New Goblin to be born in ‘Amazing Spider-Man’ #51 and #52

[wleakr]

OMG, you really think that the "most shocking issue in fifty years" wouldn't be thought-provoking meaning "deep"? Sorry, I can no longer take your arguments seriously.

It has been fun.

If you are the type to take that type of marketing to heart, you are exactly who they are marketing towards.

Sorry, I do not take that seriously AT ALL.

The goal of a solicit is to get you to buy the book. Whether it's with an enticing cover or clever wording or both, but that's the goal. The cover does not need to depict what occurs inside the pages and neither do the words.

"Oh, if you weren't shocked enough by what happened last issue, wait until you see THIS ONE!! YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE YOUR EYES!!"

[Lee]

There are art house movies and there are popcorn movies. It's the same with plays, novels, audio dramas and comics. Marvel super-hero comics are almost always designed to be "popcorn" comics, even when there's A Very Special Issue about how drugs are bad.

[Celgress]

If you are the type to take that type of marketing to heart, you are exactly who they are marketing towards.

Sorry, I do not take that seriously AT ALL.

The goal of a solicit is to get you to buy the book. Whether it's with an enticing cover or clever wording or both, but that's the goal. The cover does not need to depict what occurs inside the pages and neither do the words.

"Oh, if you weren't shocked enough by what happened last issue, wait until you see THIS ONE!! YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE YOUR EYES!!"

So, fraud is okay in marketing?

And no, of course, I did not take it seriously. But what if I had? They still defrauded the public by printing those ads it is cut & dry. They did not use "shocking" or "must read" they used "the most shocking issue in fifty years!" which it most certainly was not.

PS To everyone else, sorry I had to reply to this because it was so egregious.

[Mercwmouth12]

There are art house movies and there are popcorn movies. It's the same with plays, novels, audio dramas and comics. Marvel super-hero comics are almost always designed to be "popcorn" comics, even when there's A Very Special Issue about how drugs are bad.

The problem is that "these" people who call themselves fans are too attached to fictional characters. NO one one is paying them to care, but should let go for enjoyment at a later date when it's enjoyable for them at that time. Whenever it happens. 30-90 years from now if it ever does happen

[Lee]

So, fraud is okay in marketing?

And no, of course, I did not take it seriously. But what if I had? They still defrauded the public by printing those ads it is cut & dry. They did not use "shocking" or "must read" they used "the most shocking issue in fifty years!" which it most certainly was not.

PS To everyone else, sorry I had to reply to this because it was so egregious.

That's not what fraud is.

[jsg2295]

“Most shocking issue in 50 years”…if it’s more shocking than reading that Norman had a relationship with Gwen Stacy and she had twins that were hunting Spidey….then I will shake their hand.
Note…I didn’t write good…I wrote shocking.

[Vegan]

Probably a bad sign when even people who defend this run are like “it’s fine that these have the depth of a drained kiddie pool. They’re just silly little popcorn comics with nothing beyond that to them.”
Expect and, in fact, demand a little more in your art

[Lee]

If I want to watch a deep movie, I don't put on a super-hero flick. If I want to read a deep comic, I don't pick up Spider-Man. Spider-Man has never been high brow.

[wleakr]

Probably a bad sign when even people who defend this run are like “it’s fine that these have the depth of a drained kiddie pool. They’re just silly little popcorn comics with nothing beyond that to them.”
Expect and, in fact, demand a little more in your art

No need to defend. I enjoy the book because I find it entertaining.

That, at least to me, is easy to understand.

It's more challenging for folks to defend why you follow a book you dislike or don't find entertaining.

Do you notice how commenters will utilize certain phrases like "depth of a drained kiddie pool" or "silly little popcorn comics" to express themselves?

Isn't it easier to just say you're not happy with the book and go find a book you do like?

But that might be a bad sign if one did that.

[Vegan]

If I want to watch a deep movie, I don't put on a super-hero flick. If I want to read a deep comic, I don't pick up Spider-Man. Spider-Man has never been high brow.

Maybe it’s never been “high brow”, but it’s been higher brow than this by a massive margin in the past. Asking for that again is completely reasonable. Maybe it’s always been popcorn, but that popcorn used to have a bit more nutritional value

[Vegan]

No need to defend. I enjoy the book because I find it entertaining.

That, at least to me, is easy to understand.

It's more challenging for folks to defend why you follow a book you dislike or don't find entertaining.

Do you notice how commenters will utilize certain phrases like "depth of a drained kiddie pool" or "silly little popcorn comics" to express themselves?

Isn't it easier to just say you're not happy with the book and go find a book you do like?

But that might be a bad sign if one did that.

I read plenty of books I do like. Would love for this one to be one of them again because Spider-Man is one of my favorite fictional characters. Pretty bizarre to act like it’s strange to want a book starring him to be actually good

[wleakr]

Maybe it’s never been “high brow”, but it’s been higher brow than this by a massive margin in the past. Asking for that again is completely reasonable. Maybe it’s always been popcorn, but that popcorn used to have a bit more nutritional value

I'm gonna let you have that one, bro!

It actually may be true, that at some point, popcorn did have some nutritional value! I'm too lazy to look it up, but if the Vegan says it, it's good enough for me!

[Garlador]

There are art house movies and there are popcorn movies. It's the same with plays, novels, audio dramas and comics. Marvel super-hero comics are almost always designed to be "popcorn" comics, even when there's A Very Special Issue about how drugs are bad.

If I want to watch a deep movie, I don't put on a super-hero flick. If I want to read a deep comic, I don't pick up Spider-Man. Spider-Man has never been high brow.

The very first issue of Spider-Man involves a young boy suffering a catastrophic tragedy due to his own selfish behavior and the moralizing that "with great power there must also come great responsibility". The very foundation of Spider-Man is based on messaging, moralizing, and greater depth than the average comic, with a life lesson that is meant to be learned and applied beyond the printed page.

We're working with a sliding scale of depth here. In the realm of comics, we have ridiculous, breezier fare like Deadpool and Squirrel Girl, and then we have more serious, grounded, and thematic stories that tackle more adult themes and consequences. The regressive take that Marvel superhero comics are designed as mere "popcorn" stories is a discredit to the many mature storylines penned and printed, as well as the many adult-only tailored comics Marvel has produced over the years tackling legitimate high-concept themes and situations. Few would argue that Spider-Man is going to be held as the narrative equivalent of George Orwell or Ray Bradbury, but even the editors of this run are throwing out stuff like "Doctor Zhivago" as supposed influences and inspiration for their decisions (though I would dispute their understanding of that novel).

So, no, Spider-Man isn't the deepest ocean out there, but I could burn hours recounting the excessive number of stories with soul and depth that are far more than occasional "A Very Special Issue" fare. I'd even argue that Spider-Man, more than almost any other superhero, has been at the forefront of challenging the norms of this kind of shallow storytelling by being at the forefront of consequence-laden narratives.

If Spider-Man debuted and was written exclusively as shallow "popcorn" fare, he never would have endured these many long years, and individuals (like the majority on this board) would not be nearly as invested in who these people are and the direction their lives are going.

It's more challenging for folks to defend why you follow a book you dislike or don't find entertaining.

Do you notice how commenters will utilize certain phrases like "depth of a drained kiddie pool" or "silly little popcorn comics" to express themselves?

Isn't it easier to just say you're not happy with the book and go find a book you do like?

But that might be a bad sign if one did that.

I've never had a problem or any difficulty defending why I follow a book I dislike and find frustrating. The answer is simple: because the book made me care about what happens under the pen of amazing writers over the course of decades of interesting, character-driven stories. Why would I not care? Spider-Man is the most popular Marvel superhero largely because the foundation of that character and his journey brought millions of people on-board with him. We watched him grow up, graduate, get a job, struggle to earn a living, fall in love, grieve losses, overcoming setbacks, find purpose, get married, plan out a family and a future... all over the span of decades, iterations of lore and history building upon itself into a fascinating tapestry of a hero unlike any other.

It's harder finding people who followed along that far who aren't interested in seeing where writers take him next, and it's fully understandable readers that have invested that much would want to check in on him and root for his success.

And, yes, I am not happy with the book, thus I dropped it and sought out better books, and I'm finding much more joy in countless other comics. My time and money is mostly spent reading USM, Nightwing, The Flash, Moon Knight, TMNT, etc.

...But that doesn't mean I don't check in on one of my dear ol' friends from time to time to see if he's made any permanent progress in the last 16+ years. He used to, and I would absolutely love the excuse to support a book like that again.

[Daibhidh]

If I want to watch a deep movie, I don't put on a super-hero flick. If I want to read a deep comic, I don't pick up Spider-Man. Spider-Man has never been high brow.

A friend of mine, an academic watched the Ruth Bader Ginsburg biopic and Captain Marvel in quick succession when they came out. She noted that they both have similar themes and singled out the scene where RBG nails the condescending male mentor who tells her to rise above her emotions with a photon blast.
Low-brow and deep are not opposites. Low-brow marks genre and style, not depth. Hamlet was low-brow when Shakespeare wrote it.

[Vegan]

Man, I would feel depressed if I were a comic writer or artist and saw my work defended this way. “They’re just popcorn with no depth, and I love that about them,”
“Oh, uh t-thanks :/“