Amazing Spider-Man 55 (Spoilers)

[RyanParkerMan]

Well, how many great writers in comics do you have working at any given time? Right now the best living writers in English-language comics would be Alan Moore (who's retired) or Kieron Gillen (who has found success on his creator owned gigs and hopefully would never have to do superhero stuff for a living again), or Ed Brubaker for his crime comics.

Proportionately Marvel does have talent.

You're making my point.

His X-men run is selling pretty well and is a major critical success.

Major critical success? We read different websites. Sales are slipping and X of Swords seems to be globally agreed upon misstep. I'm a huge Hickman guy. I'll read every issue but it's certainly not living up to any of his past works.

For X-Men you had Grant Morrison and now Hickman and in-between you had decent comics and titles by Aaron, Tom Taylor, Cullen Bunn among others. For Spider-Man...I honestly don't think there's really such a thing as a "legendary run" on Spider-Man because historically this has been a consistently maintained title, far more so than other Marvel titles. Chris Claremont's run on X-Men or Miller on Daredevil gets to be legendary because they took obscure titles from the pits to the heights...with Spider-Man no writer's been in a position to claim that because the title's never gotten to a very low point. The nearest is when JMS revived ASM after Mackie's run in the Post-Clone Saga and Clone Saga malaise. And maybe Roger Stern who revived ASM after the Wein-Wolfman-O'Neill era of bland boring stories. But neither run good as it is, is on the scale and scope of Claremont and Miller.

I agree with all this and again, you're making my point. Thank you!

Characters and stories don't come from comics. They come from creators, they come from people, and they usually don't get paid enough in terms of what they did and contribute, or are properly credited even.

Again, you're missing my point or purposefully dodging with semantics. Characters and stories obviously come from comics and they are obviously made by people. My point is to invest in those people (who work on comics), so you get better people, or you have better people but now they have an incentive to make better work.

[Frontier]

Collectively, I would say yes. That doesn't mean these people are evil, or amoral, or so on. If I had an internship at Marvel and worked my way and paid my dues as many of them got their jobs right now, I am not sure I would be any different.

But I would say on the whole, Marvel ownership of their properties isn't really justified on grounds that Marvel alone are the best custodians of their IP. Sure Marvel is better than DC who have rightly f--ked up Superman and allowed whole brands to stagnate and wither on the vine, and the case of DC creations better off in public domain is greater than Marvel's, but that doesn't mean Marvel's off the hook.

I mean, they've fore sure made creative decisions I don't personally agree with, but I'm not sure if anyone can be an absolute arbiter for what's right and wrong for a character.

That's true but it's still better. Take Dracula, public domain IP, constantly overexposed and you have so many different versions and takes across media. Some sympathetic, some monstrous, some cuddly, some Lovecraftian but it all sits on the shelf together, whether it's Universal's Dracula, Coppola's Dracula, Hammer Horror Christopher Lee Dracula, Castlevania and Alucard, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with its take on Mina Murray.

If Spider-Man goes PD, you are likely to see for instance horror movie takes on Peter Parker, edgy drama about Spider-Man, a Daily Bugle office comedy take, adaptations that have Spider-Man and Peter go postal or whatever. I say it's worth it. Because you will get so many different approaches to it. And before people go "think of the children..." tell me has all the dark cynical edgy takes on Alice in Wonderland (whether it's the game or Jefferson Airplane song) diminished the appeal of the original stories for children. I don't think

Is that so different from all the different creative teams in the comics? I think we've seen stuff in the same vein as what you're indicating in the comics. About the only thing that we wouldn't get is Spider-Man going postal because it just doesn't fit the character, which personally I think is totally valid. Just because there are a few corporate restrictions doesn't mean there isn't still some degree of creative freedom with the property.

I don't see corporate baggage as determining as opposed to accidental or incidental factors.

This reminds me of talking about the marriage .

Yes. Yes, he is. Commercially, no. But while we may enjoy certain takes, the creative element has taken a nosedive. Even Spencer has resorted to trying to "fix" past stories. When you spend the bulk of a run trying to clean up other people's messes, you know you're in a bad situation.

I mean, I think for the most part he's done it with enough finesse compared to the alternative while still building on what came before, but that's just my own take.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

My point is to invest in those people (who work on comics), so you get better people, or you have better people but now they have an incentive to make better work.

If you mean Disney/Marvel should do what they can to get Alan Moore to work for them...well I have a bridge to sell you. It's the only one left after Moore burnt all the rest with the Big Two. The only way Disney/Marvel would get Moore to work with them is if they immediately agree to unionize their workforce, invest in non-superhero titles extensively, give creators ownership of their IP and draw a license from them. Disney/Marvel would never do that.

The best creators and talent in comics, or those who are really talented tend to move away from comics to other fields...they try to become legit writers (Alan Moore's graphic novel "A Small Killing" which was published by a literary firm brought him more royalties than any work he did for dC), or they become commercial illustrators for advertising, storyboards, graphic designers and so on.

People who work in comics these days do it out of a lot of love, even if their talent isn't often near their passion. And their passion, often driven by love for these characters, gets exploited by the big companies.

Fans have been trained to put IP over people for too long. The way back is to give it to public domain.

[WebSlingWonder]

If you mean Disney/Marvel should do what they can to get Alan Moore to work for them...well I have a bridge to sell you. It's the only one left after Moore burnt all the rest with the Big Two. The only way Disney/Marvel would get Moore to work with them is if they immediately agree to unionize their workforce, invest in non-superhero titles extensively, give creators ownership of their IP and draw a license from them. Disney/Marvel would never do that.

The best creators and talent in comics, or those who are really talented tend to move away from comics to other fields...they try to become legit writers (Alan Moore's graphic novel "A Small Killing" which was published by a literary firm brought him more royalties than any work he did for dC), or they become commercial illustrators for advertising, storyboards, graphic designers and so on.

People who work in comics these days do it out of a lot of love, even if their talent isn't often near their passion. And their passion, often driven by love for these characters, gets exploited by the big companies.

Fans have been trained to put IP over people for too long. The way back is to give it to public domain.

Amen.

10chars

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I mean, they've fore sure made creative decisions I don't personally agree with, but I'm not sure if anyone can be an absolute arbiter for what's right and wrong for a character.

The fact is that Marvel execs are paid to be "an absolute arbiter for what's right and wrong for a character". If no one can be, then no one should...so let it go to public domain.

Is that so different from all the different creative teams in the comics?

It is on a fundamental level.

I think we've seen stuff in the same vein as what you're indicating in the comics.

I don't think so. Take Spider-Man Life Story...6 issue limited series. Why is it that Life Story got 6 issues rather than 60? In a public domain series we would have gotten a fully-realized version of that concept in a way we don't get with the corporate IP variation.

About the only thing that we wouldn't get is Spider-Man going postal because it just doesn't fit the character, which personally I think is totally valid.

Well in the Clone Saga, we got Spider-Man slapping Mary Jane, in the BND we had Spider-Man torturing someone in a story Dan Slott wrote, we had Spider-Man killing Charlie under Owsley. So we have moments of that in the comics too it's just that it gets swept under the rug and so on.

If people want to deal with those extreme sections they can do it in PD and whether that sticks or not is up to execution and public reception. But more importantly it wouldn't obscure or overwrite any other take on Spider-Man either, whereas now in 616 you have to do mental jiujiutsiu to pretend this stuff doesn't count.

This reminds me of talking about the marriage

The marriage happened because fans and readers asked for it, and it got picked up by the news, and seeing genuine spontaneous publicity, Marvel gave the people what they wanted. The Spider-Marriage wasn't a corporate stunt at all. Jim Shooter and others realized that this was gonna be the biggest public moment for a comics story and comics character in the '80s, a premonition of what happened with Death of Superman (and those armbands) and they met them halfway.

[Celgress]

A very confusing and muddled turn of events. As an infamous director likes to say "what a twist", but not in a good way IMO. I hope this is resolved in a satisfactory fashion.

[Frontier]

The fact is that Marvel execs are paid to be "an absolute arbiter for what's right and wrong for a character". If no one can be, then no one should...so let it go to public domain.

I mean, I'm not sure most Marvel execs see thing in such absolutes. I think they probably feel they're doing the best job they can within the shared melting pot and universe of the MU.

It is on a fundamental level.

I don't see it that way, but to each their own. Spider-Man is still Spider-Man at the end of the day.

I don't think so. Take Spider-Man Life Story...6 issue limited series. Why is it that Life Story got 6 issues rather than 60? In a public domain series we would have gotten a fully-realized version of that concept in a way we don't get with the corporate IP variation.

Maybe Zdarsky thought it was a story he could tell in six issues instead of sixty? The time jumping had its issues but I think it was part of the point of the story as well, and I don't think it took away from what Life Story accomplished.

I prefer the main continuity to Life Story anyhow, but that's just me.

Well in the Clone Saga, we got Spider-Man slapping Mary Jane, in the BND we had Spider-Man torturing someone in a story Dan Slott wrote, we had Spider-Man killing Charlie under Owsley. So we have moments of that in the comics too it's just that it gets swept under the rug and so on.

If people want to deal with those extreme sections they can do it in PD and whether that sticks or not is up to execution and public reception. But more importantly it wouldn't obscure or overwrite any other take on Spider-Man either, whereas now in 616 you have to do mental jiujiutsiu to pretend this stuff doesn't count.

But those moments are usually acknowledged as being OOC or unnatural for the character to do compared to the norm.

I don't think the longevity and history of the character in 616 is worth erasing for various different takes or to go the constant Elseworlds route, but again, to each their own. I don't think the mental jiujitsu is all that more complicated compared to other properties.

The marriage happened because fans and readers asked for it, and it got picked up by the news, and seeing genuine spontaneous publicity, Marvel gave the people what they wanted. The Spider-Marriage wasn't a corporate stunt at all. Jim Shooter and others realized that this was gonna be the biggest public moment for a comics story and comics character in the '80s, a premonition of what happened with Death of Superman (and those armbands) and they met them halfway.

I'm not sure so much about fan and reader reactions but didn't Stan want to do it and Shooter and editorial acquiesced to making it happen? And by an accident of writing and story development it somehow worked (depending on who you ask).

[Spidey_62]

I like the idea of these characters and stories going the way of PD but it's something I have a hard time ever seeing happen (well, maybe not ever, anything's possible) what with how Disney is constantly bending those rules to their favor. Aside from that I think there's a strange tendency for lots of people to rush to defend these big companies/corporations, much like how when the Sony/Marvel-Disney Spidey deal went up publicly last year and resulted in fans bullying one corporation in favor of another. I saw a lot of "Sony is terrible! Screw Sony! Give Spider-Man back! Bring him back home where he belongs!"

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I mean, I'm not sure most Marvel execs see thing in such absolutes. I think they probably feel they're doing the best job they can within the shared melting pot and universe of the MU.

We don't have access to anyone's inner life, (yet), so we have to by the output and outward actions. I am sure that individually they have different feelings and all, but what counts is what we see collectively.

Maybe Zdarsky thought it was a story he could tell in six issues instead of sixty?

Zdarksy said he would have liked to take a longer approach, say a miniseries in each decade but they whittled it down and he agreed to what we got at the end.

But those moments are usually acknowledged as being OOC or unnatural for the character to do compared to the norm.

They still happen right, and they are invoked to justify extreme stories like the one in Superior #9 which hinges on Otto gaining a moral victory because Peter tried to stop him from saving a girl's life and to justify that Slott invoked a bunch of stuff over the years as grounds for that.

I don't think the longevity and history of the character in 616 is worth erasing...

But again that's already erased right. I mean you had issues with Norman calling Mary Jane "young woman". OMD erased the longevity of the continuity as well and de-aged the characters.

I'm not sure so much about fan and reader reactions but didn't Stan want to do it and Shooter and editorial acquiesced to making it happen? And by an accident of writing and story development it somehow worked (depending on who you ask).

It happened as Shooter described it here (http://jimshooter.com/2011/09/three-...-or-holy.html/). At the time Shooter was editorial. So anyway fans asked Lee and Shooter at a Chicago convention and that's what made it happen.

Aside from that I think there's a strange tendency for lots of people to rush to defend these big companies/corporations, much like how when the Sony/Marvel-Disney Spidey deal went up publicly last year and resulted in fans bullying one corporation in favor of another. I saw a lot of "Sony is terrible! Screw Sony! Give Spider-Man back! Bring him back home where he belongs!"

That's the thing people associate Disney not with the company but with the characters and they see those characters as living beings and Disney as protectors of these characters. So Disney means their toys mashing Iron Man and Spider-Man or their instagram or twitter shares of Holland and Downey behind-the-scenes stuff has meaning...so that parasocial element is harnessed and exploited by a corporation.

[WebSlingWonder]

I like the idea of these characters and stories going the way of PD but it's something I have a hard time ever seeing happen (well, maybe not ever, anything's possible) what with how Disney is constantly bending those rules to their favor. Aside from that I think there's a strange tendency for lots of people to rush to defend these big companies/corporations, much like how when the Sony/Marvel-Disney Spidey deal went up publicly last year and resulted in fans bullying one corporation in favor of another. I saw a lot of "Sony is terrible! Screw Sony! Give Spider-Man back! Bring him back home where he belongs!"

Big corps have essentially brainwashed people to think about the content and not about the cost. And the problem with that thinking is that it, like you said, makes fans intensely loyal for no reason than for precious characters and stories to be "with their rightful owners", which is complete malarkey once those fans realize that these corps have screwed their rightful owners for decades.

Has Marvel as an entity given us quality stories? Yes. But the cost was too great, and it's a little hard for me and others to ignore than just so we can go "muh Spidey!"

[Frontier]

We don't have access to anyone's inner life, (yet), so we have to by the output and outward actions. I am sure that individually they have different feelings and all, but what counts is what we see collectively.

I don't think we need access to that, for one thing.

I would say collectively, like anything, it ebbs and flows depending on the era.

Zdarksy said he would have liked to take a longer approach, say a miniseries in each decade but they whittled it down and he agreed to what we got at the end.

To some, less is more. I'm not saying the story probably couldn't have been expanded (especially if how much was packed into each issue) but I feel like it helped the title's "evergreen" status to be as it is instead of a series of era-specific mini's. But that's just my take.

They still happen right, and they are invoked to justify extreme stories like the one in Superior #9 which hinges on Otto gaining a moral victory because Peter tried to stop him from saving a girl's life and to justify that Slott invoked a bunch of stuff over the years as grounds for that.

I can't say it doesn't go both ways, but that's how continuity works. I'd still say it's important.

But again that's already erased right. I mean you had issues with Norman calling Mary Jane "young woman". OMD erased the longevity of the continuity as well and de-aged the characters.

Not really, though? I don't think OMD had anything to do with that line. I mean, Dan Slott of all people set up the timeframe for Peter being in 28-ish in Learning to Crawl.

Of course it could be just that I, personally, reserve "young _____" more for people in their early 20's, but it's all relative.

It happened as Shooter described it here (http://jimshooter.com/2011/09/three-...-or-holy.html/). At the time Shooter was editorial. So anyway fans asked Lee and Shooter at a Chicago convention and that's what made it happen.

I see.

That's the thing people associate Disney not with the company but with the characters and they see those characters as living beings and Disney as protectors of these characters. So Disney means their toys mashing Iron Man and Spider-Man or their instagram or twitter shares of Holland and Downey behind-the-scenes stuff has meaning...so that parasocial element is harnessed and exploited by a corporation.

I...don't quite see the connection?

[Hulkout42]

I don’t think she fully knows about OMD otherwise she would have said so at the end during their talk. No, at most I think she suspects that she played apart in whatever Harry wants Peter to confess.

Nor do I think the Harry-Kindred situation is a straight forward as some believe it to be.

I feel that Spencer is setting up something with all this, yes it is a bit frustrating at times but again he also took time to set up secret empire so why wouldn't he do the same for Spidey? Though he seems quite invested in hinting OMD in this current event.

[Spidey_62]

I feel that Spencer is setting up something with all this, yes it is a bit frustrating at times but again he also took time to set up secret empire so why wouldn't he do the same for Spidey? Though he seems quite invested in hinting OMD in this current event.

I have no doubt it's all going somewhere, and I trust it'll be interesting seeing all the pieces come together but the fact that so many of us are irked by how slow it's going is a problem. I'd say it's a larger problem of the modern mainstream flagship superhero titles that double-ship and Spencer's probably just adhering to those constraints stretching things out. At the same time it's frustrating when stories like this are billed a certain way but don't seem to really be worth the hype or do as much as they promise.

I think everybody was hoping for more answers with the Kindred stuff this story, I felt like before this story started it was just pretty much going to be the midpoint and wasn't expecting it to be the big wrapup but I was hoping we'd get more to chew on than just "it's Harry and here's a lot more cryptic hints for you about One More Day! To be continued, true believer!" I think probably the most interesting development is honestly the Norman Osborn/Kingpin alliance to use Kindred for some nefarious purpose. That's a bit unexpected seeing 2 other major Spidey villains try to overtake Harry in his attempt at being out of Norman's shadow and it opens up a lot more possibilities for where it can all go.

I wish we'd go back to the days of monthly ASM, because at least then the pacing issue would probably be able to be taken care of better. I'm one of those folks that liked satellite titles lol. They're never the main attraction for readers but there's always good underappreciated stuff to be found in em.

[Vortex85]

I have no doubt it's all going somewhere, and I trust it'll be interesting seeing all the pieces come together but the fact that so many of us are irked by how slow it's going is a problem. I'd say it's a larger problem of the modern mainstream flagship superhero titles that double-ship and Spencer's probably just adhering to those constraints stretching things out. At the same time it's frustrating when stories like this are billed a certain way but don't seem to really be worth the hype or do as much as they promise.

I think everybody was hoping for more answers with the Kindred stuff this story, I felt like before this story started it was just pretty much going to be the midpoint and wasn't expecting it to be the big wrapup but I was hoping we'd get more to chew on than just "it's Harry and here's a lot more cryptic hints for you about One More Day! To be continued, true believer!" I think probably the most interesting development is honestly the Norman Osborn/Kingpin alliance to use Kindred for some nefarious purpose. That's a bit unexpected seeing 2 other major Spidey villains try to overtake Harry in his attempt at being out of Norman's shadow and it opens up a lot more possibilities for where it can all go.

I wish we'd go back to the days of monthly ASM, because at least then the pacing issue would probably be able to be taken care of better. I'm one of those folks that liked satellite titles lol. They're never the main attraction for readers but there's always good underappreciated stuff to be found in em.

I'd rather 2 times a month like it is, even if that means it's more padded. Spider-Man is one of my only comic characters I pick up so monthly would suck for me. I sometimes pick up other heroes depending on arcs and interest but not on a regular basis like Spider-Man.

[t-spider]

Interesting issue, though didn't answer much besides Kindred ID. Gotta admit, found it amusing how Harry has been mentally and physically torturing Peter throughout this arc, yet here comes Big Daddy Norman to cause Harry to freak out. Even with his demonic powers, Harry will always be Harry.