laid out to expect X to happen. Instead, Y happens. Now, proper storytelling should also have had plot indications for Y to be apparent as well. People tend to forget that portion when writing. Subverting expectations cannot come out of left field, it cannot be without a lead in. [/quote]

Yeah. I mean The Night Gwen Stacy Died was basically doing a situation as old as the "guy with mustache ties a girl on the tracks". Until the ending, it's like any other superhero story. Then it becomes a different story when it turns out that the girl died even when Spider-Man thought he saved her. Then the second part becomes an entirely different kind of story, about a hero going mad with grief and going into a dark place in his psyche, before barely stepping out. So that's quite a subversive story.

[QUOTE=DT Winslow;4362787]‘Paddling?’ Nice way to prove we have a toxic community.[/quote]

It's a joke. You have seen The Simpsons right? Nothing serious was intended.

All I'm saying is if you're going to make a sweeping statement about a popular Spider-Man writer's work being "poor", you should expect backlash and counter arguments in much the same way Dan Slott receives similar treatment for his contributions.

Nevertheless, I am sorry and I shouldn't have been short. JMS's writing has affected me in a very positive way, and I get hot when he's critiqued as I feel he's one of those genuinely good people in the world that we had working on the character.

Don't think of it as an attack, think of it as an invite to debate.

I liked and kept reading what came after the forced annulment of the marriage, even though I slowly missed the marriage.

[URL="https://community.cbr.com/showthread.php?124821-Thread-Drift-JMS-Amazing-Spider-Man-Satellite-Books-and-the-Supporting-Cast"]38 posts about JMS' Amazing Spider-Man, supporting cast members, and satellite books were moved to a new thread.
[/URL]
A handful of posts were deleted.

[QUOTE=WebLurker;4358921]It's a rehash, all right. I mean, is there anything new to say about it? And yet, here we are, still picking away at the scab.



Not sure how we can know for sure that the template was what was wrong and that it wasn't other factors (like specific execution, maybe), if that makes any sense. It feels a bit like arguing that reimagining the original comics run wouldn't work because [I]Chapter One[/I] failed, which doesn't make sense since Ultimate took that idea and made an incredibly successful run out of the premise (one that's still influencing stuff today).[/QUOTE]

The comparison is a bit mixed. It'd be like if someone in 2000 tried to use Chapter One as an argument in favor of publishing Ultimate Spider-Man.

The cancellation of Renew Your Vows doesn't mean that the marriage is guaranteed to doom the book. But it also means Renew Your Vows isn't evidence that a spider-family is better for the series as a long-term prospect.

[QUOTE=Mister Mets;4366630]The cancellation of Renew Your Vows doesn't mean that the marriage is guaranteed to doom the book. But it also means Renew Your Vows isn't evidence that a spider-family is better for the series as a long-term prospect.[/QUOTE]

It was an alternate reality book that was all-ages with minimal stakes. That'd drown any book eventually. Spider-Girl at the very least had more effective drama and thus lasted a lot longer at the time because of it.

Post OMD Spider-man had some okay stories and it does make one wonder what would have occured in those stories if the Marriage remained as it was ???

[QUOTE=Cmbmool;4367558]Post OMD Spider-man had some okay stories and it does make one wonder what would have occured in those stories if the Marriage remained as it was ???[/QUOTE]

Don't usually like this thought experiment stuff. But fine, never done it before, let's take the plunge. If OMD hadn't happened is a broad question. Does it mean if Aunt May died? If Peter's identity remains public? From my point of view, there's two ways to go with this. Either you realize that there's a lot of stuff and potential in that status quo and that phase of Peter/MJ's relationship (see Matt Fraction's Annual which always felt like a pitch for an entire run of Spider-Man rather than an ending) where they are basically a superhero bonnie and clyde, or you try and fit that with the stories that came in BND. From my point of view, the status quo of Back in Black and Peter's identity being known to everyone had at least two or three years more of potential. Mark Waid in his run got a lot of mileage out of Murdock's identity being known, and I don't think enough was done with that period.

In so far as seeing what stories in BND fit with the Pre-OMD and can be told with that version of Peter, MJ and May. You look at BND and consider stories like Mr. Negative's appearance and FEAST, the Yuri Watanabe and Wraith stuff, Jackpot, Unscheduled Stop, then Big Time. A story with a new villain can more or less fit any status-quo, but Martin Li and FEAST does have Aunt May involved, so she needs to live for that. Unscheduled Stop is mostly a story that works because of Martin's art, and it can fit in basically any era of Spider-Man. Instead of the relationships (that Michelle girl, that one night stand with Black Cat, Carlie) you have there, you can just have Peter and MJ. Stuff like New Avengers works married and unmarried. Like in Siege, Jessica Drew has that joke where she mistakes Peter for being a married guy, in one of Bendis' coy jokes.

So most of that can fit in with a married Peter/MJ easily. Stuff like Spider-Island is more or less a Peter/MJ story anyway and can be told with them as a couple easily. MJ as nightclub owner can also fit in well, her becoming a business owner and so on. Superior Spider-Man would absolutely not be the same kind of story told with a married Spider-Man. But then I don't think that's a story that ever has any need to exist. So no loss. The Peter Parker Worldwide arc coincided with MJ being moved by Bendis to work in Stark Industries. Now she works at Parker Industries and is Peter's boss and it's basically like how Tony and Pepper work in the Iron Man movies. It would also be interesting because Peter would be in a circle where MJ is more comfortable and familiar with and so on. So there's some unique things you can do with that. The only issue is that amount of financial security with a power couple would inevitably bring the question of children. Now I personally don't like the Worldwide arc and don't think it's good, so don't care if it fits with the marriage or not. Go Down Swinging is basically a mashup of any number of Goblin stories told during the marriage era with the symbiotes being a new wrinkle. So it can fit in any era.

[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4367602]Don't usually like this thought experiment stuff. But fine, never done it before, let's take the plunge. If OMD hadn't happened is a broad question. Does it mean if Aunt May died? If Peter's identity remains public? From my point of view, there's two ways to go with this. Either you realize that there's a lot of stuff and potential in that status quo and that phase of Peter/MJ's relationship (see Matt Fraction's Annual which always felt like a pitch for an entire run of Spider-Man rather than an ending) where they are basically a superhero bonnie and clyde, or you try and fit that with the stories that came in BND. From my point of view, the status quo of Back in Black and Peter's identity being known to everyone had at least two or three years more of potential. Mark Waid in his run got a lot of mileage out of Murdock's identity being known, and I don't think enough was done with that period.

In so far as seeing what stories in BND fit with the Pre-OMD and can be told with that version of Peter, MJ and May. You look at BND and consider stories like Mr. Negative's appearance and FEAST, the Yuri Watanabe and Wraith stuff, Jackpot, Unscheduled Stop, then Big Time. A story with a new villain can more or less fit any status-quo, but Martin Li and FEAST does have Aunt May involved, so she needs to live for that. Unscheduled Stop is mostly a story that works because of Martin's art, and it can fit in basically any era of Spider-Man. Instead of the relationships (that Michelle girl, that one night stand with Black Cat, Carlie) you have there, you can just have Peter and MJ. Stuff like New Avengers works married and unmarried. Like in Siege, Jessica Drew has that joke where she mistakes Peter for being a married guy, in one of Bendis' coy jokes.

So most of that can fit in with a married Peter/MJ easily. Stuff like Spider-Island is more or less a Peter/MJ story anyway and can be told with them as a couple easily. MJ as nightclub owner can also fit in well, her becoming a business owner and so on. Superior Spider-Man would absolutely not be the same kind of story told with a married Spider-Man. But then I don't think that's a story that ever has any need to exist. So no loss. The Peter Parker Worldwide arc coincided with MJ being moved by Bendis to work in Stark Industries. Now she works at Parker Industries and is Peter's boss and it's basically like how Tony and Pepper work in the Iron Man movies. It would also be interesting because Peter would be in a circle where MJ is more comfortable and familiar with and so on. So there's some unique things you can do with that. The only issue is that amount of financial security with a power couple would inevitably bring the question of children. Now I personally don't like the Worldwide arc and don't think it's good, so don't care if it fits with the marriage or not. Go Down Swinging is basically a mashup of any number of Goblin stories told during the marriage era with the symbiotes being a new wrinkle. So it can fit in any era.[/QUOTE]

Actually, you could have MJ being the one to get involved with FEAST instead of Aunt May, assuming she's staying with Peter in New York - as the product of a broken home, she could empathise with FEAST's aims to help families like hers. Maybe she goes along to a fundraiser and meets Martin Li.

Yes. A thousant times, yes.
Spider-Man inspired me on so many levels. He made me wanting to be responsible, to be a nurse and now, to be an author.
I refuse to let a couple of bad stories to force me reject Spidey.