BRAND NEW DAY: Good, Bad or just Mediocre?

[Bor]

I'm a little surprised to see that a lot of people seem to hold it in high regard.

I'm a little suprised that you are suprised at all. We are talking about 100 issues here from a some generally well regarded writers and artists and quite a few of these stories where very enjoyable. Yeah it had its share of flaws but its not like it is a lot worse then a lot of other runs on Spidey titles over the years. Personaly I will take 80% of what BND gave us over anything from Mackie or large parts of the 90s.

[Bor]

Those relationships all went somewhere, you just didn't like where they went. Spider-Man has cycled through supporting cast members for decades.

Exactly. Characters like Randy Robertson, Betty Brant, Anna Watson and more have had large periods of time where they didnt even appear yet they came back in the picture at various points.
And thats not even counting characters that either didnt last long, like Peter's attrative neighbours, or characters that have been killed of. Characters like Charlie could easely be brought back if someone wanted to use them and wanted to tell a specific story. An exgirlfried that knows his secret but is not overall good like MJ could be plenty interesting. Like what they did in Daredevil with Karen.

[WeirdSpider]

I suppose time will tell. Right now, I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Just shows that a lot of people have bad taste.

[Miles To Go]

And thats not even counting characters that either didnt last long, like Peter's attrative neighbours, or characters that have been killed of. Characters like Charlie could easely be brought back if someone wanted to use them and wanted to tell a specific story. An exgirlfried that knows his secret but is not overall good like MJ could be plenty interesting. Like what they did in Daredevil with Karen.

Ah yes...Karen, another popular and compelling character...and one of the first that Joey Q took off the table to make Matt ''interesting''. Does anyone even remember the woman Matt married afterwards? Imagine if that storyline had been used with Karen?

Daredevil's another character I've long since lost interest in too. Last I read he even erased everyone's knowledge of his identity. Electra included. How droll.

Those relationships all went somewhere, you just didn't like where they went.

What was there to like about them? What did they achieve plotline wise? What did they do that MJ could not do?

Spider-Man has cycled through supporting cast members for decades.

But they always had room for the more iconic ones. Some characters you just don't drop for years to prop up new ones, especially when chances are only one or two will be memorable. They lucked out with Anna Maria, but that came long after BND ended...and let's be frank, Anna will go when Slott does.

[Bor]

Ah yes...Karen, another popular and compelling character...and one of the first that Joey Q took off the table to make Matt ''interesting''. Does anyone even remember the woman Matt married afterwards? Imagine if that storyline had been used with Karen?

Daredevil's another character I've long since lost interest in too. Last I read he even erased everyone's knowledge of his identity. Electra included. How droll.

Yeah I think plenty of people remembers since the stories that followed Karen's death are generally regarded as some of the best of the characters history by such writers as Bendis and Brubaker. Not to mention relatively recently Waid's run which was both awesome and well regarded to. I havent read the issues following his run yet but they are in my to read list on Marvel unlimited.

[Vixx]

Think a lot of folks fall into the meh category - myself included.

This was a tough era for the book, they had a mandate from editorial and did the best they could with it. The stories themselves arent abysmal - the setting is just such a departure ...

If you enjoyed them - hey good for you, I'm a bit jealous. Id be interested to know what you enjoyed, maybe I missed something. Don't care what words you use to describe your personal experience - but wouldn't agree anyone putting out the book (except editorial) is actively pushing a harmful agenda. They love this shit too

At the end of they day, I may not like it, but I'll continue to read it - as I like the charector a lot and trust the creatives tasked with the day to day. I think they really do give us their best efforts, within the confines of a rigid structure.

I just buy the collected works or a few well reviewed back issues instead of preordering and making sure to grab it on release day ... It's more of an 'I'll get to it ..." Series

It feels like being a 49ers fan - 80s were a long time ago, and there's been some pretty awful seasons and some sparks of brilliance... But I still enjoy and go. If the owners won't do what it takes to win, you find something else to bring joy. It's when they just do the minimum to squeeze every last dime out of you that you leave. Not there yet

[DieHard200904]

As much as One More Day frustrated me when it happened , I am thankful that it happened, because I became a more mature and open minded person.

[Masked Guy]

Regardless he has appeared in scarlet spider, hulk, venom, squirrel girl and several others to so the statement "he was brought not and then not used" is completely wrong. He has been used quite a lot including recently in secret empire to.

In that case, I will admit to be being incorrect on that.

[Masked Guy]

That doesn't strike you as melodramatic? All the words in the English language at your disposal and you choose the most extreme? A word usually reserved for human rights abuses, extreme violence, genocide, war crimes, slavery etc?

It's not thoughtful constructive criticism when you start throwing around words like "atrocity", call the creatives "selfish" and say that they don't care about upset fans.

People use the word "atrocity" quite often when describing something they hate (a movie, a book, etc.), so I really think you're reading way too much into that. And the fact that the creators completely wrote off every fan who disagreed with their decision really demonstrates that they weren't concerned with our opinions in the first place.

This is incorrect. They've stated several times that they got rid of the marriage in order to make Peter seem more youthful and more appealing to future generations of kids, teenagers and young adults. They did it for what they perceived to be in the best interests of the long term viability of the franchise.

You may disagree with it, but that was the reason. They didn't just do it for the lulz.

I'm aware of their reasoning. It would hold more weight if sales were plummeting and One More Day resulted in vastly superior sales numbers, but that isn't what happened. Love it or hate it, JMS's Spider-Man run was a very profitable period for the character. Sales were in a very good place (you can look at them here: http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales.html), but Marvel went ahead with One More Day anyway because it's what they personally wanted for the character. Marvel has made their distaste for the marriage abundantly clear for years, not caring how many of their fans actually liked it and completely got rid of it without considering how their readership might feel about such a decision. Again, Marvel's argument that the marriage had to go in order to appeal to a broader audience would have been more sound if sales were low and consistently spiked after One More Day, but that simply wasn't the reality of the situation. The reality is that they eliminated the marriage because they had wanted a single Peter Parker for a long time.

Those relationships all went somewhere, you just didn't like where they went. Spider-Man has cycled through supporting cast members for decades.

No, those relationships went absolutely nowhere. Name one memorable or impactful thing about any of those characters. Like I said, they never progressed anywhere and were all dropped from the series due to lack of writer and reader interest.

Peter's marital status has rarely ever factored into the Hero vs Villain parts of the stories. That was never the point. Again, it's a weird argument to make. Of course he doesn't need to be single to punch Sandman in the face. He doesn't need to be married to punch Sandman in the face either. It's a wash.

The point is that Marvel got rid of something that many readers liked and really had nothing to show for it. Again, why did the marriage have to be eliminated for any of those stories to occur? It didn't; they could have easily been told with the marriage in place. It just paints Marvel in a selfish light once again.

What blunder did the Brand New Day team make though? The team before them wrote a bad story? So? What are they supposed to do about it? What would you have done in their shoes?

I've already addressed these questions.

[Masked Guy]

Just shows that a lot of people have bad taste.

Or different perspectives. I like the marriage, but I try my best not to let that particular bias cloud my judgement.

[Masked Guy]

I'm a little suprised that you are suprised at all. We are talking about 100 issues here from a some generally well regarded writers and artists and quite a few of these stories where very enjoyable. Yeah it had its share of flaws but its not like it is a lot worse then a lot of other runs on Spidey titles over the years. Personaly I will take 80% of what BND gave us over anything from Mackie or large parts of the 90s.

Brand New Day certainly isn't one of the worst periods in the character's history, but I've never found a whole lot to praise about it either.

[Timmyb52]

This is a strange argument that comes up frequently on these boards.

If you believe these stories could have been told regardless of Peter's marital status, then surely his marital status is inconsequential and not worth whining about?

The point here is that OMD was inconsequential and did not need to be done to write these mediocre BND stories...the justification was unwarranted! If the marriage would have added nothing to these stories like you say then why get rid of it in the first place to justify BND? In what ways would the marriage have gotten in the way of these stories being told? The only thing these stories allowed was replacements for MJ herself with Peter now being able to have more "hook ups" with new women...and the marriage kept Peter from doing that in BND.

[Timmyb52]

Come on man. There's criticism and then there's overreaction and mudslinging.

An atrocity, you said. Human trafficking is an atrocity. A comic you didn't like is just a comic you didn't like.

If you want to criticise a story, criticise the story, there's not need to accuse the Marvel staff of being self centred or not caring about the fans.

I'm not really clear on what you feel the blunder from the BND team was? What did you want them to justify? How did you want them to justify it? Who was responsible for the blunder? What would you have done in their place?

If Marvel cares so much for the character of Peter Parker and how the fans feel then why not have Peter and MJ renew their relationship again? Why this 10 year nonsense of Peter hopping from one girl to the next with no end in sight? Having him act like a teenager when he's a full grown man? And whose fault is it? It's Quesada and his gatekeepers fault who want to see the BND 70's Romita Redux status quo maintained despite what the fans want...and that is for Peter to get back together with MJ and stop acting like a immature man-child! And Quesada and all those who pushed for this BND status quo tried to justify it by saying that the marriage kept them from telling all these fantastic stories they had...which was all just lies to try and justify what Quesada and those who hated MJ and the marriage wanted. It wasn't about "fixing" Spider-Man at all...it was about Quesada and what he wanted, and what he still wants!
And if I had been them at that time I would have left the marriage alone and just went ahead with those BND type stories...which can have all been told with the marriage still intact!

[Celgress]

I rate it mediocre.

[Mister Mets]

People use the word "atrocity" quite often when describing something they hate (a movie, a book, etc.), so I really think you're reading way too much into that. And the fact that the creators completely wrote off every fan who disagreed with their decision really demonstrates that they weren't concerned with our opinions in the first place.



I'm aware of their reasoning. It would hold more weight if sales were plummeting and One More Day resulted in vastly superior sales numbers, but that isn't what happened. Love it or hate it, JMS's Spider-Man run was a very profitable period for the character. Sales were in a very good place (you can look at them here: http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales.html), but Marvel went ahead with One More Day anyway because it's what they personally wanted for the character. Marvel has made their distaste for the marriage abundantly clear for years, not caring how many of their fans actually liked it and completely got rid of it without considering how their readership might feel about such a decision. Again, Marvel's argument that the marriage had to go in order to appeal to a broader audience would have been more sound if sales were low and consistently spiked after One More Day, but that simply wasn't the reality of the situation. The reality is that they eliminated the marriage because they had wanted a single Peter Parker for a long time.



No, those relationships went absolutely nowhere. Name one memorable or impactful thing about any of those characters. Like I said, they never progressed anywhere and were all dropped from the series due to lack of writer and reader interest.



The point is that Marvel got rid of something that many readers liked and really had nothing to show for it. Again, why did the marriage have to be eliminated for any of those stories to occur? It didn't; they could have easily been told with the marriage in place. It just paints Marvel in a selfish light once again.



I've already addressed these questions.

When is the word atrocity used by a serious critic to refer to a work of fiction?