Amazing Spider-Man #3 Spoilers/Discussion

[Dan Slott]

I prefer stories where details central to the story are thought-of, and worked out. It shows attentiveness.

There is no story in the world where you can't dissect it, poke it, prod it, and sift through it long enough till you find a flaw or something you can interpret as a flaw.
Can't be done.

[Mister Mets]

This bugs me, since it seems if the story is constructed well enough, the reader won't be concerned with what you write off as minutia. Or why it isn't matching up with some preconception. In a manner of speaking, although the set might creak at times or you can see the strings, the story is still so compelling that you're not taken out of the actual reading of it by the awareness of the stagecraft.

It's why, while I could find flaws in "Return of the Sinister Six" or "Kraven's Last Hunt" or "Red Headed Stranger", the stories are constructed well enough that I'm not taken out of reading them by "the minutia".

I haven't read #3 (I did read #1 after it was bought for me), but is this a story that couldn't have been told after Secret Wars wrapped? Or was it set it stone and couldn't be altered because SW itself was extended? Because it seems like a fair complaint that a reader would have no concept of why Johnny was acting the way he was outside of a cartoonish "he's hotheaded like that" explanation. It's like getting half of the story.

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.

[Metamorphosis]

Here's a good acid-test:
Do you post regularly on sites where people gleefully search and hope for there to be flaws?

If you answered "yes", there's a good chance you will find a flaw in there. Especially if you've read all of those flaw-finding-posts before you've read the actual book for yourself.
(Also a good chance you will screencap or copy this post and race it over there immediately.) :-D

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?

[Dan Slott]

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.

[Metamorphosis]

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.

Are you not the current keeper of the book?

Did we get anything resembling an explanation via a line of dialogue regarding the Hobgoblin stuff?

[Prof. Warren]

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?

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.

[Mister Mets]

Are you not the current keeper of the book?

Did we get anything resembling an explanation via a line of dialogue regarding the Hobgoblin stuff?

There was an explanation for why Kingsley was back as a mercenary. He lost his fortune when Osborn stole finances from his banking account. With Osborn out of the picture post-Siege, he came back to New York. That was in the first few pages of ASM 649.

[Metamorphosis]

There was an explanation for why Kingsley was back as a mercenary. He lost his fortune when Osborn stole finances from his banking account. With Osborn out of the picture post-Siege, he came back to New York. That was in the first few pages of ASM 649.

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.

[Scorponok]

Its unique and way beyond spidey's typical formulatic boy meets world stats quo meaning it's a excellent premiere concept and transition to one of the most miserably down on his luck and life heroes in fiction. Plus its fun and makes peter see the world like tony stark and reed Richards sees it and how logical it is to see how peter could end up like this if he applied his genius as good as his costumed life since he does have the same scientific potential the other egghead heroes have.

Also why does some people think this stats quo wont last?

One thing about the reboot is that they're able to do thing with the characters that they couldn't before.

[XMLXXs Man]

There is no story in the world where you can't dissect it, poke it, prod it, and sift through it long enough till you find a flaw or something you can interpret as a flaw.
Can't be done.

But enough about Ike Perlmutter...

[Some Guy]

Wow... I wonder if Slott forsaw so much backlash over lack of dialogue explaining why a building was for sale... Lol

[Aura Blaize]

But who will lead? Osborn or Doc Ock?

I'm going to go crazy here and say Osborn. Otto and Peter will probably end up teaming up in some way. Otherwise, all that character development he got in Superior would be wasted IMO.

[jackolover]

@ Protégé agreed, he doesn't seem to be enjoying himself. Another thing I don't care for about Peter's current status is that many of his long term friends and associates seem to dislike him now. It is like everyone is jealous of his recent success, Johnny being only the latest example of such. While I know there needs to be a certain degree of tension between characters, I think this is a tad much. C'mon now even "Parker Luck" can't be that bad.

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.

[boots]

Wow... I wonder if Slott forsaw so much backlash over lack of dialogue explaining why a building was for sale... Lol

it's an extremely serious issue.

[Metamorphosis]

it's an extremely serious issue.

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.