Did anyone enjoy Spider-Man in spite of One More Day?

[Celgress]

hrmmm still not sure worrying about fan reaction is the best approach to creativity

Maybe not always but I simply detest "subverting expectations" which has become almost a trope with the creative class in recent times. Sometimes say after a long buildup, for example, you have to give the audience what they want or they'll abandon your product.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Maybe not always but I simply detest "subverting expectations" which has become almost a trope with the creative class in recent times. Sometimes say after a long buildup, for example, you have to give the audience what they want or they'll abandon your product.

We also tend to forget that a lot of current creators started out as fans, and while there used to be this nostrum that "Your first story as a fan should be your last story as a professional" and so on, I don't think that's really honored anymore across the field. I mean psychologically the time you spent as a fan, emotionally invested in a story/character/ship/faction and so on obviously does have an impact on your work as a writer. The roots of OMD comes from Waid's handiwork in his collaboration on the Superman 2000 proposal, and that's definitely a first story as a fan thing as is a lot of Waid's work on Superman, for better and worse. And at the end of the day, some of those fans who people say we shouldn't listen to will become comics creators on their own. I am not saying me, I get my fix on the forums as far as writing goes, but some of them definitely.

In either case, in any large fandom or franchise is eventually gonna become like politics. There's stuff that's consensus. That brings everyone of different opinions and so on together. And there's stuff that's polarizing.

[NC_Yankee]

We also tend to forget that a lot of current creators started out as fans, and while there used to be this nostrum that "Your first story as a fan should be your last story as a professional" and so on, I don't think that's really honored anymore across the field. I mean psychologically the time you spent as a fan, emotionally invested in a story/character/ship/faction and so on obviously does have an impact on your work as a writer. The roots of OMD comes from Waid's handiwork in his collaboration on the Superman 2000 proposal, and that's definitely a first story as a fan thing as is a lot of Waid's work on Superman, for better and worse. And at the end of the day, some of those fans who people say we shouldn't listen to will become comics creators on their own. I am not saying me, I get my fix on the forums as far as writing goes, but some of them definitely.

In either case, in any large fandom or franchise is eventually gonna become like politics. There's stuff that's consensus. That brings everyone of different opinions and so on together. And there's stuff that's polarizing.

There is almost nothing about Spider-Man that is consensus. For example: Sins Past that was universally derided, was brought back into Life Story and more people like it ( although I am one who does not). The truth is more like this: Some people prefer Pete with MJ ( like me),.some prefer Felicia, some prefer Gwen, and some prefer none. What would be consensus? Baaeball fans love the New York Yankees ( like me), or the Boston Red Sox, or neither, but not both.

[boots]

Maybe not always but I simply detest "subverting expectations" which has become almost a trope with the creative class in recent times. Sometimes say after a long buildup, for example, you have to give the audience what they want or they'll abandon your product.

i tend to like subversion, especially when it can bring something fresh to show or if it has a purpose (like ridding the audience of a bigoted expectation).

i see your complaint around alot but i'm not too sure what examples they refer to.

the best way to "give the audience what they want" is delivering what they didn't realise they wanted. deliver the thrills or something to think about, not some sort of predetermined plot point/reward. otherwise you come close to being a paid choose-your-own-adventure writer.

[Yvonmukluk]

There is almost nothing about Spider-Man that is consensus. For example: Sins Past that was universally derided, was brought back into Life Story and more people like it ( although I am one who does not). The truth is more like this: Some people prefer Pete with MJ ( like me),.some prefer Felicia, some prefer Gwen, and some prefer none. What would be consensus? Baaeball fans love the New York Yankees ( like me), or the Boston Red Sox, or neither, but not both.

How was Sins Past brought into Life Story? I don't recall seeing any Stacy-Osborn twins in any of the issues.

[Celgress]

i tend to like subversion, especially when it can bring something fresh to show or if it has a purpose (like ridding the audience of a bigoted expectation).

i see your complaint around alot but i'm not too sure what examples they refer to.

the best way to "give the audience what they want" is delivering what they didn't realise they wanted. deliver the thrills or something to think about, not some sort of predetermined plot point/reward. otherwise you come close to being a paid choose-your-own-adventure writer.

I still disagree with your point. You have to keep your audience happy to some degree or they can become disillusioned - see the recent uproar over Game of Thrones Season Eight in which a character was built up as a major threat for the entire series history then quickly dispatched with little fanfare or lasting impact. Being creative or even spontaneous and sticking your thumb in the eye of the fans to be "edgy" are two very different things.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

How was Sins Past brought into Life Story? I don't recall seeing any Stacy-Osborn twins in any of the issues.

Come over to the thread at Spider-Man Life Story #3. TLRspoilers:

Peter and MJ have twin babies when usually MJ gives birth to one kid at a time

end of spoilers

i tend to like subversion, especially when it can bring something fresh to show or if it has a purpose (like ridding the audience of a bigoted expectation).

i see your complaint around alot but i'm not too sure what examples they refer to.

the best way to "give the audience what they want" is delivering what they didn't realise they wanted. deliver the thrills or something to think about, not some sort of predetermined plot point/reward. otherwise you come close to being a paid choose-your-own-adventure writer.

I still disagree with your point. You have to keep your audience happy to some degree or they can become disillusioned - see the recent uproar over Game of Thrones Season Eight in which a character was built up as a major threat for the entire series history then quickly dispatched with little fanfare or lasting impact. Being creative or even spontaneous and sticking your thumb in the eye of the fans are two very different things.

At the end of the day there's good stories or bad stories. A subversive story if its good will be accepted. A bad story will remain bad if it tries to be subversive will not. It's that simple. The Night Gwen Stacy Died was subversive. It was a good story. Alan Moore saying that the Swamp Thing was never Alec Holland was subversive. Also a good story. Frank Miller subverting the Daredevil that pre-existed him also great. Jonathan Hickman's run on Avengers where he basically overturned the way people saw the Avengers was subversive. Also great. OMD is not a good story. So who cares if it's trying to be subversive. And in any case OMD isn't actually being subversive. If it was, then Peter being a passive-aggressive ******* who sold his wife rather than live with his guilt over getting his Aunt killed and instead uses it as a chance to basically have guilt-free sex with a new parade of willing mates would have been an actual, default part of his characterization rather than the papered over rationalization it was given. Basically if Post-OMD Peter was written as a scuzzball the way Spencer wrote Boomerang in Superior Foes, then that would be an interesting direction and also subversive.

I remember Brevoort, Slott and others comparing the fan backlash to OMD to the Night Gwen Stacy Died. I mean yeah, The Night Gwen Stacy Died provoked a backlash. You even had death threats to Conway printed in the letters page s(see ASM#124-125). But the thing is TNGSD is a great story. OMD is not even a mediocre one. It's not always a given that a backlash happens for good works of art. Stuff like death threats, rancid fan behavior, toxicity even happens with bad stories. I mean Zack Snyder was definitely subversive in his DCEU movies. They were also terrible stuff, unsuited and incoherent. But yeah making Batman and Superman go from World's Finest to World's Most Toxic is pretty damn subversive. Doing it so that a Justice League ends up being a box-office failure is pretty subversive. At the same time, Tim Burton's first two Batman movies were subversive and both are excellent films.

To paraphrase Sam Goldwyn, American movie producer, "Don't listen to fans, don't even ignore them."

[Celgress]

Come over to the thread at Spider-Man Life Story #3. TLRspoilers:

Peter and MJ have twin babies when usually MJ gives birth to one kid at a time

end of spoilers





At the end of the day there's good stories or bad stories. A subversive story if its good will be accepted. A bad story will remain bad if it tries to be subversive will not. It's that simple. The Night Gwen Stacy Died was subversive. It was a good story. Alan Moore saying that the Swamp Thing was never Alec Holland was subversive. Also a good story. Frank Miller subverting the Daredevil that pre-existed him also great. Jonathan Hickman's run on Avengers where he basically overturned the way people saw the Avengers was subversive. Also great. OMD is not a good story. So who cares if it's trying to be subversive. And in any case OMD isn't actually being subversive. If it was, then Peter being a passive-aggressive ******* who sold his wife rather than live with his guilt over getting his Aunt killed and instead uses it as a chance to basically have guilt-free sex with a new parade of willing mates would have been an actual, default part of his characterization rather than the papered over rationalization it was given. Basically if Post-OMD Peter was written as a scuzzball the way Spencer wrote Boomerang in Superior Foes, then that would be an interesting direction and also subversive....

All valid points. I'm not saying subversion can't be good or work (Goku Black/Zamasu in Dragon Ball Super is a great example of such as up until his storyline all Kais or "gods" were allies of the heroes), however, what I am saying is that being subversive for the sake of being edgy (like many creators do today) seldom works there must be a greater purpose in mind.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

All valid points. I'm not saying subversion can't be good or work (Goku Black/Zamasu in Dragon Ball Super is a great example of such as up until his storyline all Kais or "gods" were allies of the heroes), however, what I am saying is that being subversive for the sake of being edgy (like many creators do today) seldom works there must be a greater purpose in mind.

I mean despite everyone saying Grim Dark stuff was going out of fashion, everyone freaking loved Logan. There was nothing about Logan that MCU fans or others didn't like even if it was a dark movie that subverted the hell out of the X-Men story and mythos, or anything resembling traditional superhero stories (which the director expressed dislike for). But ultimately it expressed many of the deepest themes better of the X-Men better than any X-Movie before, as many X-Men fans recognized. People appreciated Logan because it was done with conviction, because the people making it knew what they were doing, and were capable and competent in doing it. And everyone recognized and appreciated that movie: X-Men fans, Wolverine fans, superhero fans in general, even MCU fans, former critics of Fox's handling of the properties and others. So it's not that audiences or fans can't recognize or appreciate subversive stuff.

[boots]

I still disagree with your point. You have to keep your audience happy to some degree or they can become disillusioned - see the recent uproar over Game of Thrones Season Eight in which a character was built up as a major threat for the entire series history then quickly dispatched with little fanfare or lasting impact. Being creative or even spontaneous and sticking your thumb in the eye of the fans to be "edgy" are two very different things.

i’m saying keep them happy, but keeping someone happy doesn’t mean enforcing the current system of expectations

i wouldn’t lay “the bells” at the fault of subversion though, i’d call that a character arc and forced plot twist that could have been executed better. in fact, if the show pushes jon as the true king then it’s actually going against subversion in that way.

GoT’s popularity is mostly due to subversion. subversion made it a fresh take on fantasy. it’s kinda the whole show/book’s selling point (subverting the traditional idea of the boy king who rises as saviour with the red wedding).

you could also argue that early Marvel was the same

the aim of subversion isn’t to be “edgy”, that’s a style thing.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

i’m saying keep them happy, but keeping someone happy doesn’t mean enforcing the current system of expectations

The problem is that thinking helps justify any kind of decision. I am sure people went with Zack Snyder's ideas because he was all "you can't listen to the fans" too. He especially went after fans of the Chris Reeve movies (Tbh, I agree with him, I think Reeve was great as Superman but I don't think that should be the only version of Superman ever). At the end of the day you have to do a story that fans will come to accept, either at the time or later.

I mean fans accepted Logan which was way darker than Snyder's movies. So it's not that fans are always hostile and close-minded.

I always see this as a two-way street. It's not the case that fans are hostile and creators know best and vice versa. As far as Spider-Man goes, OMD is definitely in the Snyder mold. It's not the case that people are against it or new stuff because they are against subversive ideas.

i wouldn’t lay “the bells” at the fault of subversion though, i’d call that a character arc and forced plot twist that could have been executed better. in fact, if the show pushes jon as the true king then it’s actually going against subversion in that way.

GoT’s popularity is mostly due to subversion. subversion made it a fresh take on fantasy. it’s kinda the whole show/book’s selling point (subverting the traditional idea of the boy king who rises as saviour with the red wedding).

With the show you have the issue of them sailing past the source material, which is Hickman-level intricate to start with but which they basically flatten and remove nuances, as well as whole subplots. Them basically generating and catering to clickbait and gif culture with their takes on positioning characters to strike girl power and other fake poses and basically delivering nothing. At the end of the day you can't cheat audiences. What happened with "The Bells" is similar to if Hermione Granger became a worse Dark Lord than Voldemort in the second-to-last chapter of the books after an entire series establishing her as one of the moral voices of the series, with Harry Potter primed to put her down for the greater good.

There's a huge gray area between being subversive and outright cheating your audience. In our more self-aware times, people like to put on airs of being "edgy" and not always pleasing the fans to justify your heist.

Take the case of the 2nd Clone Saga in Spider-Man. The idea that the Peter Parker since "the '70s" is a clone and the real Peter Parker took a vacation is pretty subversive as a concept. To execute it well, you would need to own the premise and all its implications (basically the Spider-Man of "The Kid Who Collected Spider-Man" and other stories is a clone and what does that story mean now if that is the case). Instead we got none of that. We are told Spider-Man is a clone and Ben Reilly is the younger hip Spider-Man that's already a fan-favorite (i.e. fan-favorite as a sidekick, as a "kid brother" figure, and not as an actual full-time lead). Nobody once owned the premise and had real self-awareness i.e. "gee all this whole clone conspiracy out to get Peter which involves a huge number of people knowing Peter's secret identity really does take him outside his traditional street-level kitchen sink genre while also making him having a double-life superfluous".

Hickman when he wrote the Avengers knew what he was doing. He knew he was basically going in a new direction with the Avengers story. He knew it was subversive. So he owned it. He showed self-awareness. He communicated clearly he knew what he was doing and readers accepted that.

you could also argue that early Marvel was the same

Yeah but there was again self-awareness and a communication the people knew what they were doing. Stan Lee knew that he wasn't doing a typical Silver Age superhero stuff so there's a lot of self-aware jokes and ribbing. That bit in AF#15 where the caption says Spider-Man is different from "long-underwear characters" and so on.

[boots]

The problem is that thinking helps justify any kind of decision. I am sure people went with Zack Snyder's ideas because he was all "you can't listen to the fans" too. He especially went after fans of the Chris Reeve movies (Tbh, I agree with him, I think Reeve was great as Superman but I don't think that should be the only version of Superman ever). At the end of the day you have to do a story that fans will come to accept, either at the time or later.

I mean fans accepted Logan which was way darker than Snyder's movies. So it's not that fans are always hostile and close-minded.

I always see this as a two-way street. It's not the case that fans are hostile and creators know best and vice versa. As far as Spider-Man goes, OMD is definitely in the Snyder mold. It's not the case that people are against it or new stuff because they are against subversive ideas.



With the show you have the issue of them sailing past the source material, which is Hickman-level intricate to start with but which they basically flatten and remove nuances, as well as whole subplots. Them basically generating and catering to clickbait and gif culture with their takes on positioning characters to strike girl power and other fake poses and basically delivering nothing. At the end of the day you can't cheat audiences. What happened with "The Bells" is similar to if Hermione Granger became a worse Dark Lord than Voldemort in the second-to-last chapter of the books after an entire series establishing her as one of the moral voices of the series, with Harry Potter primed to put her down for the greater good.

There's a huge gray area between being subversive and outright cheating your audience. In our more self-aware times, people like to put on airs of being "edgy" and not always pleasing the fans to justify your heist.

Take the case of the 2nd Clone Saga in Spider-Man. The idea that the Peter Parker since "the '70s" is a clone and the real Peter Parker took a vacation is pretty subversive as a concept. To execute it well, you would need to own the premise and all its implications (basically the Spider-Man of "The Kid Who Collected Spider-Man" and other stories is a clone and what does that story mean now if that is the case). Instead we got none of that. We are told Spider-Man is a clone and Ben Reilly is the younger hip Spider-Man that's already a fan-favorite (i.e. fan-favorite as a sidekick, as a "kid brother" figure, and not as an actual full-time lead). Nobody once owned the premise and had real self-awareness i.e. "gee all this whole clone conspiracy out to get Peter which involves a huge number of people knowing Peter's secret identity really does take him outside his traditional street-level kitchen sink genre while also making him having a double-life superfluous".

Hickman when he wrote the Avengers knew what he was doing. He knew he was basically going in a new direction with the Avengers story. He knew it was subversive. So he owned it. He showed self-awareness. He communicated clearly he knew what he was doing and readers accepted that.



Yeah but there was again self-awareness and a communication the people knew what they were doing. Stan Lee knew that he wasn't doing a typical Silver Age superhero stuff so there's a lot of self-aware jokes and ribbing. That bit in AF#15 where the caption says Spider-Man is different from "long-underwear characters" and so on.

there’s no more a “problem” with that approach than any other. on the other extreme; snyder justified the unimaginative “watchmen” adaptation as source faithful and a love letter to the fans. it’s still snyder either way

not to mention the legion of fans who defend his dcu to the death

the best thing anyone who hasn’t been in a writer’s room can do is allow for not being “sure” of anything outside their experience

and subversion tends to require self awareness.

[Celgress]

I'll again use the example of Goku Black from Dragon Ball Super for a textbook good subversion. First, the audience was like hey he's an evil Goku either a duplicate or a Goku from another universe, nope he's not Goku at all. Second, Goku Black is revealed to be one of the Kais named Zamsu who stole Goku's body in the future (basically) to enact "divine justice" upon all mortals. So yeah, those Kias who have always been depicted as allies of our heroes or harmless goofs well one of them is a genocidal maniac who aims to destroy all mortals in the multiverse. The story arc was a double subversion and a damn good one Sins Past, on the other hand, was a subversion but it in no way was satisfying to the audience nor would I argue was OMD.

[boots]

i think what you guys mean by subversion is very different to what i’ve been taught to think of subversion as

[Revolutionary_Jack]

i think what you guys mean by subversion is very different to what i’ve been taught to think of subversion as

To me subversion is changing the way we were previously familiar with the characters and story, genre, while also bringing in stuff that we didn’t think would work in the story as we came to expect it. It basically defamiliarises how we see the convention.

TDKR did that to Batman. At the time showing Batman as an over the hill old guy in a story where Reagan is a president and superheroes outside of Superman are driven underground was a totally new approach to how we saw the characters and their stories.

What do you think subversion is?