ASM 3 (#897) Discussion

[Lunala]

Tombstone

Experienced, competent, and capable men make mistakes all the time. Expert witnesses have mismanaged trial appearances and turned a jury against them. Professional skydivers have fumbled maneuvers. Beloved animal specialists have made mistakes while handling wild animals. All have resulted in tragic ends. That's not fate nerfing humanity. Humans are flawed beings. Spider-Man was hacked off by all the corpses and underestimated Tombstone because the mobster is dumb.

Tombstone's false flag operation targets Rose because he blasted the albino gangster for Spider-Man's prying. I doubt Tombstone has thought beyond pettiness and teaching people a lesson, but vigilantes would apprehend Rose because he's a wanted man. If Rose can't cope, the plot proves to Rose and the other bosses that the upstart is all mouth. Whether that's his objective, I don't know, but I'm just speaking objectively. The strategy wouldn't stand up to sustained scrutiny, and Tombstone's one-track mind only considers the present, so the scheme hasn't surpassed the limits of Tombstone's keikaku class. Even teens have been implicated in deaths instigated by a similar act of harassment known as swatting" (making a fake emergency call to sic the police on someone). I think Zeb Wells does a fair job portraying Tombstone as a menace despite his low intelligence.

Spider-Man's constraints need more explanation next issue, but Tombstone's gang had caches from other villains, so an answer might be forthcoming. Understandably, fans are irritated by what will surely be a close shave for Spider-Man during an anniversary year. I don't think Tombstone's story is offensive yet, but others are welcome to disagree.

reactions

I feel too much is up to interpretation since we never hear what MJ says.
Example:
Paul: Do I seem like a violent guy?
MJ: This from the adult male who wanted to punch Hans of the Southern Isles in the face for betraying Anna of Arendelle when we watched Frozen last night?
Paul: Okay, but he deserved it.
MJ: He's a Disney villain! *joking* If that's what you'd do to a fictional teenager, who knows what you'll do in real life.
Paul: I promise we're just gonna talk!
MJ: What? Are you not even going to defend yourself, scary man.
Paul: *pouting* I'm here.
MJ: Don’t think I didn’t notice you dodging the question, mister. *starts laughing*
Paul: *amused* I love you too. *hangs up*
MJ: *abruptly stops laughing*

I assume the action implicated another in-universe person, but we don't know the details. I think it's a joke, too, but it might serve as foreshadowing. I want Paul to be respectable because it might result in lazy writing if he isn't, but it's not any reader's fault if they feel Zeb Wells hasn't earned their goodwill. Paul might not remember some act of violence he committed. For a witness or victim, his abuse was noteworthy, but for the abuser, it happens so often that it's become insignificant to him.

Prowl from Transformers is a great example.

[federicodettofred]

Guys, what's the fuzz about Paul being violent? I took it as a joke, maybe he simply got in a fight in a pub or he slapped a guy once. I really don't think it has anything to do with the kids. MJ would never date a children abuser and the dialogue is clearly about something that's not so important.

[Tendrin]

Guys, what's the fuzz about Paul being violent? I took it as a joke, maybe he simply got in a fight in a pub or he slapped a guy once. I really don't think it has anything to do with the kids. MJ would never date a children abuser and the dialogue is clearly about something that's not so important.

It's people being very reactionary because Paul is dating MJ. There's zero textually supporting it.

[Lee]

Used his supposed smarts, for example. Like pointing out how stupid Tombstone's plan is, thinking he can fool superheroes like Daredevil, who can tell if someone is lying by listening to their heartbeat, with masquerade costumes. Or pointing out if Tombstone truly loves his daughter, he will alienate her forever by hurting/killing the father of the man she loves. Or even pointing out how Lonnie can't make up his mind: he's teaching Spider-Man a lesson that do-gooders shouldn't interfere, but his big gang war plan depends on...do-gooders interfering.

Those arguments also may not work - Lonnie is pretty determined - but they don't make Spider-Man a sniveling begger who is telling a villain what he thinks a villain wants to hear.

Still, better than giving the Devil exactly what the Devil wants.

I think trying to own Tombstone with logic would have made him angrier and made Peter look conceited. Peter was beaten half to death, time was running out, he was desperate, he didn't have the time and wasn't in the headspace to formulate an amazing argument with airtight logic.

Your argument is that the pleading made Spider-Man look lame, so he shouldn't have done it. My argument is that Spider-Man doesn't care how lame he looks, he'd do whatever he can to save lives.

Yeah. Based on Wells's track record of harming children in multiple books.

You said that the poster was making a joke. The poster said that it was a theory/interpretation.

I don't like Wells as a writer and I think this run sucks. But like the poster above said, the reference to the "one time" he was supposedly violent is written in a lighthearted cadence about something apparently Paul had mostly forgotten about, so these wild speculations that Paul and MJ are having casual banter about him beating his children comes across as VERY dramatic. I'm sure Paul will end up being shady or something, but these reactions are not supported in any way by the text.

Agreed. It comes across as disingenuous. I think people just really hate that MJ has a new boyfriend.

Guys, what's the fuzz about Paul being violent? I took it as a joke, maybe he simply got in a fight in a pub or he slapped a guy once. I really don't think it has anything to do with the kids. MJ would never date a children abuser and the dialogue is clearly about something that's not so important.

Exactly. A few seconds later Paul says "love you, too". Whatever they were talking about wasn't that big of a deal. Mary Jane wasn't saying "Hey remember that time you beat the hell out of a child? Anyway, love you!"

[Matt Rat]

Guys, what's the fuzz about Paul being violent? I took it as a joke, maybe he simply got in a fight in a pub or he slapped a guy once. I really don't think it has anything to do with the kids. MJ would never date a children abuser and the dialogue is clearly about something that's not so important.

It's been explained to you and everyone else who keeps asking this question why such a line is being picked up on, and why it may in fact lead to a twist due to the nature of who Wells is as a writer with a proven track record of abusing children in his fiction, It's your fault for not listening or refusing to listen.

And it's not about what MJ would or would not do. All we've seen of MJ is her cowering in a closet talking to Peter on the phone, looking like she feels trapped and apprehensive later when she sees him outside, relieved only when the kids come in later, and we don't hear anything she's saying to Paul over the phone other than his own words. It's his words against a lack of her own, and every line matters.

If Marvel wanted readers to be sold on Paul being a sincere guy who feels bad for Peter, they would not have inserted a line like that in there. They did, because they want us to find flaw with him, that way we hope MJ does, and for the most part, yeah, she does find flaw in that, as she points out to him that he was violent that one time to the guy that 'deserved' it.

That 'guy' could have been the kid...and MJ might not want to desert that kid. And might not want Peter hurt in the process.

[Lee]

Do you honestly think a future issue will reveal the other side of the conversation, and that Mary Jane was talking about a child Paul was abusing?

If, by the end of Zeb Wells' run, there is no reveal that Paul and MJ were having a conversation about him abusing a child, will you admit to having completely misread the scene?

[Mercwmouth12]

Do you honestly think a future issue will reveal the other side of the conversation, and that Mary Jane was talking about a child Paul was abusing?

If, by the end of Zeb Wells' run, there is no reveal that Paul and MJ were having a conversation about him abusing a child, will you admit to having completely misread the scene?

When Peter and MJ get back together do you think anyone will care?

[Matt Rat]

Do you honestly think a future issue will reveal the other side of the conversation, and that Mary Jane was talking about a child Paul was abusing?

We'll certainly see a future issue revealing more Paul's more aggressive side. We've seen him as a lamb, and it's implied he's a lion.

We'll also certainly need to hear from MJ herself in regards to how she views Paul, and so far we've gotten nothing other than one half of a conversation he led where she may have said "I love you" to him.

If, by the end of Zeb Wells' run, there is no reveal that Paul and MJ were having a conversation about him abusing a child, will you admit to having completely misread the scene?

I read the scene a certain way given the information I know of the story so far and the prior machinations of the writer. If it's not the case, sure I'll admit when I was wrong, but not today.

By the end of Zeb's run, Paul will either be out of the picture or another writer will probably make him out to be problematic so as to take MJ away from him. So it's moot. In the grand web of Peter and MJ, everyone else caught up in it is temporary.

[TinkerSpider]

Experienced, competent, and capable men make mistakes all the time. Expert witnesses have mismanaged trial appearances and turned a jury against them. Professional skydivers have fumbled maneuvers. Beloved animal specialists have made mistakes while handling wild animals. All have resulted in tragic ends. That's not fate nerfing humanity. Humans are flawed beings. Spider-Man was hacked off by all the corpses and underestimated Tombstone because the mobster is dumb.

It's a 22-page comic book. This isn't Pulitzer Prize-winning literary fiction. This isn't an allegory on the tragic frailities of mankind - it's a bunch of illustrations featuring people in colorful leotards with ultrafantastic, aboslutely nonrealistic powers punching each other, and is supposedly aimed at kids as Marvel senior editorial keeps reminding us.

Peter is established as a genius class intellect who has been a superhero for about fifteen years now. Wells has done nothing to establish that Peter's mental acuity or his memory have been lessened.

He made Peter act like a naive rookie with limited intellectual capacity because that's what he needed for his plot to work. Just like how Slott made Peter act like a doofus manbaby because that's what he needed for his plot to work. Neither writer is character-driven (at least so far, for Wells). Neither writer showcases the character, just twists him so he fits in the square hole they've devised for him.

If what you posit is actuality, then Peter Parker would be the focus of the book. But he's not. The only character who has clear motivations and is getting development is Tombstone, and even then his development consists of a cliche backstory.

And whose fault is it that Peter was late to the massacre?! Tombstone was sitting around, waiting for him to show up. But no, he had to babysit the Green Goblin's grandchildren.

Tombstone's false flag operation targets Rose because he blasted the albino gangster for Spider-Man's prying. I doubt Tombstone has thought beyond pettiness and teaching people a lesson, but vigilantes would apprehend Rose because he's a wanted man. If Rose can't cope, the plot proves to Rose and the other bosses that the upstart is all mouth. Whether that's his objective, I don't know, but I'm just speaking objectively. The strategy wouldn't stand up to sustained scrutiny, and Tombstone's one-track mind only considers the present, so the scheme hasn't surpassed the limits of Tombstone's keikaku class. Even teens have been implicated in deaths instigated by a similar act of harassment known as swatting" (making a fake emergency call to sic the police on someone). I think Zeb Wells does a fair job portraying Tombstone as a menace despite his low intelligence.

But this is the Marvel U, and Tombstone's stated plan depends on superheroes going after the Rose's men for his planned 125th Street massacre - superheroes, who care far more about ensuring proper justice is done, not real world police. Not to mention he calls out Daredevil, who can tell if people are lying, so why is Daredevil going to enact vengenance on the Rose's men when he can tell with a listen that the Rose's men were not the perpetrators?

Superheroes are better than real world law enforcement - that's one reason why comic books are still read. They reassure us justice is still valued by humanity even when justice seems nonexistent in our world, and inspire us to fight for justice in our own lives.

I also disagree that Wells has depicted Tombstone as low intelligence. He may not be wholly rational, but he's far from dumb. I mean, he used force majuere correctly. He's obviously a skilled business negotiator. He was far enough ahead of Peter Parker, certified genius, to a) rile him up by warning his Peter identity; b) accurately predict Spider-Man would go after White Rabbit; c) had a truck tricked out in advance and used Crime Master (hey, what happened to him?) to lure Spider-Man inside the truck; d) had cuffs that would hold Spider-Man ready.

That's not the plan of someone with low intelligence who is relying on coincidence or impulse spur of the moment opportunities. He's certainly outthought Peter.

Also, I've seen it proposed that Tombstone is not done with his plan - that he knows Spider-Man will break free and come after him. After all, he told Spider-Man exactly where Spider-Man is being held and exactly where Tombstone will be (the safe house is in Harlem and he's planning on shooting up a street in...Harlem. A street that is co-named Martin Luther King, Jr Boulevard, by the way). So there's probably another ambush in store *sigh* - as the cover and solicit for the next issue seem to back up. (Also, it doesn't make sense Tombstone would defeat Spider-Man and kill him in private - sure, that might teach Spider-Man a lesson but it won't teach any other interferring do-gooder a lesson. Better to defeat him in public, where he can also show off to his mob rivals).

Spider-Man's constraints need more explanation next issue,

Honestly, in the scheme of things that need more explanation, that one is very low on the list. And I'm guessing Spidey will suddenly find they are very easy to break next issue.

Understandably, fans are irritated by what will surely be a close shave for Spider-Man during an anniversary year. I don't think Tombstone's story is offensive yet, but others are welcome to disagree.

It's not the close shave. We expect close shaves. We eagerily anticipate the close shaves.

It's the nerfing. It's Peter forgetting he's supposed to be a smart, quippy guy with lots of experience.

I feel too much is up to interpretation since we never hear what MJ says.
Example:
Paul: Do I seem like a violent guy?
MJ: This from the adult male who wanted to punch Hans of the Southern Isles in the face for betraying Anna of Arendelle when we watched Frozen last night?
Paul: Okay, but he deserved it.
MJ: He's a Disney villain! *joking* If that's what you'd do to a fictional teenager, who knows what you'll do in real life.
Paul: I promise we're just gonna talk!
MJ: What? Are you not even going to defend yourself, scary man.
Paul: *pouting* I'm here.
MJ: DonÂ’t think I didnÂ’t notice you dodging the question, mister. *starts laughing*
Paul: *amused* I love you too. *hangs up*
MJ: *abruptly stops laughing*

Agreed.

Example:
Paul: Do I seem like a violent guy?
MJ: The bruises on your seven year old son say yes.
Paul: Okay, but he deserved it.
MJ: For not finishing his dessert?! You have to stop using your fists! Please, don't do this--
Paul: I promise we're just gonna talk!
MJ: That's what you said last week. It's not too late to turn around and come home--
Paul: *cuts her off* I'm here.
MJ: Fine. I know I'm powerless to stop you. Just don't do anything you'll regret. Please. I'm begging you.
Paul: *sarcastic* I love you too. *hangs up*

Just sayin', that conversation can be written a thousand different ways. The reason why it is open to interpretation is because Wells has yet to establish who Paul is, nor has Wells given us any indication he intends to write Mary Jane Watson anywhere close to being in character so we can't predict her side of the conversation, either.

I want Paul to be respectable because it might result in lazy writing if he isn't

Too late, IMO. See Tombstone/Peter, above.

but it's not any reader's fault if they feel Zeb Wells hasn't earned their goodwill.

I wholly agree with this. Using the stupid version of the mystery box, where the characters all fully know what is happening and the audience is the only party completely in the dark, is not a great way to get readers on your side (normal mystery box is when the viewpoint characters and the audience are on the same page, and the characters and the audience discover and put the clues together as a unit). Stupid mystery box puts the reader on their back foot and makes the reader feel left out of the greater narrative. It's passive engagement, because we're just sitting around and waiting for characters to drop hints, instead of actively engaging in discovering what is happening with the characters.

[TinkerSpider]

I think trying to own Tombstone with logic would have made him angrier and made Peter look conceited.

So...a character whose well-established modus operandi is owning bad guys with quippy takedowns of their poorly thought through plans and irritating them on purpose would look conceited if he did the exact same thing in this issue?!!

Seriously?!?!??!!!?

Peter was beaten half to death, time was running out, he was desperate, he didn't have the time and wasn't in the headspace to formulate an amazing argument with airtight logic.

He's a certified genius who tosses off quips in far worse situations. But it appears you prefer to read characters who are nerfed beggers who kowtow to villains and agree they are right instead of using their established smarts and experience.

To each their own *shrug*. I'll give you this a step up from taking the Devil at face value and giving the Devil exactly what the Devil wants.

Your argument is that the pleading made Spider-Man look lame, so he shouldn't have done it. My argument is that Spider-Man doesn't care how lame he looks, he'd do whatever he can to save lives.

No, my argument is that Peter should have shown even a modicum of his established smarts and personality and attempted to use arguments that may have worked instead of using one he fully knows well wouldn't. He should have attempted to fight back with everything he had - which includes his intelligence - instead crying & begging, rolling over in the hopes that figuratively showing his lily white belly will get the predator to stop.

You said that the poster was making a joke. The poster said that it was a theory/interpretation.

I appreciate the semantic hair splitting, but yes, it was a theory/interpretation based on this forum joking that Paul will end up murdering and probably eating the child. The OP said he's basing the interpretation on Wells's work.

Whatever they were talking about wasn't that big of a deal. Mary Jane wasn't saying "Hey remember that time you beat the hell out of a child? Anyway, love you!"

See my post above for perfectly natural sounding dialogue in which MJ and Paul do discuss him beating a child.

That one-sided conversation can be read a thousand different ways precisely because the reader doesn't have enough context.

[federicodettofred]

It's been explained to you and everyone else who keeps asking this question why such a line is being picked up on, and why it may in fact lead to a twist due to the nature of who Wells is as a writer with a proven track record of abusing children in his fiction, It's your fault for not listening or refusing to listen.

And it's not about what MJ would or would not do. All we've seen of MJ is her cowering in a closet talking to Peter on the phone, looking like she feels trapped and apprehensive later when she sees him outside, relieved only when the kids come in later, and we don't hear anything she's saying to Paul over the phone other than his own words. It's his words against a lack of her own, and every line matters.

If Marvel wanted readers to be sold on Paul being a sincere guy who feels bad for Peter, they would not have inserted a line like that in there. They did, because they want us to find flaw with him, that way we hope MJ does, and for the most part, yeah, she does find flaw in that, as she points out to him that he was violent that one time to the guy that 'deserved' it.

That 'guy' could have been the kid...and MJ might not want to desert that kid. And might not want Peter hurt in the process.

Uhm, where is the supposed "explanation" in what you wrote?
Wells was the writer of a violent story with Lizard killing a kid 12 years ago, so every time "violence" is referenced in one of his stories a kid should be involved? Of course Paul will have a dark side revealed and MJ will drop him or Peter will fight him, but this is literally making giant assumptions out of nothing.
The fact MJ hides in a closet to answer Peter's call is normal: maybe she told him to f*ck off and he's stalking her, so she doesn't want to be heard by her new bf and the kids. That's something that happens in real life, and not only in abusive couples. People are jealous, that's it.
I read the dialogue as a joke, like "oh, you're not violent? How about the time you slapped a guy at the gas station?" or something along that line given the fact the call ends immediately after and MJ supposedly tells Paul "I love you".

[Lee]

Ultimately, every absurd and intentional misreading a fan chooses as a hill to die on just undermines all of their other, more valid criticisms.

It starts with binary thinking, where something has to be either 100% good or 100% bad, but is then taken a step further by imagining situations that weren't even in the story to be even angrier about. I think this is less about actually believing that scene was about child abuse, and more about trying to manufacture outrage towards the writer and publisher. It's a toxic behaviour in fandoms, and it's even more toxic when it gets directed towards the people making the product.

[Matt Rat]

I think this is less about actually believing that scene was about child abuse, and more about trying to manufacture outrage towards the writer and publisher. It's a toxic behaviour in fandoms, and it's even more toxic when it gets directed towards the people making the product.

Who's being toxic? I harbour no ill will towards Wells, all I've said is I know what kind of writer he is and applied previous history to a potential scenario that can be taken that way with the right amount of imagination. That's it.

Sounds like you want to think of me in an unflattering light, all because I'm taking things from a different angle from an otherwise unpopular comic that you're overly defensive of/apologetic over.

[Lee]

I didn't even like this issue. The assumption that I did is based on binary thinking, this idea that you have to be 100% for something or 100% against something, no matter what kind of absurd statements get thrown out.

You're proposing a situation where Mary Jane is knowingly dating someone who beats children, casually having a conversation about it and exchanging "love you"s over the phone, in a scene that doesn't have that kind of tone or weight to it and doesn't provide any context clues that the subject of child abuse would be relevant.

If your belief that this is the case is sincere, then all I can tell you is that you have grossly misread the scene. Your take doesn't hold water. It would be ripped to shreds in any media literacy class.

[Spiderfan001]

I didn't even like this issue. The assumption that I did is based on binary thinking, this idea that you have to be 100% for something or 100% against something, no matter what kind of absurd statements get thrown out.

You're proposing a situation where Mary Jane is knowingly dating someone who beats children, casually having a conversation about it and exchanging "love you"s over the phone, in a scene that doesn't have that kind of tone or weight to it and doesn't provide any context clues that the subject of child abuse would be relevant.

If your belief that this is the case is sincere, then all I can tell you is that you have grossly misread the scene. Your take doesn't hold water. It would be ripped to shreds in any media literacy class.

MJ saying I love you to anyone 6 months into dating is extremely OOC in in of itself

It took her more than a decade to say it to Peter lmfao