Thread Drift: Was what happened to Peter Parker in Amazing Spider-Man 700 really ever resolved?

[Thinker4730]

And this is why your theory has flaws. A lot of flaws.

Then name all the flaws and I will explain them all away for you.

It's not a fact that Peter's consciousness died in Otto's body, it's something we don't know.

We do know that it's a fact. It was revealed in Amazing Spider-Man #700. Peter's consciousness died in Doc Ock's body.

You can assume anything you want as of this moment, because the story is clearly not done.

If the story isn't done then do you believe that the current Peter isn't the real Peter?

I believe that the current Peter isn't the real Peter because I believe Slott wants to do his own Clone Saga story, one that he feels is unique by cloning minds instead of bodies.

We don't know what happened to Otto's body,

Agreed.

or why Otto couldn't remember what happened in Spider-Verse.

Spider-Verse hasn't even happened yet. And it deals with alternate dimensions not time travel. SpOck was sent to the future of 2099 and that is what he has no memory of upon his return to the present within the pages of Superior Spider-Man because such a thing is now the past.

And if you honestly believe that an opinion is as good as a fact, don't.

Without an opinion first there would never be any facts.

Everything is an opinion until it proven to be a fact or made into a fact.

[Aruran.]

Then name all the flaws and I will explain them all away for you.

We do know that it's a fact. It was revealed in Amazing Spider-Man #700. Peter's consciousness died in Doc Ock's body.

That is not a fact. You are assuming Peter died without transferring his conscious over. He easily could've transferred it over without Otto realizing it. It's not stated cause it's a part of the story Slott doesn't want to spoil.

If the story isn't done then do you believe that the current Peter isn't the real Peter?

Well Peter's not real so.....

I believe that the current Peter isn't the real Peter because I believe Slott wants to do his own Clone Saga story, one that he feels is unique by cloning minds instead of bodies.

And this is an opinion you have, which has not been validated by Slott or Marvel at any level. Or anyone who doesn't hate Slott.

Spider-Verse hasn't even happened yet. And it deals with alternate dimensions not time travel. SpOck was sent to the future of 2099 and that is what he has no memory of upon his return to the present within the pages of Superior Spider-Man because such a thing is now the past.

But it already happened to SpOck, he just doesn't remember.

Without an opinion first there would never be any facts.

Everything is an opinion until it proven to be a fact or made into a fact.

No, not even close.

[Cryptid]

This thread has gone on long enough that all the point-by-point reasoning has transformed from an argument into an unwitting form of autobiography, with all of the participants saying more about their priorities as readers than they say about the issues in question. It doesn't make things any simpler that Dan Slott's stories have found countless ways to challenge what makes Peter unique. Spider Island duplicated his powers, Alpha duplicated his origin story, Superior gave his body and circumstances to another character, and Spider-Verse is poised to show us dozens of alternate versions of both Spidey and Peter. Coming in the wake of OMD, a story that caused many readers to decide that Marvel's current Spider-Man is not their Spider-Man, the book has played with its basic assumptions, shuffled its cast, and teased its readers to sort out what is essential and what is peripheral. Any attempt to prove that Peter has come back wrong, using whatever standard of objectivity that close-reading and the extrapolated rules of comic-book pseudoscience allow, seems secondary to the way that this run has acknowledged and played with the contested identity of the character. The rocky continuity during the Superior era seems like a clever way for the creators to say that the excitement of Peter's return, a catharsis for readers marked by elevated sales, is enough to overrule the pesky particulars. Comics are always balancing between stories that revise and stories that refresh, with little more than sleight-of-hand and readerly goodwill to hold it all together. A book like Supreme makes this process part of its mythology; Slott's approach is less explicit but no less playful.

But I'm convinced that arguing about the rules of a mind-swap instead of thinking about genre conventions and the experience of reading a serialized character is a formula for mistaking the priorities of the people who make these books. That's no-prize territory.

[Thinker4730]

You can't prove anything to Thinker.

Not true. You and others proved to me that a mindswap never happened to begin with. But, I wanted to point out that it doesn't matter which version you accept a mindswap happening or not happening it doesn't affect the outcome of my theory.

Pretty much everyone knows he's wrong,

There are people who deny that the holocaust happened and by doing such a thing they state that those who actually survived it are wrong (or are liars from their perspective) and history proves otherwise that the holocaust did in fact happen.

but to him, everything you argue will simply become some way for him to prove himself right.

I was already proven wrong when I was believing that a mindswap actually happened. How many times do I have to admit to that fact before it is driven into your head?

If I'm wrong about something I will admit it if I am in fact proven wrong. So, prove me wrong.

[qoute]Like every other conspiracy theorist, really.[quote]

I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist. I blame the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 not our own government unlike conspiracy theorists do. I'm just someone that chooses to over think things only when I feel off about them in order to get to the truth of the matter. I don't feel off about anything that happened on 9/11 it was what it was...nothing more or less than that.

Reality is an unwelcome thing.

It maybe an unwelcomed thing, but I know it far too well nevertheless and I don't deny anything when it comes to it even the unwelcomed parts. It's all a part of life that has to be dealt with the best that it can be dealt with.

[Tendrin]

There are people who deny that the holocaust happened and by doing such a thing they state that those who actually survived it are wrong (or are liars from their perspective) and history proves otherwise that the holocaust did in fact happen.

I'm going to do you the favor of pretending you didn't actually just make this comparison.

[Kurolegacy]

There are people who deny that the holocaust happened and by doing such a thing they state that those who actually survived it are wrong (or are liars from their perspective) and history proves otherwise that the holocaust did in fact happen.

You do realize that in this case, you are the equivalent of the side that is shouting conspiracy theories that the holocaust didn't happen, especially since you're arguing against what is the equivalent of a first hand accounting of the events (the writer). So basically you're saying that the man who wrote the story is wrong about his own story, essentially being in the same position as someone telling a holocaust survivor that the holocaust didn't happen.

[Tendrin]

You do realize that in this case, you are the equivalent of the side that is shouting conspiracy theories that the holocaust didn't happen, especially since you're arguing against what is the equivalent of a first hand accounting of the events (the writer). So basically you're saying that the man who wrote the story is wrong about his own story, essentially being in the same position as someone telling a holocaust survivor that the holocaust didn't happen.

Shh. Don't bring logic to a Thinker thread.

[Mister Mets]

I'm shutting this down again. Everyone has made their arguments, and there doesn't seem to presently be anything to add in this thread about a discussion people don't seem to be enjoying.