ASM 4 (#898) Discussion

[jwatson]

What do you mean by this?

It's not good business for Disney to leave themselves in the position they were in last time where they basically had to hope Sony would cave to fan pressure in order for the spiderman with tom holland to happen. So much like quicksilver and scarlet witch were turned from mutants when Disney didn't own the rights which allowed them to use versions of them it would make sense for marvel to make Peter a mutant knowing sony has the rights to spiderman as is, but you give mutant spiderman, same powers, perhaps organic webbing like the other and in essence he sort of becomes a different character allowing sony to keep radioactive spider bitten peter for a bit but introducing their own peter perhaps after Secret war. For all we know there is a younger, mutant peter parker running around 838 mcu which i'm sure we are getting a few of those characters melded into the 616 MCU. I am suspecting Reed, and Scarlet Witch at the very least and Spiderman would fit perfectly as well while allowing Sony to keep doing their thing.


Then add in them ending the spiderverse would i assume they would give to sony since it's associated with them or at least when i think of it i think of them and you most likely have a deal in the making.

[Mercwmouth12]

https://icv2.com/articles/markets/vi...omics-may-2022

Good reads except for ASM

[Lee]

It's not good business for Disney to leave themselves in the position they were in last time where they basically had to hope Sony would cave to fan pressure in order for the spiderman with tom holland to happen. So much like quicksilver and scarlet witch were turned from mutants when Disney didn't own the rights which allowed them to use versions of them it would make sense for marvel to make Peter a mutant knowing sony has the rights to spiderman as is, but you give mutant spiderman, same powers, perhaps organic webbing like the other and in essence he sort of becomes a different character allowing sony to keep radioactive spider bitten peter for a bit but introducing their own peter perhaps after Secret war. For all we know there is a younger, mutant peter parker running around 838 mcu which i'm sure we are getting a few of those characters melded into the 616 MCU. I am suspecting Reed, and Scarlet Witch at the very least and Spiderman would fit perfectly as well while allowing Sony to keep doing their thing.


Then add in them ending the spiderverse would i assume they would give to sony since it's associated with them or at least when i think of it i think of them and you most likely have a deal in the making.

That is absolutely not how that works, and it's not how it worked for Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver either.

Sony has the Spider-Man movie rights. Making Spider-Man a mutant in the comics won't give Disney the movie rights to Spider-Man.

[jwatson]

That is absolutely not how that works, and it's not how it worked for Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver either.

Sony has the Spider-Man movie rights. Making Spider-Man a mutant in the comics won't give Disney the movie rights to Spider-Man.

It actually does. While it may not give them rights to spiderman library as is it does give them rights to their own version of spiderman and prevents Sony from copying any new material featuring mutant Spiderman. So while Peter old comic stories are still comic story it protects future stroies as essentially he isn't the character Sony purchased. But then I think Sony would be totally for such a deal.

[Huntsman Spider]

Thank you! While I'm not cool with Pete facing the full extent of the law and social consequences for plunging into a pit Slott excavated and then pushed him into, idealized ramifications are fine imo.
I can reconcile with Peter's current temporary joblessness because he already has adverse publicity.
A. There were public protests against him in Slott's era.

B. That Parker Industries' products hurt people was in the news.

C. Peter's fraud is known to the public. Commence the retractions.




I'm sure you meant violent crime but Peter was unsettlingly close to being one.

And probably some other things, but I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if it would count as a forged instrument, the finer details of the 2006 Fraud Act, or what other white-collar crime misdemeanors could be leveled against him. New York's thoughts on diplomas:



There's also this on whether it's better to be reliable or talented:


Slott done screwed this boy over. There may be factually worse characters, but I presume the employer would not be hiring any of the above. Peter's known reputation and resume is less than stellar if assessed by frank and unbiased external employers. He confessed to perpetrating a felony because he committed a felony. There are extraordinary mitigating circumstances, and neither Robbie nor the ESU are raking him over the coals, but he is a heartbeat away from being a convicted felon. Even with ordinary lies

Slott's take on Peter resulted in turning him into an occasional celebrity. Usually for the wrong reasons. Total realism would cause the book to descend into unpalatable nihilism because nobody wants Peter permanently harmed for what Slott did. Some pragmatism is permissible, but as Huntsman Spider suggested, Wells needs to do some explaining and up his game if he wants to sell his status quo to readers.

You're very welcome, and with all this laid out . . . yeah, Peter could have ended up a lot worse than he actually did, because as you put it, having the full weight of both legal and social consequences for his more reckless and thoughtless actions (or inactions) in the run before Spencer's would pitch the whole story into "unpalatable nihilism."

As for the issue itself, yeah, Tombstone outwitting Spider-Man by playing on his deep-seated need to protect the lives of others and not stand idly by when people are in danger, using that to get Spidey to unwittingly do Tombstone's dirty work and take out his competition . . . well, that was definitely a move out of (animated) Spectacular Spider-Man's playbook. Of course, that works in Spectacular because Peter there is naive and inexperienced compared to where he is or should be at now, which is probably why this kind of scenario doesn't quite work out in this context.

[Lee]

It actually does. While it may not give them rights to spiderman library as is it does give them rights to their own version of spiderman and prevents Sony from copying any new material featuring mutant Spiderman. So while Peter old comic stories are still comic story it protects future stroies as essentially he isn't the character Sony purchased. But then I think Sony would be totally for such a deal.

Sony has the film rights to Spider-Man. Sony has the film rights to Peter Parker.

Marvel/Disney cannot create a mutant version of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and then use that version of Spider-Man in movies. They do not have the movie rights to any version of Spider-Man or Peter Parker.

If Marvel Comics ties any of the Spider-Man characters into the X-Men mythos, then Sony would still be able to use the characters but wouldn't be able to reference the X-Men/mutant connections. Disney wouldn't be able to use those Spider-Man characters in their films (unless they make a deal with Sony) because they are still Spider-Man characters, and Disney doesn't have the film rights to Spider-Man characters.

[Hulkout42]

My take:

Wells once again makes Peter both the damsel and the patsy. Even though Peter wasn't in any real danger of losing his life, he still had to be rescued by Kareem. And Tombstone played him like Yo-Yo Ma on his cello at Carnegie Hall. You would think when the bad guys yelled for Digger (another example of the cover lying) that Peter might have twigged he was being set up, but no.

So if you like pages of punch-ups and Spider-Man breaking loose on bad guys, it's entertaining. Some of his fight tactics were fun, and the more pages JRJR spends on action sequences - I thought his art was the best we've seen so far - and the less time on human faces/normal anatomy (the little girl has some weird proportions), the better.

If you're reading for Peter Parker's life, you're out of luck. If you're reading to see how the main plot advances, you're out of luck; the MJ/Felicia stuff is yet more mystery box and thus tiresome, especially since the opening pages set up expectations for Felicia to show up for the fight which aren't fulfulled. If you're a Tombstone guy - and I wasn't all that impressed last issue but I'm back to liking the big goon - this is a great issue. But the book isn't called The Amazing Tombstone, despite appearing otherwise.

The best issue so far, but still feels like it's treading water and not advancing the story.

Took the words out of my mouth, i mean would adding at least clues as to what happened or where it is going so bad to have in this run?

[TinkerSpider]

Sony has the film rights to Spider-Man. Sony has the film rights to Peter Parker.

Marvel/Disney cannot create a mutant version of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and then use that version of Spider-Man in movies. They do not have the movie rights to any version of Spider-Man or Peter Parker.

If Marvel Comics ties any of the Spider-Man characters into the X-Men mythos, then Sony would still be able to use the characters but wouldn't be able to reference the X-Men/mutant connections. Disney wouldn't be able to use those Spider-Man characters in their films (unless they make a deal with Sony) because they are still Spider-Man characters, and Disney doesn't have the film rights to Spider-Man characters.

You seem very sure about the contract nuances, Lee. Have you had access to it? Have you read it? Just curious.

[Lunala]

Peter

We're invested in Peter's success and want him content, but it seems unfair to Spencer when fans criticize him for addressing the giant polka-dotted Heffalump that stampeded into the room when Slott made Peter a Science editor:

Scientific editor responsibilities involving authors may include:
Providing guidelines to authors for preparing and submitting manuscripts
Protecting the confidentiality of every author's work
Making editorial decisions with reasonable speed and communicating them in a constructive manner
Communicating editorial policies and standards to authors
Establishing clear guidelines for authors about sharing experimental information
Editors also have responsibilities involving readers and the scientific community as a whole, including:
Maintaining the journal's integrity by identifying and differentiating types of content
Disclosing all relevant and potential conflicts of interest of those involved
Providing literature references and author contact information for readers to pursue if needed
Disclosing all sources, including journal ownership and funding
Creating reader surveys and other mechanisms to determine if the journal is providing readers with high-quality research
...
Conducting peer review of all submitted manuscripts
Complying with the organization's guidelines and procedures
Making recommendations and suggestions for scientific material
Adhering to the agreed-upon mission, schedule, and publication practices
Adhering to fiscal policies toward the journal, as long as they do not interfere with editorial independence

How can Peter be expected to keep a job that expects him to maintain journalistic integrity when enforcing it makes him a hypocrite? Part of that job is ensuring authors did not commit plagiarism! He works with an editor, Spencer would have more awareness than I do that Peter did not legally deserve the position. Slott mentions plagiarism after Otto delivered the thesis, so it's not like Spencer created the idea wholesale.



I've read science editors have an unfair reputation among academic circles as "failed scientists." I'd enjoy the commentary on whatever could be mined from that idea once Pete deserves that diploma.

A "Failed Scientist"?
I didn't begin my scientific training with dreams of becoming an editor. At that time, I had no concept of what either academic or professional editors did or what a career in scientific editing would even look like. As with most young scientists, I started graduate school with the assumption that I would end up as a professor after finishing my PhD and postdoctoral training. But I now realize there had been a few signs along the way pointing toward my eventual career as an editor. While I took great joy in my research, I found that I preferred to spend my time reading papers and learning about science outside of my own research focus. I also found that unlike many of my peers, I actually enjoyed writing papers and helping others edit and write their manuscripts.
In the end, I realized that a long-term career in research was not a fit for me, for many different reasons. Does this make me a "failed scientist," a term sometimes used by academic researchers to refer to professional editors? That depends on your definition of success as a scientist. If the goal of scientific training is to produce more professors, then I suppose I am a failure. But I disagree with this narrow view. One does not stop being a scientist immediately upon leaving academia. "Scientist" is not a job description; it's a way of approaching the world. I apply the skills I learned in my PhD training every day as an editor: critical thinking, research skills, and data interpretation,in addition to domain-specific knowledge of the biological sciences. I am not a failed scientist. Neither are my many colleagues working as professional editors. Rather, we are scientists specializing in scholarly publishing and peer review.
(The editor describes her view of her career further, and I think people who might prefer this option for Pete may enjoy it)

I'd have preferred it if he hadn't made Peter do things that made the above panel sequence make sense. In his defense, Slott assumed that Spider-Man deserved the job because Pete is a knowledgeable science whiz. There is something to be said for relying on a document to evaluate a person's worth, but that isn't how the law works. We saw with Otto that Slott didn't always consider what he was demonstrating within his comics. I cannot agree with people who say Spencer did not have a reason to address it or that Robbie was mistaken when he fired Peter. I frequently criticize Spencer, but IMO this is one of the author's good choices. He usually did right by Peter and MJ. It's the "others" category that he struggled with. Spider-Man received little more than a finger waggle and an affectionately exasperated "Oh, you~" from the narrative when he could have gotten handcuffs and jail time, and that's cool with me. Nihilism is for villains and anti-heroes. Spider-Man is an optimistic dude, and his narrative should reflect that when it's inflicting reprisals.
****
Hyperintelligent and experienced people are not always the wisest when dealing with people and situations. For example, many scam victims have above-average intelligence or have experience in a related field. They just thought they were too smart to fall for a dumb scam … while falling for a dumb scam that any other person would have seen straight through. So, yeah, to reiterate what I said in the last issue, I'm okay with mistakes, but…
Wells is made this too one-sided. Writing is a balancing act. Authors must strike a good balance between dialogue, thought, and action. An action-heavy scene will go by fast, so they need to balance that out with dialogue and exposition. We need to know why, even if we can probably guess the reasons. Describing things, and talking about what characters think and feel helps strengthen the scenes. Including relevant memories, and back story details are a good idea, but they need to be used to establish information that may be vital to understanding the scene or scenes that are coming… Hopefully, there will be a purpose.
The mystery box sheds necessary structure, and Wells doesn't refill the cracks to clarify anything else. The author has the villain lie to the audience about his motivations. This is usually fine, but not when the author asks us to rely exclusively on the dialogue to give us an idea of where the plot is headed. Slott is a controversial figure among fans, but he still explained why Peter was entangled in some plight (even if we disagreed with him). When Tombstone defeated and captured Spider-Man, I debated with other fans who had sensible opinions for why they were against it. The writing may have been lacking, but I found the results credible. Wells doesn't quit there. Peter can't escape his bonds and isn't jimmying the lock. This highlights that Tombstone has our hero conquered. Then the villain aggresses the tar out of the protagonist when he's helpless. Fine, says I, I'm displeased that Wells is making the man beg for the lives of Tombstone's targets like… that, but there might be a proper justification, and Peter can still escape, right? Right??? *dissappointed sigh* Tombstone successfully lies to Peter, so he calls Randy in alarm. This means the two pals will be having a conversation on overactive imaginations, at the least. That's another score for Tombstone. Then Peter discovers he wasn't where he had been told he was and has avenged the destruction of Tombstone's home for him.

Any of this is fine if taken individually, in a pick-two combination, or if we captured Peter and split these losses up among the rest of the spider "family". There should be narrative reasons for more than one hero team beyond just employing the franchise to make more money, after all. It permits villains to look like credible threats without incurring the audience's wrath. Batman books do it all the time, and this is the wrong time to forget that New York has a friendly neighborhood Spider infestation or justify why they're not supporting him. Putting Peter through a team's worth of loss is not sporting. Rn Peter has undergone a surfeit of defeats (not merely by Tombstone), so the readers feel the unbalance. Readers' reactions are already confused to enraged because of the MJ situation. I disagree with the assessment that the title has become "The Terrific Tombstone" because evildoers always briefly take over a plot when they're used. The current antagonist's story is more straightforward because he doesn't have mystery box gift wrapping encased all over the plot threads, so it's easier to follow. Peter is still the protagonist that weaves together everyone both in and out of the story. It's just…become a drag. The Mystery Box is exhaustingly incoherent. Observing a hero get whipped while he's down? It's not fun. Being lied to when context clues are among the only things allowing them to follow a disjointed plot? Even less so. Maintaining balance is crucial to preserving investment and when that fails its difficult to care about the story at all

[Jness]

You seem very sure about the contract nuances, Lee. Have you had access to it? Have you read it? Just curious.

Whether Lee has read the contract or not, I can confirm he is largely correct about it. Hope that helps.

[Jman27]

https://youtu.be/tVx652TyxXM
they go over it in this video but it's pretty much the same information any new or past spider man character is own by Sony

[Huntsman Spider]

We're invested in Peter's success and want him content, but it seems unfair to Spencer when fans criticize him for addressing the giant polka-dotted Heffalump that stampeded into the room when Slott made Peter a Science editor:
How can Peter be expected to keep a job that expects him to maintain journalistic integrity when enforcing it makes him a hypocrite? Part of that job is ensuring authors did not commit plagiarism! He works with an editor, Spencer would have more awareness than I do that Peter did not legally deserve the position. Slott mentions plagiarism after Otto delivered the thesis, so it's not like Spencer created the idea wholesale.



I've read science editors have an unfair reputation among academic circles as "failed scientists." I'd enjoy the commentary on whatever could be mined from that idea once Pete deserves that diploma.



I'd have preferred it if he hadn't made Peter do things that made the above panel sequence make sense. In his defense, Slott assumed that Spider-Man deserved the job because Pete is a knowledgeable science whiz. There is something to be said for relying on a document to evaluate a person's worth, but that isn't how the law works. We saw with Otto that Slott didn't always consider what he was demonstrating within his comics. I cannot agree with people who say Spencer did not have a reason to address it or that Robbie was mistaken when he fired Peter. I frequently criticize Spencer, but IMO this is one of the author's good choices. He usually did right by Peter and MJ. It's the "others" category that he struggled with. Spider-Man received little more than a finger waggle and an affectionately exasperated "Oh, you~" from the narrative when he could have gotten handcuffs and jail time, and that's cool with me. Nihilism is for villains and anti-heroes. Spider-Man is an optimistic dude, and his narrative should reflect that when it's inflicting reprisals.
****
Hyperintelligent and experienced people are not always the wisest when dealing with people and situations. For example, many scam victims have above-average intelligence or have experience in a related field. They just thought they were too smart to fall for a dumb scam … while falling for a dumb scam that any other person would have seen straight through. So, yeah, to reiterate what I said in the last issue, I'm okay with mistakes, but…
Wells is made this too one-sided. Writing is a balancing act. Authors must strike a good balance between dialogue, thought, and action. An action-heavy scene will go by fast, so they need to balance that out with dialogue and exposition. We need to know why, even if we can probably guess the reasons. Describing things, and talking about what characters think and feel helps strengthen the scenes. Including relevant memories, and back story details are a good idea, but they need to be used to establish information that may be vital to understanding the scene or scenes that are coming… Hopefully, there will be a purpose.
The mystery box sheds necessary structure, and Wells doesn't refill the cracks to clarify anything else. The author has the villain lie to the audience about his motivations. This is usually fine, but not when the author asks us to rely exclusively on the dialogue to give us an idea of where the plot is headed. Slott is a controversial figure among fans, but he still explained why Peter was entangled in some plight (even if we disagreed with him). When Tombstone defeated and captured Spider-Man, I debated with other fans who had sensible opinions for why they were against it. The writing may have been lacking, but I found the results credible. Wells doesn't quit there. Peter can't escape his bonds and isn't jimmying the lock. This highlights that Tombstone has our hero conquered. Then the villain aggresses the tar out of the protagonist when he's helpless. Fine, says I, I'm displeased that Wells is making the man beg for the lives of Tombstone's targets like… that, but there might be a proper justification, and Peter can still escape, right? Right??? *dissappointed sigh* Tombstone successfully lies to Peter, so he calls Randy in alarm. This means the two pals will be having a conversation on overactive imaginations, at the least. That's another score for Tombstone. Then Peter discovers he wasn't where he had been told he was and has avenged the destruction of Tombstone's home for him.

Any of this is fine if taken individually, in a pick-two combination, or if we captured Peter and split these losses up among the rest of the spider "family". There should be narrative reasons for more than one hero team beyond just employing the franchise to make more money, after all. It permits villains to look like credible threats without incurring the audience's wrath. Batman books do it all the time, and this is the wrong time to forget that New York has a friendly neighborhood Spider infestation or justify why they're not supporting him. Putting Peter through a team's worth of loss is not sporting. Rn Peter has undergone a surfeit of defeats (not merely by Tombstone), so the readers feel the unbalance. Readers' reactions are already confused to enraged because of the MJ situation. I disagree with the assessment that the title has become "The Terrific Tombstone" because evildoers always briefly take over a plot when they're used. The current antagonist's story is more straightforward because he doesn't have mystery box gift wrapping encased all over the plot threads, so it's easier to follow. Peter is still the protagonist that weaves together everyone both in and out of the story. It's just…become a drag. The Mystery Box is exhaustingly incoherent. Observing a hero get whipped while he's down? It's not fun. Being lied to when context clues are among the only things allowing them to follow a disjointed plot? Even less so. Maintaining balance is crucial to preserving investment and when that fails its difficult to care about the story at all

A long read, but very enlightening and well-thought.

[Lunala]

A long read, but very enlightening and well-thought.

Thanks! *embarrassed laugh* Sometimes, I err towards loquaciousness.

[Matt Rat]

We have supposed leaks for next week

spoilers:

Peter is evicted, Aunt May tells him she's moving out of the city and does not want Peter to talk to her anymore, there is no plot advancement on MJ

end of spoilers

[hoth82]

We have supposed leaks for next week

spoilers:

Peter is evicted, Aunt May tells him she's moving out of the city and does not want Peter to talk to her anymore, there is no plot advancement on MJ

end of spoilers

Sounds like fun.