quest4success: Geek Rant!

Paul D. Storrie (

quest4success) wrote,
@ 2008-01-09 11:12:00

Current mood:	annoyed
Entry tags:	brand new day, geeks, one more day, spider-man

Geek Rant!
I'll tell you this up front, this rant isn't going to be about what you think it's going to be about when you first start reading.

As some of you may already know, there's a new status quo for Marvel Comics' web-slinging, wall-crawling wonder. The big cosmic reset button has been pushed and Peter Parker is no longer married to Mary Jane Watson. Plus, the previously deceased Harry Osborn (Pete's best buddy in days gone by) has been returned to life. The reset happened in a story arc titled "One More Day" and is now playing out in a story titled "Brand New Day" in the newly thrice-monthly Amazing Spider-Man.

If you know your comic book fans like I do, it should come as no surprise that people are up in arms. They hate the idea. They hate the way it plays out. They hate Joe Quesada, Editor-In-Chief at Marvel for making it happen.

Putting aside the question of whether an emotion as strong as hate should ever be coupled to a work of fiction, here's how a whole lot of 'em are expressing their outrage:

"I've been reading Spiderman since [whenever]! This invalidates every book in my Spiderman collection since [whenever the hell it was that Marvel married off Peter Parker]! Marvel doesn't love and respect Spiderman the way I do!!!"

My answer? There's no such thing as Spiderman.

And, no, I'm NOT saying anything about Peter Parker being a fictional character. I'm saying there is not now, nor has there ever been, a comic book called Spiderman or a superhero called Spiderman.

It's Spider-Man. Complete with hyphen and capital M. Always has been.

You would think that people who claim to love, cherish, adore, live and breathe a character as some of these fans claim to would know that.

I mean, if you're going to rant about a "favorite" character, the least you could do is get his name right.

So, what do I think of "One More Day"/"Brand New Day"?

Haven't read it, so I can't speak to the execution.

Don't generally like cosmic/magical events in comics about more-or-less street-level crimefighters. Especially those with science fiction origins. It's usually a bad mix.

Basic idea? That being to get Spider-Man back to his single, Charlie Brown, can't-catch-a-break, not-married-to-a-super-model roots? Makes sense to me. As Joe Quesada has said, Marvel's concern needs to be the longterm viability of the character. Making sure that there's a Spider-Man for readers-to-come. One that they can connect to and want to read about. Like Quesada, I don't think that's a 40-something, married guy. Spider-Man was teen angst personified. The farther you move him from that, the weaker the character becomes.

But this entry isn't about that. It's about people who claim to be huge Spider-Man fans when they can't even spell his name right.

Come on, people. Get on the ball. You're giving geeks a bad name!

(Post a new comment)

gregmce
2008-01-09 04:41 pm UTC (link)

"Basic idea? That being to get Spider-Man back to his single, Charlie Brown, can't-catch-a-break, not-married-to-a-super-model roots? Makes sense to me. As Joe Quesada has said, Marvel's concern needs to be the longterm viability of the character. Making sure that there's a Spider-Man for readers-to-come. One that they can connect to and want to read about. Like Quesada, I don't think that's a 40-something, married guy. Spider-Man was teen angst personified. The farther you move him from that, the weaker the character becomes."

Wasn't that supposed to be the point of Ultimate Spider-Man, though?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

quest4success
2008-01-09 05:01 pm UTC (link)

Sure.

But the reality is that Amazing Spider-Man is the flagship book. All the others, including Ultimate Spider-Man, are ancillary. Plus, the Spider-Man that interacts with the Marvel U at large (as opposed to the 1 or 2 other books coming out in the Ultimate line) is now much closer to the core of the character than it was previously.

There's a segment of fandom that wants the super-heroes of their youth to age and change with them. In my opinion, it's a bad idea. Because the more that happens, the more "cosmic resets" we have coming down the line. Ultimately (no pun intended), the companies are going to realize that they have to bring the characters back in line with their core concept to appeal to new readers. It's in their best long term interests to do so.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

gregmce
2008-01-09 05:54 pm UTC (link)

By that logic, almost every single comic should be "reset" -- and if these things keep happening, why should anyone be a long-term reader if they know that sooner or later anything that happens is going to be unwritten? From a storytelling standpoint it's rather crap, an admittance that at any given moment everything will be undone.

Cannibalising existing readers for the idea of new ones to replace them only works if the newer ones are out there, ready and waiting and willing. With the way comics are today, I'm not convinced that's the case. Then again, I'm also not convinced that there were people out there who really said, "Hey, wait, Spider-Man is married to a hot girl, I'm not going to read this book."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

quest4success
2008-01-09 06:53 pm UTC (link)

>>By that logic, almost every single comic should be "reset" -- and if these things keep happening, why should anyone be a long-term reader if they know that sooner or later anything that happens is going to be unwritten? From a storytelling standpoint it's rather crap, an admittance that at any given moment everything will be undone.<<

And this is different than super-hero comics have been for just about ever how? Fans are acting like this is something NEW. It's not.

Characters come back all the time. Status quos get reset all the time. Entire comics universes get reset all the time.

Amazingly, each time it happens, there are fans who act like they've been blindsided.

>>Cannibalising existing readers for the idea of new ones to replace them only works if the newer ones are out there, ready and waiting and willing. With the way comics are today, I'm not convinced that's the case.<<

Thing is, many of those who are howling the loudest don't read Spider-Man anyway. Many who are howling the loudest that do read Spider-Man will continue to read Spider-Man.

What's more, in a few months, the new status quo will be the new status quo and the people howling will have moved on to howling about something else or they'll have accepted it.

>>Then again, I'm also not convinced that there were people out there who really said, "Hey, wait, Spider-Man is married to a hot girl, I'm not going to read this book."<<

Not what I said, though, was it? There's a difference between "more appealing to more people when closer to his core concept" and "not appealing to anyone when moved away from his core concept."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

gregmce
2008-01-09 07:07 pm UTC (link)

Just because resets happened in the past doesn't mean that it's somehow acceptable or good storytelling, though. Crap storylines involving characters getting resurrected are still crap storylines no matter how many times they happen.

And you're right, what you'd said was, "Making sure that there's a Spider-Man for readers-to-come." So readers who had left when he got married don't really fall into that category. That leaves people who are yet to come and would turn down the idea of the book because he's married.

"Thing is, many of those who are howling the loudest don't read Spider-Man anyway."

Is that really that different from defending an idea without having read it either, though? Be fair!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

quest4success
2008-01-09 07:18 pm UTC (link)

"Is that really that different from defending an idea without having read it either, though? Be fair!"

Time to reiterate the point of my initial entry: I get irked when supposed uber-fans spell Spider-Man as Spiderman.

That said, I'm also not defending the STORY. I'm saying that, in my opinion as a longtime reader and writer of comics, not having Spider-Man married is a better idea, in the long run, than having him married.

What's more, I'm really not all that interested in debating the story/idea. Why? Because I don't think it'll matter much to anyone in a couple months. Certainly not within a year.

I get that people are upset and disagree with the storyline. That's their prerogative. Mind is to point out that if they DO complain about what's happening to Spider-Man, they should at least get the spelling right!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	gregmce 2008-01-09 07:43 pm UTC (link)
	"Time to reiterate the point of my initial entry: I get irked when supposed uber-fans spell Spider-Man as Spiderman." And you know, we're in perfect agreement there. But you should have stopped there in your initial post if you didn't want to discuss any other aspects of it. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

dewline
2008-01-09 09:58 pm UTC (link)

Core concepts are what you choose to make them. And they often should, can and do change with time. And in some cases, they're prevented from changing when they ought to. In others, they're changed in the wrong direction.

This case falls under the last of those categories for me. "Classic" Peter didn't need to be the Charlie Brown of superheroics to work as a character for me, and stopped needing to be such for me a long time ago. He was on his way to being the Charles Schulz of the genre, which was - is - an equally interesting place for someone like Peter to be.

I used to buy the series regularly. Dropped it when "Chapter One" and the "death" of MJ came in. Came back when she did, Paul Jenkins started hitting his stride and JMS started writing Amazing. I've now dropped it again.

OMD/BND is not a place this franchise branch needs to travel to.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	quest4success 2008-01-09 10:02 pm UTC (link)
	But can you spell Spider-Man? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	dewline 2008-01-09 10:03 pm UTC (link)
	Yes. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	quest4success 2008-01-09 10:04 pm UTC (link)
	Well, then, that's all that matters! (Reply to this)(Parent)

misscoollinda
2008-01-09 05:21 pm UTC (link)

I'm trying to think of any superheroes that are married. I have to agree that Spider-Man should be unattached. It makes for better story opportunities.

Your average person wouldn't realize the hyphen. I never even noticed them on the movie posters. But a Spider-Man geek SHOULD know better.

... I just thought of three - Mr. and Mrs. Incredible, and Frozone :D Do they count?

Edited at 2008-01-09 05:23 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	gregmce 2008-01-09 05:51 pm UTC (link)
	Don't forget Superman. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	misscoollinda 2008-01-09 05:56 pm UTC (link)
	Superman is married? I must confess I don't follow the comics all that closely. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	gregmce 2008-01-09 05:59 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, he and Lois tied the knot in 1996. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	quest4success 2008-01-09 06:58 pm UTC (link)
	And they tied the knot in the comics because DC didn't want to be "scooped" by them getting married on the Lois & Clark TV show first. Likewise, Spider-Man got married in the comics to coincide with a publicity stunt for a baseball game. I really don't think those are strong, story-driven reasons, do you? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	gregmce 2008-01-09 07:11 pm UTC (link)
	By that logic, shouldn't Jimmy Olson be wiped out? He was added into the Superman comics because of his appearances on the radio program. Paul, up until this point I can see what your points were (even if I don't agree with them) but this is grasping at straws. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

quest4success
2008-01-09 07:34 pm UTC (link)

Greg, you seem to have mistaken me for someone who is strongly invested in convincing people that "Brand New Day" (as published) was the right way to go with Spider-Man. "Grasping at straws" implies that I'm desperately trying to persuade you, or anyone, that they should agree with me.

I'm not. Honestly, I don't care.

If you (or other fans/readers/etc.) don't like the concept or the execution of the current Spider-Man storyline and you stop buying it, that makes perfect sense to me. If people want to vent about it on message boards, on blogs or wherever, that's their prerogative.

All I said was that they should be sure to spell Spider-Man correctly!

As for Jimmy Olson (and Kryptonite, for that matter), yup, he was added to the comics because he was popular in the radio show. For that matter, the writers of the Bat-books thought that the Animated Series character Renee Montoya sounded like a cool character and introduced her BEFORE the episode introducing her aired!

However, to my mind, adding a character to a comic isn't quite the same as altering the core of the titular character of a comic to coincide with an outside media event.

Your mileage may, of course, vary.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

gregmce
2008-01-09 07:42 pm UTC (link)

"All I said was that they should be sure to spell Spider-Man correctly!"

And if that's what you did, Paul, we wouldn't have had this conversation at all.

But you did write four paragraphs that had nothing to do with the spelling errors. That's what I responded to initially.

I'm by no means a rapid Spider-Man fan (or even rapid about this) but please don't try to play the, "I didn't bring this up first" game and attempt to shift blame. Because saying that your post was only about a misspelling but including all of that other content as well?

It's called trying to have your cake but eating it too. And you're a better guy than that, Paul.

But good luck in your endeavors, Paul. And in the future, if you want to talk about something? Talk about it. And if you don't want to talk about it? Then don't talk about it.

But don't say, "I'm not going to talk about this," then talk about it, then tell people who responded to what you wrote that you hadn't brought it up.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	scribblerworks 2008-01-09 08:19 pm UTC (link)
	Well, you know... it is his blog. No reason why he has to be perfectly consistent on his own blog, is there? :-) (Reply to this)(Parent)

quest4success
2008-01-09 08:45 pm UTC (link)

Me: "All I said was that they should be sure to spell Spider-Man correctly!"

You: "And if that's what you did, Paul, we wouldn't have had this conversation at all."

You're absolutely right. I used it as a figure of speech, rather than a factual statement. Not the best choice in this particularly instance.

"But you did write four paragraphs that had nothing to do with the spelling errors. That's what I responded to initially.

I'm by no means a rapid Spider-Man fan (or even rapid about this) but please don't try to play the, "I didn't bring this up first" game and attempt to shift blame."

Greg, I'm not playing ANY game or attempting to shift any blame. Hell, what blame is there to shift?

Sorry that it seems like like I'm trying to pull a fast one, but I honestly don't have enough emotional investment in the question of "Brand New Day" to worry about winning or losing here.

"Because saying that your post was only about a misspelling but including all of that other content as well?

It's called trying to have your cake but eating it too. And you're a better guy than that, Paul."

At least I'm consistent. From the very first post, I said: "But this entry isn't about that. It's about people who claim to be huge Spider-Man fans when they can't even spell his name right."

As for that other content?

"Haven't read it, so I can't speak to the execution."

Fairly straightforward. I'm not in a position to talk about the "how" of the story.

"Don't generally like cosmic/magical events in comics about more-or-less street-level crimefighters. Especially those with science fiction origins. It's usually a bad mix."

Also fairly straightforward. What I do know about the "how" of the story doesn't suit my tastes (and also contradicts saying I'm not in a position to talk about the "how" of the story).

"Basic idea? That being to get Spider-Man back to his single, Charlie Brown, can't-catch-a-break, not-married-to-a-super-model roots? Makes sense to me. As Joe Quesada has said, Marvel's concern needs to be the longterm viability of the character. Making sure that there's a Spider-Man for readers-to-come. One that they can connect to and want to read about. Like Quesada, I don't think that's a 40-something, married guy. Spider-Man was teen angst personified. The farther you move him from that, the weaker the character becomes."

I gather this is where you see me making an argument for people embracing the storyline. Except that I'm not. But, yes, I did say that the decision makes sense to me.

"But good luck in your endeavors, Paul."

This puzzles me, Greg. Because it looks like you're telling me, "Have a nice life but I'm washing my hands of you."

Over this? Really?

And, no, this is not me shifting blame. Unfortunately, I'm constantly pissing people off and then being surprised that what was said/done was enough to cause friction, much less a rift. I'm just surprised is all. As usual.

Apologies in advance if I've misinterpreted.

"And in the future, if you want to talk about something? Talk about it. And if you don't want to talk about it? Then don't talk about it."

You're obviously taking this more seriously than I am. To me, it's only a blog post, and a pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek blog post at that. Also, what you're saying is coming across more like, "If you don't want to debate something, don't mention it at all."

I'm more than willing to discuss what I post. I'm generally up for a friendly back and forth. But turning that discussion into some serious point-counterpoint debate? Especially about a topic like this? Nope. Sorry. Not interested.

Nor, in fact, obligated.

"But don't say, "I'm not going to talk about this," then talk about it, then tell people who responded to what you wrote that you hadn't brought it up."

And here, again, mea culpa.

My point, poorly made as it was, is that my initial remarks -- as clearly indicated in those initial remarks -- were not about the merits of the story, but about fans who say they love a character and then can't spell his name right.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	gregmce 2008-01-09 10:32 pm UTC (link)
	No Paul, I'm not washing my hands of you -- but I think for the time being I am done with your blog. I'm sure I'll see you at Baltimore again one of these years (provided it's finally on a weekend again where I don't have 9000 other things). (Reply to this)(Parent)

	aries_jordan 2008-01-09 10:25 pm UTC (link)
	Jeez, ease up, why don't you? There's no "Nitpickers Welcome" sign on this blog. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	gregmce 2008-01-09 10:29 pm UTC (link)
	Don't worry, I think we're both well done with the discussion. (Super-cute icon, by the way!) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	aries_jordan 2008-01-10 04:39 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you! Sorry to butt in. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	quest4success 2008-01-09 10:36 pm UTC (link)
	Actually, Greg and I have known each other for quite a while, so he's welcome even when we disagree. (Reply to this)(Parent)

scribblerworks
2008-01-09 08:22 pm UTC (link)

I seem to recall that they actually delayed the marriage in the comics (the temporary break-up of the engagement, with Lois going off on a world walkabout), in order to bring the comics-marriage closer to when the TV show was going to march them down the aisle.

But I could be wrong on that. But I seem to remember someone telling me that (as in: someone (at DC) who would know - I just can't remember who right now).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	quest4success 2008-01-09 08:50 pm UTC (link)
	You could be correct. I wasn't playing in the majors at that point, so I've got only my vague recollections as a reader to go on. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	dewline 2008-01-09 10:05 pm UTC (link)
	Sounds about right to me. Doomsday happened in part because they wanted to push back the wedding date, didn't it? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	quest4success 2008-01-09 06:55 pm UTC (link)
	Mr. Fantastic and the Invisible Woman (formerly Invisible Girl) of the Fantastic Four have been married for decades in publishing time. Superman, as Greg pointed out, has also been married for a long time now. Marriage isn't necessarily bad for a super-hero, so long as it doesn't clash with the essence of the character. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	dewline 2008-01-09 10:02 pm UTC (link)
	We've had close to twenty years to get used to this particular marriage. It works for me. Rushed in the initial execution, but when I looked back, it seemed to fit how things were evolving anyway. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lisaatneptune 2008-01-09 07:36 pm UTC (link)
	LOL! Best post on the subject so far. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	quest4success 2008-01-09 08:48 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks, Lisa! Oh, and "Happy Anniversary!" (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…