Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 410111213141516 LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 232
  1. #196
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    451

    Default

    According to Bleeding Cool, RYV#1 came in at number four in the best seller list for this week. The other top spots were taken by Star Wars and the main Secret Wars book.

    Here's what they said about the issue

    Renew Your Vows was our highest charting Secret Wars #1 by far but Spider-books always do really well for us. Had a few people lamenting the end of Superior Iron Man.

  2. #197
    Mighty Member Vortex85's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loose Threads View Post
    According to Bleeding Cool, RYV#1 came in at number four in the best seller list for this week. The other top spots were taken by Star Wars and the main Secret Wars book.

    Here's what they said about the issue
    Hm, good, not great. It's obviously been too long since MJ's been featured in the books or movies for her to have any big fan hype behind her. Now, if TASM movies would have featured MJ in addition to Gwen, sales could have been huge... of course depending on who was playing MJ and how well she was portrayed. Dunst was a really bad MJ and horrible for her from a general audience perspective. All I see online these day is how Gwen is better than MJ or people saying how they hate MJ and citing examples from the movies. Sad really, because in the movies a lot of the appeal of MJ in the comics was handed over to Gwen to make her a more compelling character. I hope MJ gets some love in the new movies, but with the focus away from romance, I don't have much hope to see a big MJ revival any time soon.
    Last edited by Vortex85; 06-07-2015 at 05:52 PM.

  3. #198
    Extraordinary Member jackolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I'd imagine the number of Spider-Man fans who have taken lives is pretty low.
    That's another good point. We usually don't get put into positions where a serial killer focuses on us and our family, so we have to go out and kill him.

    Peter could have handled the situation with Venom, if he didn't have to worry about MJ and Annie. He would have lured Venom to the Baxter Building and got Reed to put him in a jar after blasting off the symbiote. Job done. Spidermans reputation still squeeky clean. Once MJ and Annie are "stuck" to Peter, he can't be Spiderman.

    I wonder if that's a social comment on society, and how restrictive families can make you?

    One aspect of the serial killer is, if he focuses on the Detective on his case and threatens the detectives family, what is the killer achieving? If he kills the family, the detective is twice as likely to be revengeful and go harder. Does the killer restrict himself to blackmail then, and not kill the family? That would be much more effective than actually killing family. In Venoms case, Venom could have killed and eaten MJ and Annie long before Pete arrived, but he didn't. Maybe Pete was too hasty in killing Venom?
    Last edited by jackolover; 06-07-2015 at 07:06 PM.

  4. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackolover View Post
    That's another good point. We usually don't get put into positions where a serial killer focuses on us and our family, so we have to go out and kill him.

    Peter could have handled the situation with Venom, if he didn't have to worry about MJ and Annie. He would have lured Venom to the Baxter Building and got Reed to put him in a jar after blasting off the symbiote. Job done. Spidermans reputation still squeeky clean. Once MJ and Annie are "stuck" to Peter, he can't be Spiderman.

    I wonder if that's a social comment on society, and how restrictive families can make you?

    One aspect of the serial killer is, if he focuses on the Detective on his case and threatens the detectives family, what is the killer achieving? If he kills the family, the detective is twice as likely to be revengeful and go harder. Does the killer restrict himself to blackmail then, and not kill the family? That would be much more effective than actually killing family. In Venoms case, Venom could have killed and eaten MJ and Annie long before Pete arrived, but he didn't. Maybe Pete was too hasty in killing Venom?
    In real life (at least in the United States), killers rarely target detectives or the families. For one thing, that really pisses off other detectives.

    Spider-Man wasn't in any shape to lead Venom to the Fantastic Four. And with the Regent killing heroes left and right, that might not have been a viable option. On a side note, I skimmed through the issue again, and the Fantastic Four don't pop up, so that might be kind of set-up.

    I don't think this story is a commentary on how restrictive families can be. Slott just wanted to tell a story in which he can do all the stuff editors would normally veto. This doesn't suggest that one thing is going to lead to the other.

  5. #200
    Extraordinary Member jackolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    In real life (at least in the United States), killers rarely target detectives or the families. For one thing, that really pisses off other detectives.

    Spider-Man wasn't in any shape to lead Venom to the Fantastic Four. And with the Regent killing heroes left and right, that might not have been a viable option. On a side note, I skimmed through the issue again, and the Fantastic Four don't pop up, so that might be kind of set-up.

    I don't think this story is a commentary on how restrictive families can be. Slott just wanted to tell a story in which he can do all the stuff editors would normally veto. This doesn't suggest that one thing is going to lead to the other.
    Yes, my point. There was no reason to kill Venom. Unless you believe Venom is so psychotic that he doesn't reason things out like killers in The United States.

  6. #201
    Spideyparker75
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    On a Star Destroyer over Tatooine
    Posts
    229

    Default

    Picking this up this week. Im looking forward to it.

  7. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackolover View Post
    Yes, my point. There was no reason to kill Venom. Unless you believe Venom is so psychotic that he doesn't reason things out like killers in The United States.
    The rules are different in real life than in comic books. Venom isn't going to like real killers in the United States because he's not real.

  8. #203
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    5,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Comicazzi View Post
    As a parent, if somebody was threatening to eat my kid's brains and said they would never stop trying to do so, I'd off 'em before Uncle Ben could say, "With great power". In my state, I'd be within the law to do so if they were on my property. You go Pete! Also, as a fan of the married days, I loved this ish. Didn't feel to me like they were slamming the marriage as a detriment to Pete's character at all. In fact, I thought his choice to be a father at the end was noble even though he obviously will become Spidey again. I would love it if this Peter, MJ AND daughter were kept for the new Marvel U along with Miles.
    The real world is different than what we see in comic books, for a reason. Comic book heroes are supposed to pick heroic pathways. One of the common aspects of this type of fiction is that you can bend reality around and have the hero avoid doing the immoral thing, but still have the bad guy get his just desserts. Call it "cosmic karma." See ASM #121-122 for an example, or just about any Batman-Joker story.

    I'd argue so far that this story's Peter is more of an anti-hero, due to being willing to kill to save his family. Its classic "end justifies the means" stuff. I'm still hoping there will be consequences for Peter to have done that to Venom, but I am doubtful considering how few consequences there have been to anyone for killing throughout Slott's run.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  9. #204
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    I'd argue so far that this story's Peter is more of an anti-hero, due to being willing to kill to save his family..
    That's not an anti-hero in ANY sense of the word.

  10. #205
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    The real world is different than what we see in comic books, for a reason. Comic book heroes are supposed to pick heroic pathways. One of the common aspects of this type of fiction is that you can bend reality around and have the hero avoid doing the immoral thing, but still have the bad guy get his just desserts. Call it "cosmic karma." See ASM #121-122 for an example, or just about any Batman-Joker story.

    I'd argue so far that this story's Peter is more of an anti-hero, due to being willing to kill to save his family. Its classic "end justifies the means" stuff. I'm still hoping there will be consequences for Peter to have done that to Venom, but I am doubtful considering how few consequences there have been to anyone for killing throughout Slott's run.

    mmm. i don’t think there’s any consistent rule for this anymore. superhero depictions have altered (or fractured) along with society and culture’s. with all the information available to people these days, it’s harder and harder to only buy into a straightforward and earnest depiction of heroics (in the flavour of the 20th century). looking at film and tv, many media commentators are saying that culturally the west is immersed in the age of the “anti-hero (eg. GoT subverting the usual fantasy tropes). the illuminati take in “avengers” seems like a clear example of this (and in some odd way a truer depiction of the original spirit of the avengers).

    similarly, characters are written with “true to life motivation” or “comic book motivations” and behaviour depending on the examples. alan moore was a master at both. that doesn’t just go for heroics either; depictions of interpersonal relationships have also changed as ours have. it’s harder to swallow the princess bride on a regular basis in the tinder age.

    even someone like superman is tugged between the “all star” and “man of steel” (film) depictions. if anything, superhero comics are more fractured and multi-facted than any other sub-genre i can think of. i don’t know if we can argue the old “it’s just superheroes” anymore.

  11. #206
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwangung View Post
    That's not an anti-hero in ANY sense of the word.
    To a ordinary action protagonist, but Peter has too many white knight tropes associated to his character he would be qualified as one. Even they had him kill as Spock despite him not being the real Peter Parker. That really dampens his sacredness as a one of Marvel's purity rings.

  12. #207
    The good kind of noise SpiderOrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackolover View Post
    Yes, my point. There was no reason to kill Venom. Unless you believe Venom is so psychotic that he doesn't reason things out like killers in The United States.
    I'm pretty sure that questions of who lives and who dies change when some nutjob with an alien symbiote and a history of violent behavior compounded by schizophrenic tendencies threatens to eat the brains of your infant child. The very fact that moments after a prison break, the FIRST thing Eddie did was track down MJ and Annie suggests that Peter had no real alternative if he was going to keep them both safe permanently. I still go back to family always being number one for Parker. After failing to stop the crook that killed Uncle Ben, there's no way he's going to 2nd guess taking out Venom if it means the same fate won't befall MJ / Annie.

    I think a good secondary question might be how would we react if it was someone else? Say Carnage, a serial killer? If he walked in and it was Carnage threatening to kill his family, and later he gets the drop on him and kills him, would we be just as likely to question the decision? I know in my own case, I accept him killing Venom as something that had to be done. But with Carnage, I think I'd actually be cheering him on, lol.
    "This. Right here. This is where my life officially jumped the shark." Miles Morales
    "No, that was back on Cowboy world", Ultimate Cartoon Spidey
    ASM Vol 3, #12

  13. #208
    aka "The Watchdog" 8BitRedBeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    589

    Default

    I REALLY liked this book, the staff did a great job. Vulnerability can be anyone's weakness and it was pretty cool seeing the evolution of Peter not only as Spidey but as a husband and father as well. This story had the 90s feel to it and seeing Spidey run on adrenaline during his fight with Venom (because he threatened to eat Annie's brain), it reminded me of the last book in the "If This Be My Destiny" arc where he's thinking of Aunt May and his loved ones to free himself of the rubble. I'm really looking forward to the rest of the series!
    "With great power comes great responsibility."

  14. #209
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
    That can be applied to just about anyone Spider-Man has ever fought.
    Yes. And?

    Sending the message that masked vigilantes don't have a license to kill? That seems like a case that would have to be brought.
    This might work if the person was on his knees and crying and had no powers (hmmmm, where have I heard that before...), but this is a guy who has superpowers and specificly sought out Peter and his family to do them harm. This isn't even a masked vigilante case, it's just that the two men involved have superpowers. He wasn't seeking out Venom to kill him. Then I'd probably agree with you.



    Saying I would do it doesn't make it reasonable. It's a line I'd be willing to cross under certain circumstances, but I have no illusions about what the act is.

    Many people might kill someone who just murdered a family member. Doesn't make it justifiable homicide.
    By itself, no, but it can go towards that rationale. Revenge is typically not allowed, no. But this wasn't revenge. He was dealing with an active threat. And by his own admission he basically couldn't fight anymore. If Venom stood up, he was dead.


    Fact is, I don't think Slott's intention is for us to see it as justified per se, just understandable. We're not supposed to be on board with lethal Spidey.
    On this I agree with you.



    Quote Originally Posted by Loose Threads View Post
    We were'nt supposed to be on board with Superior Spider-Man either...but look at the overwhelmingly positive reception Ock has in the role. Yes, we're always supposed to root for the "flawed yet saintly" Peter at the end of the day, but there's now a whole generation out there that's been saturated with hero vs hero and grey area storytelling for ten+ years now, they crave the take no prisoners approach more
    That's because Slott was never willing to explore the logical consequences of what Ock was doing or explore the shady underbelly of everything he was doing. I mean, SSM#2 happened and that whole plot was treated as some comical endeavor.

    Quote Originally Posted by boots View Post
    well yeah, it's all relative. doesn't really change the point.
    mmm, I think what I'm trying to get at is that while Spider-Man is a product of his time, it doesn't mean he has to continually slide down the scale to the new territories that have been reached.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haquim View Post
    I didn't dislike this issue.
    I believe what we are being told here is that if Peter had to choose between saving his family and not compromising his morals he would choose the former option. Also if he had to choose between being an hero or saving his family he would choose the latter option. This is what happens this issue and I find this explanation believable. Peter has to choose between helping the avengers (good for him he didn't btw) or helping MJ and Annie. Then he had to choose between allowing a murderer who wanted to eat his daughter alive and knew his secret identity to live while risking his family. We see what Peter does and it's believable.

    I love that Peter doesn't kill. I love Peter with MJ. And I love MJ shown as the competent resourceful woman we all know she can be. Yet if Peter would have chosen the avengers over his family I would have been disappointed in him. And if IN THAT SITUATION Peter would have allowed Venom to live I would have questioned his choice.

    That said, it's obvious Peter resents the choices he had to take this issue. He blames himself. And we know in the end he'll find a way to make it work (I hope not having to renounce MJ although I fear that's where we are headed)
    I think I just don't believe he has the self-control to not try and do something and this issue doesn't really change my mind about that. It's not that they couldn't write a story that makes me believe Peter learns a lesson and makes a decision and gains that self-control and balance, it's that this ain't it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loose Threads View Post
    Interviews indicate Peter and MJ's relationship will be allowed to go somewhere in this story. I'm looking at them being rock solid, possibly right through to the bitter end. It would be pointless to do another break-up story with alternate doubles when we've had plenty of that with the post-OMD versions.
    OVER is somewhere.

    Also interviews said Peter was dead forever, etc. etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vortex85 View Post
    Hm, good, not great. It's obviously been too long since MJ's been featured in the books or movies for her to have any big fan hype behind her. Now, if TASM movies would have featured MJ in addition to Gwen, sales could have been huge... of course depending on who was playing MJ and how well she was portrayed. Dunst was a really bad MJ and horrible for her from a general audience perspective. All I see online these day is how Gwen is better than MJ or people saying how they hate MJ and citing examples from the movies. Sad really, because in the movies a lot of the appeal of MJ in the comics was handed over to Gwen to make her a more compelling character. I hope MJ gets some love in the new movies, but with the focus away from romance, I don't have much hope to see a big MJ revival any time soon.
    That movie was already brought down by trying to cram two movies worth of plotlines into one movies timeframe. No more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    In real life (at least in the United States), killers rarely target detectives or the families. For one thing, that really pisses off other detectives.

    Spider-Man wasn't in any shape to lead Venom to the Fantastic Four. And with the Regent killing heroes left and right, that might not have been a viable option. On a side note, I skimmed through the issue again, and the Fantastic Four don't pop up, so that might be kind of set-up.

    I don't think this story is a commentary on how restrictive families can be. Slott just wanted to tell a story in which he can do all the stuff editors would normally veto. This doesn't suggest that one thing is going to lead to the other.
    Oh I think that's exactly the point he's trying to make. This is bad, this isn't what you want. This isn't a good solution. This can't exist going forward, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackolover View Post
    Yes, my point. There was no reason to kill Venom. Unless you believe Venom is so psychotic that he doesn't reason things out like killers in The United States.
    Have....have you READ any Venom?

    He....his whole shtick is that he's an irrational psycho killer with a messiah complex. His motivation for hunting Parker is based on Spider-Man catching the correct bad guy exposing some other guy as a liar that Brock was writing about. Venom is the farthest thing from rational this side of <insert opposing political party here>.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimishim12 View Post
    To a ordinary action protagonist, but Peter has too many white knight tropes associated to his character he would be qualified as one. Even they had him kill as Spock despite him not being the real Peter Parker. That really dampens his sacredness as a one of Marvel's purity rings.
    I don't know. I think this is just a question of personal morals and perspective. I think killing is something that should be avoided whenever possible. But I also don't have a problem with bad guys getting what's coming to them, and I don't think it's evil or bad to dispense that justice. We live in a very soft and peaceful world though, so we tend to look at all killing in a very negative light.

  15. #210
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenon View Post
    OVER is somewhere.
    Again, it wouldn't be in character for them to do that, and the summaries do say Peter and MJ face the perils of Battleworld TOGETHER

    Again, why would Marvel give us a pro-marriage series, and then toss that aspect away after one issue? Or after the series is finished?

    Brevroot also said if Marvel sees something working in sales, they will make more of it. RYV has done well in sales, that should inform them and we may see more of the same in future, even if it's another alternative option like Spider-Gwen etc.

    Stop assuming the worst of this until the worst presents itself. This doom-cast projection is getting annoying.
    Last edited by Loose Threads; 06-13-2015 at 09:45 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •