Superior Spider-Man #11

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Some of the most popular portrayals of Otto from people have been the more complex and nuanced versions of the character

Well a counter to that is Liv Octopus from ITSV, she's a total gangster-thug mad scientist and a lot of people say she's better than Molina's Ock (and I agree).

...as seen in like Spider-Man 2, the PS4 game, and even Superior itself,

In Spider-Man 2, Otto has no character and personality, merely being a puppet to the AI in his tentacles. He effectively is two characters. The kindly Otto from before, and the Doctor Octopus of the Tentacles. The AI Doctor Octopus is essentially the character from the comics -- a gangster thug and terrorist. The Doctor Octopus in the train sequence, the nutcase who robs the bank while smoking a cigar and so on, is classic Ock, and not at all the sympathetic version of the character. And that ultimately is what people took home. Nobody thinks that the best scene with Dr. Octopus in Spider-Man 2 is the one before the transformation where they discuss T. S. Eliot, the one everyone wants is the dude in the train sequence who terrorized the passengers, driving them to try and defend Spider-Man from him.

The PS4 has sympathetic traits a la Walter White and so on, but eventually the character becomes a classic white terrorist who unleashes a bioweapon on a civil population. In Superior, Otto is a terrorist who tried to burn the world in ends of the earth then hijacks and vampirically feeds of a much younger man and...is pardoned for it, and that's paraded as a redemption arc. What that speaks is the endless ways domestic terrorists and white criminals are "humanized" and given "Redemptive arcs" in a way that would never have been done if the characters were of any other ethnicity. That was made clear when Zdarsky wrote LIFE STORY #6. Octopus hijacking Peter is played as "Freaky Friday", Otto hijacking Miles is "Get Out" and treated that way.

[CentralPower]

The thing about Otto is that there's nothing inherent to the character that suggests redemption, unlike Doom and Magneto. Doom and Magneto were oppressed kids pushing back against a world and ultimately became worse people but still occasionally provide glimpses of the people they were/could-have-been, which is what makes them tragic figures.

Doom is a bad example here. The character has been inconsistently depicted as having flawed nobility and being utterly reprehensible.

Magneto's redemption is rooted in social movements that sought to find exculpatory evidence in an offender's background. How exculpatory that may be is still a point of contention.

Otto has had "nice" moments, Some of it was Silver Age tripe (such as his romance with Aunt May), and there were moments in the 90s (that never meaningfully resonated).

When Dr. Octopus......

So, Slott is less interesting and inferior because he is not adhering to a Silver Age cliche that should have died in the 80s?

I am not going to say that Lee/Ditko is better than anything published after 1985 (if not earlier). Lee was an over-rated hack who only got the job because his uncle owned the company. He actually undercut Ditko's (good) idea to have Spider-Man age and grow.

[Snoop Dogg]

[The Negative Zone]

The problem with Ock is that as a classic villain he was just...evil. At least Superior has given him some conflicting traits.

[Bloxer]

Doom is a bad example here. The character has been inconsistently depicted as having flawed nobility and being utterly reprehensible.

Magneto's redemption is rooted in social movements that sought to find exculpatory evidence in an offender's background. How exculpatory that may be is still a point of contention.

Otto has had "nice" moments, Some of it was Silver Age tripe (such as his romance with Aunt May), and there were moments in the 90s (that never meaningfully resonated).




So, Slott is less interesting and inferior because he is not adhering to a Silver Age cliche that should have died in the 80s?

I am not going to say that Lee/Ditko is better than anything published after 1985 (if not earlier). Lee was an over-rated hack who only got the job because his uncle owned the company. He actually undercut Ditko's (good) idea to have Spider-Man age and grow.

Last I checked Lee did write Spider-Man aging and growing, even when Ditko was longer on the book.
Sounds like you just wanted attack Lee, and used this as an excuse to do so.

[Desmark]

Ah, the flame wars. It has begun!

[Inversed]

Doom is a bad example here. The character has been inconsistently depicted as having flawed nobility and being utterly reprehensible.

I agree regarding Doom. It doesn't really make sense to me as being more believable because Doom has done SIGNIFICANTLY worse than Otto and for a longer period of time.

Yet despite that I still really loved Infamous Iron Man because despite the believability of the actions, the story and character was written really well and compelling, same with Superior (especially this volume).

With most of these type of characters, Venom could be added to it too, I usually just end up seeing it under the superhero logic of "They haven't really made up for their actions, but they're trying, and it'd be too much trouble to try and stop them now, so just let them be until they do something bad."

[Snoop Dogg]

my digital code smudged a bit i almost had to call mephisto myself

This new run on Superior is basically "What if we did Infamous Iron Man, but like, good?" Although Mephisto ruined that book so I guess we'll wait and see.

in...
five weeks...
maybe i do gotta call mephisto...

[Prof. Warren]

Yeah, don't talk to me about sales over a book with Spider-Man in the title.
Because of course, it was gonna have good sales it was the main Spider-Man book at the time, they could have replaced Peter with an actual spider and it would've sold.
As far as I'm concerned the only reason it wasn't undone sooner is that they wanted a new ASM Issue 1 out in time for ASM 2 film release.

Ah, the old "Spider-Man sells no matter what" argument.

That is a false claim.

Yes, Spider-Man is popular enough where a certain amount of fans will pick up ASM regardless but if a creative team or direction is disliked, it will be reflected in sales eventually. That's why when sales do see a hit that changes are made. And SSM ran more than long enough for sales to show whether fans were responding to it or not.

In fact, SSM wasn't undone sooner because sales were so strong and Marvel asked the Spider-Office if they could extend the storyline until ASM 2 was released.

[Snoop Dogg]

Marvel Writers: I don't wanna use Superior as a guest in my book.

*Sales for Daredevil and Sif shoot up like heroin when Otto guest-stars*

Marvel Writers: C-Can I use Superior?

[Prof. Warren]

We don't extend that courtesy to Michael Bay in real life. The success of his films, and the success of other crappy action films and TV shows, doesn't make him, and others like him, a respected film-maker. There's that line right "more successful than beloved".

But no one would say that Bay's films aren't successful, right? No one would insist that their box office take is strictly illusory?

That's the delusional take that some do want to take with successful comics runs. That they weren't "really" successful at all and that there's always some catch or condition that say they didn't succeed on their own merit.

Maximum Carnage was way more successful than Superior Spider-Man but it's not considered a great story either. Neither is CIVIL WAR (in comics that is). And let's not forget that the marriage was successful in Spider-Man titles and sold far more (in a much bigger market) than now. But that by itself doesn't augur it respect among some quarters or in Marvel Editorial. If sales really did count than the sales of the marriage era spoke loud and clear enough. But somehow in the case of Slott, the "success" of Superior is some kind of criticism-proof excuse. Why does Slott and his Superior run need/demand/expect this special pleading?

Superior Spider-Man received much critical acclaim. It wasn't an example of a schlocky event a la Maximum Carnage that was popular in the face of critical and fan derision.

It was recognized both at the time and since for its quality.

It's sales success is worth noting simply because some fans want to claim that their antipathy towards it speaks for some silent majority when the sales say otherwise. Fans do vote with their dollars. Many comics have received critical acclaim but didn't see the sales to match. SSM had both.

In any case, Superior Spider-Man sold well in its early issues based on the gimmick of Dying Wish, and the body-switch, and so on. Then sales dropped once the event padded out. In other words it was a success for the same reasons that the 90s Clone Saga was...Ben Reilly came and was a Peter-clone and that made people wonder if Ben was the real deal/Peter's brother/Peter's new personal Robin...the minute they told the story they intended (Ben is the real-deal Spider-Man) the people stayed away in droves (to quote the great Billy Wilder).

People did not "stay away in droves" during the SSM era. Sales in fact went up and remained high throughout.

After Superior Spider-Man when Slott had that absurd issue of Peter's memory being deleted and so on, interest faded and the readers who were curious and so on, many who had come on to the title after being driven away by BND-OMD (I know because I was one of them) stayed away and simply waited until news came about Peter returning.

Making baseless assumptions about other fan's buying habits and personal choices and trying to present it as fact isn't a sound argument.

And for all the people "driven away by BND-OMD", it's remarkable that Slott was able to have a decade long run on ASM. Clearly that continues to drive some people nuts.

[Ursalink]

Seriously, what's the point of making character to have experiences if they are going to end up on Square One all over again?

[Pav]

Seriously, what's the point of making character to have experiences if they are going to end up on Square One all over again?

Hypothetically, you can value individual comics or storylines, even if they are later forgotten or retconned or whatever.

-Pav, who enjoys individual issues all the time...

[Celgress]

Seriously, what's the point of making character to have experiences if they are going to end up on Square One all over again?

I know it can be frustrating. Alas, such is the nature of the beast.

[Bloxer]

Ah, the old "Spider-Man sells no matter what" argument.

That is a false claim.

Yes, Spider-Man is popular enough where a certain amount of fans will pick up ASM regardless but if a creative team or direction is disliked, it will be reflected in sales eventually. That's why when sales do see a hit that changes are made. And SSM ran more than long enough for sales to show whether fans were responding to it or not.

In fact, SSM wasn't undone sooner because sales were so strong and Marvel asked the Spider-Office if they could extend the storyline until ASM 2 was released.

This just sounds like you're confirming what I said
Inferior was extended so when ASM 2 released they could have Peter back with a new #1 Issue