Preview: Jackpot #1

[Tuck]

well prior to his origin that was the case people tried their hardest to villainy the character saying hes an abuser or he gay anything to make it seem that Mj wasnt there by force

Audiences have been long trained to dislike the interloper keeping the romantic leads apart. It's an old old formula.

Marvel may not have anticipated how vehement audience rejection of Paul would be; but if the story working is predicated on an audience reaction other than dislike of Paul, it's authorial malpractice.

[Hurricane Billy]

Audiences have been long trained to dislike the interloper keeping the romantic leads apart. It's an old old formula.

Marvel may not have anticipated how vehement audience rejection of Paul would be; but if the story working is predicated on an audience reaction other than dislike of Paul, it's authorial malpractice.

Considering that the Editorial have tried to defend Paul being a participant in a planetary genocide and have tried to have MJ argue to both Peter and the readers that it's even remotely in the same ballpark as what happened with Uncle Ben, I think authorial malpractice is a very likely scenario here.

[IamnotJudasTraveller]

It's been... 2 years, if I'm not being myself and sucking at math, that we've been introduced to Paul and only now his barest bits of personality are starting to come out.
Definitely not your traditional approach, but I'd be hard pressed to say this would be any sort of trail blazing anytime soon whatsoever, either!

[Tuck]

Considering that the Editorial have tried to defend Paul being a participant in a planetary genocide and have tried to have MJ argue to both Peter and the readers that it's even remotely in the same ballpark as what happened with Uncle Ben, I think authorial malpractice is a very likely scenario here.

I wouldn't assume that. When creatives are defending against criticisms of an ongoing story, they have to play it close to the vest, and they want to maintain some tension and secrets so the story can unfold - and hopefully work - as it it intended.

Slott told people Peter was gone for good during Superior. (It's just that that claim was clearly untrue, whereas defenses of Paul as stated could be legitimate . . . but I doubt it.)

[Frontier]

Audiences have been long trained to dislike the interloper keeping the romantic leads apart. It's an old old formula.

Marvel may not have anticipated how vehement audience rejection of Paul would be; but if the story working is predicated on an audience reaction other than dislike of Paul, it's authorial malpractice.

Then why are they sticking him with a character we actually like?

[Majesty]

Gonna be judging issue to issue. Calling this the starting point of this one.





Gonna say. This is what they should have done more of from the get go. Show Paul and MJ and their chemistry and let Paul's personality when he's not in war shine a bit. Starts off on a better foot.

However as I expected, she's doing well with the writing in this and gave more nuance and care to the kids and what they meant to MJ in the preview, and now is fleshing out MJ and Paul's dynamic a bit.

Thus far, I like the approaches she's taking with this. We'll see how it continues to translate.

Also gonna go out on a limb and say, I love this shot of MJ in action vs Electro



Really loving the art style here.

[Hurricane Billy]

I wouldn't assume that. When creatives are defending against criticisms of an ongoing story, they have to play it close to the vest, and they want to maintain some tension and secrets so the story can unfold - and hopefully work - as it it intended.

Slott told people Peter was gone for good during Superior. (It's just that that claim was clearly untrue, whereas defenses of Paul as stated could be legitimate . . . but I doubt it.)

Oh I don't doubt that they have to defend those choices! It's part of the job, I completely get it. Heck, I actually said as much last night in another post.

But the detail that stands out like a sore thumb to me with Paul is that it's entirely self-inflicted on their part. There's nothing about the character as we see him that fundamentally required him to be either Rabin's son or a participant in that genocide. He could have just as easily been a random guy who got insanely lucky and left it implied that maybe there were small pockets of survivors located across the globe, but given the circumstances, he was the only one that Peter or MJ would have ever realistically run into in the time there.

But instead, they actively opted to include that Paul was partly at fault for what happened in that other world and... that's it. We're told he's "really guilty" about it, but never once see any genuine shred of remorse or traumatic anxiety plaguing him for even being an unwitting participant in such a horrific act. My love of Peter and MJ's relationship aside, Paul could have been written in a manner that made him at least more interesting to read and follow as a character with the backstory given, had they only actually bothered to write him with the far too obvious personality traits that would come along with someone who was duped into helping cause the annihilation of an entire planet's population. Instead, because of what I'm fairly sure has to have been the product of laziness on their part, Paul comes off as a liar who was aware of what he was participating in or a sociopath.

That's the authorial malpractice. It's all self-inflicted on their part and, while it's part of their job to defend their work as its being released, I think it's laughable for anyone to expect readers to just accept and go along with that defense.

Gonna be judging issue to issue. Calling this the starting point of this one.





Gonna say. This is what they should have done more of from the get go. Show Paul and MJ and their chemistry and let Paul's personality when he's not in war shine a bit. Starts off on a better foot.

However as I expected, she's doing well with the writing in this and gave more nuance and care to the kids and what they meant to MJ in the preview, and now is fleshing out MJ and Paul's dynamic a bit.

Thus far, I like the approaches she's taking with this. We'll see how it continues to translate.

Again, if Paul were genuinely just an ordinary guy or at least a survivor from that other dimension who had no involvement with the genocide that wiped out its population, this would be acceptable. Not enjoyable for me and a lot of other fans who prefer MJ and Peter together, but at least acceptable.

Instead, this is a man who the editorial has established was someone who helped cause the destruction of an entire planet's population- supposedly unwittingly. And he's acting like everything's generally pretty fine and dandy, and that the only real source of drama in his life is the loss of the two imaginary kids he and MJ were taking care of.

[Tuck]

Well, the overarching arc of the run is essentially high concept melodrama, which doesn't tend to be overly concerned with characterization. (Which can work for an isolated story, but I find generally unappealing in an ongoing, serialized story.)

[Hurricane Billy]

Well, the overarching arc of the run is essentially high concept melodrama, which doesn't tend to be overly concerned with characterization. (Which can work for an isolated story, but I find generally unappealing in an ongoing, serialized story.)

True, but again- maybe don't make the bizarre creative decision to go absurdly beyond the pale and have the guy who everyone knows exists purely as a plot device to instigate said-melodrama between the protagonist and his ongoing main love interest in the ongoing, serialized story be responsible for a planetary genocide. You can just as easily have him be a lone survivor of that tragedy or at most the son who had nothing at all to do with his supervillain father's actions that caused said-genocide if the desire to marry together melodrama with high concept sci-fi and action is so strong.

[Tuck]

I think there's a gap between what they're trying to do narratively and their execution. And maybe a bit of misjudging how readers would interpret it.

I'm speculating, but I think maybe Paul's story is supposed to come off as sympathetic and tragic. (It clearly isn't . . . at least for a lot of fans.)

[Hurricane Billy]

I think there's a gap between what they're trying to do narratively and their execution. And maybe a bit of misjudging how readers would interpret it.

I'm speculating, but I think maybe Paul's story is supposed to come off as sympathetic and tragic. (It clearly isn't . . . at least for a lot of fans.)

Oh I absolutely think that was supposed to be the intent. Again, I get it and why they're trying to defend it. But the fact is that they were the ones who thought for some odd reason to take it a few steps beyond the spot where Paul's plight would genuinely be sympathetic and tragic for anyone reading and instead implicated him as a participant of one of the most horrific deeds conceivable. And after they went there, they just continued to write Paul the same as ever and wind up reinforcing a completely unintended mental picture of who readers perceive Paul to be as a character. And it all just comes across as lazy.

Would I still want Paul and MJ to break up if they bothered to really showcase and explore him being traumatized and wrecked with guilt for having ever been duped into helping commit such an atrocity by his father? Yes, but I also wouldn't begrudge the man the way I do currently and would just hope he gets to either quietly leave the book after the inevitable breakup happens to find personal peace or keep him around as a supporting cast member post-breakup and explore his journey afterwards. Instead, I just want him gone.

[Frontier]

I mean, the only reason to care about Paul and the kids is because MJ cared about them, but without that emotional investment or explanation for why (since she was inexplicably stuck with both) it's hard to really care as the audience, especially with the haphazard execution. The same is true for MJ becoming a Superhero.

Everything just feels so contrived, artificial, and forced.

[TinkerSpider]

However as I expected, she's doing well with the writing in this and gave more nuance and care to the kids and what they meant to MJ in the preview, and now is fleshing out MJ and Paul's dynamic a bit.

Yeah, it's awesome when a woman is forcibly taken from her home against her will; trapped in a hellish dimension with four years of her life stolen from her; cursed to care for kids who are just magical simulcrum and never were actual human beings but chains to keep the woman bound; is depicted in some sort of trauma bond relationship with the only other adult in that world on whom she is forced to rely if she wants to survive - which is all sorts of squickly power imbalance and removes any and all choice she has - and that man turns out to be a liar who can't keep his story straight but is then revealed to have just following his dad's orders and committed planetary genocide!!; then the woman is STILL passive and doesn't even choose to be a superhero but has the nonsense random device and costume thrust on her...

... and then the woman is just peachy keen with having had all that done to her and mourns the removal of her chains, played straight.

Super awesome writing. Not problematic in the least. /sarcasm, in case that wasn't clear.

Also gonna go out on a limb and say, I love this shot of MJ in action vs Shocker

That's Francine Frye as Electro.

As in a supervillain MJ already defeated with her personality and brains, she didn't need a random power bracelet made by a genocidal liar. Of all the illogical choices to make for a Chamberpot villain, using Francine's Electro is way up there because it automatically invites comparison to a much, much better story.

Really loving the art style here.

Too bad this issue is only a one-shot yet it had to a have a fill in artist, looking at the names listed. Wonder why?

[MisterTorgo]

Oh I absolutely think that was supposed to be the intent. Again, I get it and why they're trying to defend it. But the fact is that they were the ones who thought for some odd reason to take it a few steps beyond the spot where Paul's plight would genuinely be sympathetic and tragic for anyone reading and instead implicated him as a participant of one of the most horrific deeds conceivable. And after they went there, they just continued to write Paul the same as ever and wind up reinforcing a completely unintended mental picture of who readers perceive Paul to be as a character. And it all just comes across as lazy.

Would I still want Paul and MJ to break up if they bothered to really showcase and explore him being traumatized and wrecked with guilt for having ever been duped into helping commit such an atrocity by his father? Yes, but I also wouldn't begrudge the man the way I do currently and would just hope he gets to either quietly leave the book after the inevitable breakup happens to find personal peace or keep him around as a supporting cast member post-breakup and explore his journey afterwards. Instead, I just want him gone.

Since they chose to make Paul a participant in genocide, willing or otherwise, and then told us he feels guilty about it, that could have been a believable way to cement their relationship( and I hate to even put this out in the ether, lest it take my nightmare take shape somewhere, but...)---

Mary Jane, before recently, is someone who gives people second chances and tries to lift them up, but doesn't tolerate their BS---she saw right through Mysterio on her movie set but still helped him work on it alongside other villains because she believed they honestly wanted the chance to make art, but she called him out on pretending to be the director immediately, for example. Had they bothered to write more than that one panel of Paul sulking in a room say "I should have told you" (which I don't recall them doing), it could have been a believable way to bring readers (well, more readers, not me) onboard with their marriagexrelationshipxpartnership or whatever it is now. Mary Jane could have been written as helping him work through it and bonding with him, instead of the psyche-out and "chain" of imaginary kids.

[TinkerSpider]

Since they chose to make Paul a participant in genocide, willing or otherwise, and then told us he feels guilty about it, that could have been a believable way to cement their relationship( and I hate to even put this out in the ether, lest it take my nightmare take shape somewhere, but...)---

Mary Jane, before recently, is someone who gives people second chances and tries to lift them up, but doesn't tolerate their BS---she saw right through Mysterio on her movie set but still helped him work on it alongside other villains because she believed they honestly wanted the chance to make art, but she called him out on pretending to be the director immediately, for example. Had they bothered to write more than that one panel of Paul sulking in a room say "I should have told you" (which I don't recall them doing), it could have been a believable way to bring readers (well, more readers, not me) onboard with their marriagexrelationshipxpartnership or whatever it is now. Mary Jane could have been written as helping him work through it and bonding with him, instead of the psyche-out and "chain" of imaginary kids.

There is no "working through" genocide, IMO.

People really should read Hannah Arendt, if they haven't already. It was required reading at my high school.

Which is why of all the many inexplicable story choices made in this run, that ones takes the cake. Who gives "aiding and abetting genocide" to a character's backstory and then expects that to make the character sympathetic?!?! Having MJ compare Paul feeling bad he helped to murder an entire world - billions of lives, with a modern New York destroyed by Rabin depicted on the page - to Peter feeling guilty over letting the burglar go, and that scene is played straight, to indicate she's being sincere and speaking of her volition, is one of the worst lines of dialogue ever put into a character's mouth.