I can see the different sides of this particular debate.
The "You're just looking for something to complan about" claim is often used to excuse work that is seriously flawed.
On the other hand, someone who picks up a comic or work in any other medium with an axe to grind is usually going to find flaws. We've all been on the receiving end of those conversations. I remember a middle aged relative skimming through American Gods arguing why it's sub-par (She did not care for the profanity.)
There is also a separate group that might pick up something in good faith, but could be triggered by something that just doesn't bother anyone else.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
You're right, I haven't read this issue for myself. Perhaps there's some reasoning in this issue for why Johnny's acting the way he is that everyone's leaving out of their write-ups that I'm not getting?
I know that your pet peeve is when people comment on something they haven't read. Mine is getting half of a story, or one with so many holes that it resembles swiss cheese (to use one old example, it goes back to why for instance Daniel Kingsley was the one in the Hobgoblin costume, where he got goblin-powers, and why Roderick Kingsley was turned into a mercenary Deathstroke-knockoff when in his last appearance he had more than enough money stashed to live on---again, it's half the story and it's a bit of recurring theme with certain modern comics).
Do we get explanations or do we have to "no-prize" it?
What you're asking for are "book keeping" issues.
I've written some in my day.
They don't lend themselves to good stories.
In many cases, one line of dialogue is all it takes for a regular reader to cover the ground and move on to the next narrative.
But it is VERY much a "your mileage may vary" situation.
For some people, that one line/panel/scene does it.
For others, it will NEVER BE ENOUGH (enough) (enough) (echo...)
Again: Your mileage may vary.
Johnny's behavior in this issue is in line with how Johnny's always behaved - hot headed and impulsive. If you have any familiarity with Johnny, it doesn't need any special reasoning or explanation.
I think some readers choose to get hung up on specifics that simply aren't important to the larger readership and aren't worth pausing the narrative to deal with. In this issue, knowing the whole backstory on why the BB is up for sale isn't that interesting in and of itself. They've lost ownership of it in the past. For it to happen again doesn't require an explanation for me as a reader to believe it could happen. Not having every single possible detail explained isn't getting "half" the story, it's getting the story that matters.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
And as to how and why Daniel was in New York in the suit with powers? Did that appear in any issues?
From the Marvel Wikia:
Powers
Seemingly those of his twin brother
Abilities
Seemingly those of his twin brother
Strength level
Seemingly that of his twin brother
Weaknesses
Seemingly those of his twin brother
http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Categor...6)/Appearances
That's a lot of seemingly. I guess we as readers have to seemingly take most of that at face value.
It's one thing to have had Daniel posing as his twin brother Roderick back in Stern's day, and quite another having him literally in the Hobgoblin suit with goblin-powers with no on-panel explanation that wouldn't have derailed any normal comic story that badly.
Wow... I wonder if Slott forsaw so much backlash over lack of dialogue explaining why a building was for sale... Lol
Office politics, jealousy, and high powered intrigue are going to be present in anyone's life who controls a lot of wealth. There are always people around trying to rip your wealth away from you, so having all these people manoeuvreing behind Peters back is something he has to be prepared for. Stark himself had his company taken from him by his competitors on a regular basis, and if they failed, they sure destroyed his business in the attempt. Parker Industries will not be immune to the same pressures of espionage, and spies, corroding his empire. It would be ironic if Stark tried reasoning with Madam Masque, and, Madam Masque wanted to destroy PI, while MJ was patting around Tonys social circles.
It's more of an indictment of sloppy and careless storytelling techniques that have become all-too pervasive, accepted and entrenched in certain comics, really. Probably reflects a true lack of editorial stewardship overall (I wonder what someone like Jim Shooter would make of how Marvel currently produces their plots and books).
But like the man said, YMMV.