Preview: Jackpot #1

[SplinteringHeart]

That approach to debate is what people have a problem with. They post specifics in the writing/execution that they criticize. It seems your only response is to attack the person, not the argument, which is classic ad hominem attacks and is generally, in formal debate and internet forum etiquette, considered poor form.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/reso...d-hominem.html

Stop telling people they are prejudiced, "downers," etc. and respond with examples of why you think the execution is good (in the same way the detractors give examples of why they think it is bad) and you might have a different reception to your arugments.

You can't debate with a wall of negativity based on an entrenched view to start with..any attempt of suggesting a positive perspective gets the reception of being driven down as has been shown on this thread...I'm entitled to call it how I see it, without putting up something to be shot down...if and when I can be bothered to take any flak..

[Frontier]

The Amazing MJ did pretty well on it's own and if there wasn't a pandemic is could have finished out with a second arc

It deserved too.

Leah wrote a lot better MJ than Bronfman has so far. I think the only time I really liked her MJ was the first backup with crazy Aunt Anna.

[fjmac]

I know what you're saying about buying this book helping to normalise the status quo, but bad or good this is just an appearance by MJ and I was prepared to be open minded about and take any positive I could see...

Oh no, I did not mean that. I was referring to the book itself in the way it sets the story. Listen, we all buy the books we want to buy, and for our own reasons. Follow a creator, follow a character, just to check it out. And yes, the healthy thing is to always approach it with an open mind. I think if we all were a bit less disingenuous (not comic fans, it's just part of human nature), we could grab a book we find atrocious, listen to somebody who liked it and go "yeah, I see where you're coming from". We are not going to be compromising our ideas just because we allow ourselves to listen to other people.

I understand your frustration. I believe there was some amount of discussion about the merits of the book, but it did get mired into the MJ situation. For what it's worth, I believe Celeste's decision to go for a somewhat campy tone had a lot of potential but it didn't quite land. Also, we have been waiting a long time for a peek at what's going on inside MJ's head, but the self reflection bits on the script did nothing to shed light into where she's at regarding the topics at least I've been wanting two years to find out. And also, I don't think Celeste nailed MJ's personality on those bits. The art was OK, specially the first half, it had a Saturday morning cartoon vibe I personally like and was well executed, but it sort of decayed through the book and felt as if it was getting more and more rushed. And Paul was on it. 'Nuff said.

As certain as death and taxes, every MJ appearance since this run started had come with the hope and/or expectation that it would be the one where Paul is thoroughly disgraced and goes away forever, and that will continue to be the case until some brainiac at Marvel says "hey... how about we get rid of this character everybody hates?"

[Astroman]

I'm entitled to call it how I see it, without putting up something to be shot down...if and when I can be bothered to take any flak..

Not if you are insulting people. Here's from CBR's community standards:

Treat everyone with civility, keep the snark to a minimum, and do not insult other people. We cannot stress that last part enough: DO NOT INSULT OTHER PEOPLE. Engaging in insulting behavior is a bannable offense, and not the kind you come back from. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been here, whether you’re a newb or veteran, it will not be tolerated. Keep the example we mentioned in the Community Standards in mind; if you wouldn’t say it as a guest in someone else’s home, don’t say it here.

Calling people who dislike the book "Downers," "Cynics," or sarcastically speculating on their prejudices etc. is insulting when people take the time to explain their criticisms.

[SplinteringHeart]

Not if you are insulting people. Here's from CBR's community standards:



Calling people who dislike the book "Downers," "Cynics," or sarcastically speculating on their prejudices etc. is insulting when people take the time to explain their criticisms.

I've not used the term Downer or Cynics...some sarcasm yes....go ahead, ask someone on here if I've insulted them or sarcasm has hurt them (have I been insulted, suffered by sarcasm aimed at me?)..or can we take each others contrary views/perspectives/comments ultimately.

I've not said anything I wouldn't say as a guest in someone's home..

[SplinteringHeart]

Oh no, I did not mean that. I was referring to the book itself in the way it sets the story. Listen, we all buy the books we want to buy, and for our own reasons. Follow a creator, follow a character, just to check it out. And yes, the healthy thing is to always approach it with an open mind. I think if we all were a bit less disingenuous (not comic fans, it's just part of human nature), we could grab a book we find atrocious, listen to somebody who liked it and go "yeah, I see where you're coming from". We are not going to be compromising our ideas just because we allow ourselves to listen to other people.

I understand your frustration. I believe there was some amount of discussion about the merits of the book, but it did get mired into the MJ situation. For what it's worth, I believe Celeste's decision to go for a somewhat campy tone had a lot of potential but it didn't quite land. Also, we have been waiting a long time for a peek at what's going on inside MJ's head, but the self reflection bits on the script did nothing to shed light into where she's at regarding the topics at least I've been wanting two years to find out. And also, I don't think Celeste nailed MJ's personality on those bits. The art was OK, specially the first half, it had a Saturday morning cartoon vibe I personally like and was well executed, but it sort of decayed through the book and felt as if it was getting more and more rushed. And Paul was on it. 'Nuff said.

As certain as death and taxes, every MJ appearance since this run started had come with the hope and/or expectation that it would be the one where Paul is thoroughly disgraced and goes away forever, and that will continue to be the case until some brainiac at Marvel says "hey... how about we get rid of this character everybody hates?"

Lovely post fjmac...thank you, cheers for now.

[fjmac]

I think we would all benefit by taking it a bit more easy.

There's been a lot of snark. Snark is tempting. Lord, is it tempting. It's always simmering right at the tip of my fingers, ready for me to let it out and make myself feel clever. But let's take a step back. What's done is done. Would it kill us to try and see where the other guy is coming from?

I hate this ASM run with a passion. I find both its content and the attitude exuding from writer and editorial nothing short of repugnant. I think it permeates into any other book that comes out of or adjacent to it and pollutes them. But I can read a legit positive critic about it (not the snarky ones from the usual five or six repeat offenders here) and do an effort to see how what didn't work for me did work for them. It's not even a big effort. Think about SplinteringHeart here. Yep, he got a bit snarky here and there, but he has been trying for days to get people to discuss a book he's interested in discussing on a thread that one would think is the place to discuss it.

As per previous messages, I do understand that, for good or bad, this book comes carrying a baggage orders of magnitude bigger than itself. The quagmire was inevitable. But hey, if a guy want's to talk specifically about the book, maybe the options are to oblige or to leave him be. I explained the reasons why I didn't like this book, and they were not entirely disconnected from the baggage it carried, but I did what I could.

It's like replying "But Paul is a mass murderer!" at anything. Come on. All we know is that he helped his father with something that turned out to be a mass-murdering ritual, experiment, or whatever. For all we know, the extent of Paul's participation on it was helping install Linux on some computers. Paul sucks because Paul sucks. Because he shouldn't exist. He is shady as ****, two dimensional, insufferable, and we get hints that he might be banging a woman who is leaps and bounds out of his league and who happens to be a character we all love and would like to see do better. And because Lowe and Wells have taken it to use it to taunt us.

I don't mean to tell anybody what to do, this is just my take in the state of the discussion.

[Coop]

I mean, no one is twisting their arm into debating. Instead of quote replying to people criticizing the book, reply to the one or two people discussing it in the way they prefer.

It's very easy to just scroll past replies. There are people online I know I won't reply to even if they quote my post.

[MisterTorgo]

The Amazing MJ did pretty well on it's own and if there wasn't a pandemic is could have finished out with a second arc

Now that is a book I'd sell my soul to Mephisto to get back.

[Astroman]

Now that is a book I'd sell my soul to Mephisto to get back.

That was a great book. So much fun.

[Frontier]

I still want to know what was going to happen in Montana .

[Garlador]

You can't debate with a wall of negativity based on an entrenched view to start with..any attempt of suggesting a positive perspective gets the reception of being driven down as has been shown on this thread...I'm entitled to call it how I see it, without putting up something to be shot down...if and when I can be bothered to take any flak..

Every story has a bias attached to it, but I'm going to call this out because I try my hardest to objectively view every story - particularly one from a different author - on its own terms with a fresh pair of eyes. I actively root for EVERY book to succeed, and nothing would make me happier than Jackpot being great or even Wells & Lowe turning things around on ASM. Truly.

But I judge the content for what it is, and in this case there's just far too many inconsistencies, missed opportunities, and external factors holding the book back for me to like it. I'll be one of the first to defend Bronfman - especially after listening to her podcast interview the other day - and I would love to see her work on something with a strong foundation rather than a status quo and dynamic that's already proven unpopular and set up to fail. If the goal of the story was to sell me on the concept of Mary Jane as "Jackpot", it failed to do so, I'm sorry to say, and I'm someone who would have actively enjoyed a superpowered Mary Jane book under different circumstances.

So I'm sorry if you feel there is a "wall of negativity", but in many cases what you're dealing with is simply general consensus. You don't have to even agree with it. A mark of maturity is knowing you like something many others dislike. I'll be the first to say that I'm a major fan of the Castlevania 64 titles, despite their bad reputation, and most of my favorite superheroes rarely are on anyone's top 10 favorites lists.

The best solution is to simply not engage with the negativity, because these readers - like myself - have many legitimate complaints and are happy to express them and back them up with examples and facts, and that doesn't matter to your overall feelings. Something can be factually incorrect and you can still like it. So my advice is to just not engage and respond to those that want to talk up its more positive elements. The "wall of negativity" is just something that you'll have to accept as the prevailing response among this specific section of the internet.

[Huntsman Spider]

I still want to know what was going to happen in Montana .

She would have been in witness protection due to witnessing a murder or something like that, if I remember right.

[SplinteringHeart]

The best solution is to simply not engage with the negativity, because these readers - like myself - have many legitimate complaints and are happy to express them and back them up with examples and facts, and that doesn't matter to your overall feelings. Something can be factually incorrect and you can still like it. So my advice is to just not engage and respond to those that want to talk up its more positive elements. The "wall of negativity" is just something that you'll have to accept as the prevailing response among this specific section of the internet.

It's interesting the bit of my post you've responded to, because it seems you're reinforcing it.

What I've left quoted from your response sounds very much like you're telling me that if I can't go along with the consensus you mention, I'm not part of the same club, and I should, ever so politely, piss off...

[Garlador]

It's interesting the bit of my post you've responded to, because it seems you're reinforcing it.

What I've left quoted from your response sounds very much like you're telling me that if I can't go along with the consensus you mention, I'm not part of the same club, and I should, ever so politely, piss off...

No. That's your decision to read into it that way.

As I mentioned, I don't engage with overtly negative critique of things I love, chiefly when argued in bad faith. It's pointless for me to push back against every soul that dislikes the MCU She-Hulk or that insists that all the new Star Wars shows suck. So I don't.

But just as often, because I do love something, I often do critique even the most acclaimed releases because I know there's always room for improvement and I do want a brighter future for the properties I love. Blind love is just as wasteful as aimless hate.