Preview: Jackpot #1

[wleakr]

It didn't look like.

This reviewer seems ok with the book.

https://www.cbr.com/jackpot-1-review...checking%20out.

[TinkerSpider]

This reviewer seems ok with the book.

https://www.cbr.com/jackpot-1-review...checking%20out.

Everyone is allowed exceptions to the rule, especially a late review that is tepid at best considering the source is usually much more enthusiastic.

The aggregate score on League of Comic Geeks is 2.4/5 from 185 users.

It has an aggregate score of 5.5/10 from critics on Comicbook Round Up and 3.8/10 from users.

The funny thing? The "anti-woke" crowd hates this book: https://youtu.be/kMpiLI3zeWY?si=1R_5dA0xjL3bjtBD

But the other side hates it, too: https://youtu.be/XDZsJQO--jk?si=RaP0t7UJT6mGNpgy

[Konnik92]

This reviewer seems ok with the book.

https://www.cbr.com/jackpot-1-review...checking%20out.

Yeah and later they wrote this passive-agressive article how it's not actually good:
https://www.cbr.com/mary-jane-natura...ackpot-is-not/
This is all about going with the flow and getting clicks.

[Frontier]

With how the short stories like in the ASM annual and ASM#31, as well as the Jackpot one-shot went, I have to disagree. She herself doesn't know the character very well, she even admitted that she "didn't follow the story in ASM and needs to do more research on her". Most of her work was in IDW's "My Little Pony" and it looks like she doesn't have any experience with superhero comics. Make no mistake - this wasn' the readhead MJ we know and love, but some "ginger with no soul".

I feel like this was one of the biggest issues of the comic. There just wasn't anything uniquely MJ to it.

[Konnik92]

I feel like this was one of the biggest issues of the comic. There just wasn't anything uniquely MJ to it.

It was more focused on the costume and the powers than the person who uses them IMO. Again, that was a completely different person.

[wleakr]

Yeah and later they wrote this passive-agressive article how it's not actually good:
https://www.cbr.com/mary-jane-natura...ackpot-is-not/
This is all about going with the flow and getting clicks.

This is actually a spot-on article!

Also, the author is not saying the book isn't any good. Just that she (as Jackpot) isn't good at superheroics yet. And she shouldn't be.

[Konnik92]

This is actually a spot-on article!

Also, the author is not saying the book isn't any good. Just that she (as Jackpot) isn't good at superheroics yet. And she shouldn't be.

They failed to make the whole Jackpot concept look and work good, thus making the one-shot (and let's be honest, it will be the same for the mini with Felica) not good. But tbh, that concept was a failure at the very start with the current ASM status quo.

[Frontier]

It was more focused on the costume and the powers than the person who uses them IMO. Again, that was a completely different person.

Well, when most of her dialogue is generic hero quips and narration, it definitely didn't help.

[TinkerSpider]

This is actually a spot-on article!

Also, the author is not saying the book isn't any good. Just that she (as Jackpot) isn't good at superheroics yet. And she shouldn't be.

Absolutely no article that contains the sentences:

“Or rather, it would be an ingenious trap if Mary Jane's terrible acting hadn't clued the villain in before she could fall for it. While this misstep isn't any great surprise considering how new Mary Jane is to the world of superheroics”

can be considered “spot on” in any known universe. Those sentences shows an appalling lack of baseline understanding of the character of Mary Jane, and demonstrate zero knowledge of the character’s history, much less knowledge of the last time MJ and Francine Frye met before this story. Just like the comic itself.

[wleakr]

Absolutely no article that contains the sentences:

“Or rather, it would be an ingenious trap if Mary Jane's terrible acting hadn't clued the villain in before she could fall for it. While this misstep isn't any great surprise considering how new Mary Jane is to the world of superheroics”

can be considered “spot on” in any known universe. Those sentences shows an appalling lack of baseline understanding of the character of Mary Jane, and demonstrate zero knowledge of the character’s history, much less knowledge of the last time MJ and Francine Frye met before this story. Just like the comic itself.

History in comics? The same medium where they retcon, revamp, redo, re-tell, insert, revise, etc? That medium?

You are right, but history hasn't stopped anyone from telling the story they wanted to tell...

[TinkerSpider]

History in comics? The same medium where they retcon, revamp, redo, re-tell, insert, revise, etc? That medium?

You are right, but history hasn't stopped anyone from telling the story they wanted to tell...

And readers are free to call out bad writing, writing out of character and writing out of continuity. That’s precisely the reaction Jackpot is receiving. See the scores in a post above. Watch the video reviews.

If one doesn’t appreciate the conventions of serial storytelling, then IMO one should not be writing mainstream superhero comic books. :shrug

Nothing is stopping them from writing their own original stories, either. Just saying. No one is forced to work in a serial continuity.