Mightygodking on omd/bnd

[Gryphon]

mightygodking discusses bnd

this was from a few months ago so dont compain about that

http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2008/11/26/brand-new-year/

[Michael P]

The one flaw in his reasoning:


Apart from those few super-hardcores who think the death of Gwen Stacy was a mistake and ruined the character, the consensus on “Peter ends up with MJ” is pretty resolute.

He ignores (or perhaps simply hasn't cottoned on) that these super-hardcores are pretty much in charge right now.

[Expletive Deleted]

We can't complain about you posting a bit of random commentary from last year as if it's somehow new and relevatory?

Awwww . . . you're no fun.

[Gryphon]

We can't complain about you posting a bit of random commentary from last year as if it's somehow new and relevatory?

Awwww . . . you're no fun.

i didnt have an account here then and i found this again while looking for something else on his site

[DeadXMan]

I quit reading at hating the Flash story.
He doesn't realize how much that story has touched our troops and their families.

[StoneGold]

I quit reading at I felt like posting something that someone else wrote a few months ago because I feel it somehow validates my point better than I have any chance of actually doing myself, myself being of lower intelligence than this other person.


Which I can only assume, since a random link was posted, instead of some kind of original argument.

[BlackToe]

Never heard of him.

[StoneGold]

Never heard of him.

But he must be important. Look at his imaginary name!

[Jim Thompson]

I quit reading at hating the Flash story.
He doesn't realize how much that story has touched our troops and their families.Really? How's it done that?

And don't get me wrong -- I liked the issue and I'm a Soldier.

[DeadXMan]

did you not read the letter section

They devoted about three issues to the response to Flash's issue.

[Jim Thompson]

did you not read the letter section

They devoted about three issues to the response to Flash's issue.I did -- but I don't take the company's letter pages as gospel, either.

Now if you'd said it seems the story has touched some of our Soldiers lives, then I'd be with you. But I know of some Soldiers who see the issue as a cheap stunt.

I am probably a little sensitive to this (for which I apologize), but lumping all Soldiers and their families together annoys me -- and highlights that the people we're defending sometimes don't seem to understand their forces very well.

Now, having said that, I lost it with this "review" at the point where he starting calling the Flash issue bad. I don't think it was -- especially since it's based on a real event/person.

[BlackToe]

But he must be important. Look at his imaginary name!

Yes, but the real question is what CAN trump a mightygodking? :confused:




























...oh yeah, gravity and thermodynamics. :frown:

[RDMacQ]

Y'know, big surprise here, but I pretty much agree with everything that mightygodking is saying here. I think he/ she makes some pretty good points along the lines of what I've been trying to say for a while.

Given people's reactions to this issues just shows how entrenched either side is on the issue at hand, and how it may take a herculean task to resolve all the issues brought about in the past year and a half.

[Karl Cook]

I agree with most of mightygodking's article/rant but, however, I think he's not exactly right about the Flash Thompson story.
Most people know I'm not a fan of Guggenheim's work (kinda goes without saying...) but one thing I wiill admit is this: "Flashbacks" was a great re-introduction to Flash Thompson. The story showed a side to Flash's personality that hasn't been seen for a while, how Spider-Man influences him and inspires him.
One of the better issues of the new direction in my humble opinion.

[Nick MB]

Not quite sure who this person is or why his blog post about BND is particularly worthy of a thread. And it's not as if he's making points that haven't been made elsewhere, repeatedly.

[Magneto Rocks]

I like MGK, but I don't see why his comments need a thread and I absolutely disagree with him on this. Particularly since the 'consensus' he claims seems to exist only in a few people's minds.

[Jim Thompson]

I like MGK, but I don't see why his comments need a thread and I absolutely disagree with him on this. Particularly since the 'consensus' he claims seems to exist only in a few people's minds.I agree. He basically just rehashed old arguments -- and did it poorly at that, I think.

[BobfromHR]

MGK pretty much nailed it.

[Tobys]

He didnt rehash old arguments they were new at the time this post of his is old.

What rock have you been living under people who dont know who he is, He is the one who is famous for his "I dont need your civil war" awsome parody comic

and The Return parody "His return sucks"

[BlackToe]

He didnt rehash old arguments they were new at the time this post of his is old.

What rock have you been living under people who dont know who he is, He is the one who is famous for his "I dont need your civil war" awsome parody comic

and The Return parody "His return sucks"

The kind of rock that has better things to do than listen to a nobody post on their blog about a comic book storyline.

If I'm gonna listen to peoples opinions, I'd go to a forum, participate and at least debate.

[Endless Flight]

Well, we are all pretty much 'nobodies', and a blog isn't much different than a post on a message board in the grand scheme of things.

[BlackToe]

Well, we are all pretty much 'nobodies', and a blog isn't much different than a post on a message board in the grand scheme of things.

Thats why I added in the forum part. :smile:

[DeadXMan]

I'm not a nobody.

I'm the leader of anarchy.

[Jake V]

He didnt rehash old arguments they were new at the time this post of his is old.

What rock have you been living under people who dont know who he is, He is the one who is famous for his "I dont need your civil war" awsome parody comic

and The Return parody "His return sucks"

... seriously though, who the hell is he, and why should I care?

[Expletive Deleted]

... seriously though, who the hell is he, and why should I care?He's just a guy who writes a comic book blog, whose opinions have been parroted by a poster with nothing to say. There's really no reason to care, especially in this context, but it is actually a pretty good blog.

[Jim Thompson]

I'm not a nobody.

I'm the leader of anarchy.Can anarchy, by definition, have a leader? :tongue:

[DeadXMan]

no, but I'm the guy with the gun. That makes me the leader.

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z108/rm9987/hood2vb41.gif

[ShaggyB]

The kind of rock that has better things to do than listen to a nobody post on their blog about a comic book storyline.

If I'm gonna listen to peoples opinions, I'd go to a forum, participate and at least debate.

lol that rock sounds like "life"

[ShaggyB]

He didnt rehash old arguments they were new at the time this post of his is old.

What rock have you been living under people who dont know who he is, He is the one who is famous for his "I dont need your civil war" awsome parody comic

and The Return parody "His return sucks"

So because he disliked Civil War and The Return, I should care about him?



... seriously though, who the hell is he, and why should I care?

you shouldnt unless you agree with his points.... then you may or may not care who he is.....

[DeadXMan]

no you should like him cause his 30+ reasons why he should write LoSH, even thouh Shooter did much of that.

[Jim Thompson]

no, but I'm the guy with the gun. That makes me the leader.

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z108/rm9987/hood2vb41.gifLOL! At least until I take it away from you. :tongue:

[DeadXMan]

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS....

http://i544.photobucket.com/albums/hh348/kissingintherain1484/Motivational%20Posters/Multiclassing.jpg

[Jim Thompson]

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS....

In a perfect world, sure. :tongue:

[Alan2099]

In a perfect world, he'd kill you?

Come on, man. It's not that bad. Do do anything drastic. You have plenty to live for. Like ... umm ... there's a .. couple people here that ...umm ... don't make fun of you... often ... to your face.

[Jim Thompson]

In a perfect world, he'd kill you?

Come on, man. It's not that bad. Do do anything drastic. You have plenty to live for. Like ... umm ... there's a .. couple people here that ...umm ... don't make fun of you... often ... to your face.I love civilians -- full of internet courage! :tongue:

[AllisterH]

I have to disagree with MJ being Spider-man's Lois Lane.

Please name a time when Lois Lane didn't appear in ANY Superman comic for almost 5 years. Remember, marvel already SHOWED that Spidey doesn't need MJ.

[Stephen Moreno]

mightygodking discusses bnd

this was from a few months ago so dont compain about that

http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2008/11/26/brand-new-year/

Why should I care what this person thinks? Is he/she important in any manner?

EDIT: What Nick MB said.

[Jim Thompson]

I have to disagree with MJ being Spider-man's Lois Lane.

Please name a time when Lois Lane didn't appear in ANY Superman comic for almost 5 years. Remember, marvel already SHOWED that Spidey doesn't need MJ.I don't think MJ has been out of the books for that length of time, either, has she?

Plus, in the original Superman vs. The Amazing Spider-Man, the villains captured Lois Lane and MJ to use as bargaining chips. Would seem to be a pretty good indication she's Spider-Man's equivalent of Lois Lane!

[oldschool]

I don't think MJ has been out of the books for that length of time, either, has she?

Plus, in the original Superman vs. The Amazing Spider-Man, the villains captured Lois Lane and MJ to use as bargaining chips. Would seem to be a pretty good indication she's Spider-Man's equivalent of Lois Lane!


Actually Marv Wolfman wrote her our at the beginning of his run (about ASM #184 or so) and she reappeared around ASM #242 during Stern's run, so I think that was just about 5 years give or take a month or two.

[Jim Thompson]

Actually Marv Wolfman wrote her our at the beginning of his run (about ASM #184 or so) and she reappeared around ASM #242 during Stern's run, so I think that was just about 5 years give or take a month or two.45 years! Good Gods! :eek:

[oldschool]

45 years! Good Gods! :eek:


LOL! Edited now!!!:biggrin:

[oldschool]

I don't think MJ has been out of the books for that length of time, either, has she?

Plus, in the original Superman vs. The Amazing Spider-Man, the villains captured Lois Lane and MJ to use as bargaining chips. Would seem to be a pretty good indication she's Spider-Man's equivalent of Lois Lane!


Now that I stop and think about it, those 5 years that MJ was out of the book (approx. 1978-1983) featured some of my favorite Spidey stories (the Wolfman ASM run, the Stern Spectacular run and the early part of his ASM run) but also some of the worst (the O'Neill ASM run) so it is hardly conclusive one way or the other about Spidey's ability to "survive" without MJ. This is also a sort of moot point anyway since I don't know anyone who doesn't believe she will be back in the book as a major character later this year or sometime early in 2010.

[Jim Thompson]

Now that I stop and think about it, those 5 years that MJ was out of the book (approx. 1978-1983) featured some of my favorite Spidey stories (the Wolfman ASM run, the Stern Spectacular run and the early part of his ASM run) but also some of the worst (the O'Neill ASM run) so it is hardly conclusive one way or the other about Spidey's ability to "survive" without MJ. This is also a sort of moot point anyway since I don't know anyone who doesn't believe she will be back in the book as a major character later this year or sometime early in 2010.Well, in truth, I find the "MJ is Spider-Man's Lois Lane" thought a little spurious, anyway. Spider-Man is a unique character -- there's no one quite like him in all of comics, which is part of what I think makes him special. Comparing him to what is arguably the model for what a classic superhero is strikes me as being problematic at best.

[stillanerd]

Now that I stop and think about it, those 5 years that MJ was out of the book (approx. 1978-1983) featured some of my favorite Spidey stories (the Wolfman ASM run, the Stern Spectacular run and the early part of his ASM run) but also some of the worst (the O'Neill ASM run) so it is hardly conclusive one way or the other about Spidey's ability to "survive" without MJ. This is also a sort of moot point anyway since I don't know anyone who doesn't believe she will be back in the book as a major character later this year or sometime early in 2010.

You can also say this is evidence that regardless of what status quo is in the Spider-Man books, it depends upon the effectiveness of the writer and that stories themselves.


Well, in truth, I find the "MJ is Spider-Man's Lois Lane" thought a little spurious, anyway. Spider-Man is a unique character -- there's no one quite like him in all of comics, which is part of what I think makes him special. Comparing him to what is arguably the model for what a classic superhero is strikes me as being problematic at best.

Well, Spider-Man, in some ways, is a response to Superman--as are a lot of superheroes since Superman was the first. With regards to Mary Jane Watson being the "Spider-Man's Lois Lane," I think the comparison is valid in this sense--both are, in minds of many comic book readers and the popular culture at large, the "leading lady" in the hero's world and the hero's "true love" and "soulmate." Granted, their characters and the way they developed over time are very different. Sure, Clark's first love was Lana Lang and Peter's was Gwen Stacy, and both characters have had other love interests over the years. However, given the length of publication, much of Superman and Spider-Man's basic storytelling template has been firmly established, and part of that establishment is that Lois Lane is "Superman's girl" and Mary Jane Watson is "Spider-Man's girl."

[Gryphon]

im sorry if you all dont like this, but i felt it deserved mention

[ShaggyB]

im sorry if you all dont like this, but i felt it deserved mention

why? Its an old article right?

likewise its not that the board doesnt like it, most of us on both sides of the debate are for making up there own minds and coming up with there own conclusions. Posting a "here, see this is what someone said months ago that i agree with article" doesnt really do much to add to the debate of OMD in any way.

Basic point. Who is mightygodking and why should i care what he says? Doesnt matter if i hate OMD or Like it. Doesnt matter if I hate BND or like it. Why is some other guys opinions worth more than my own? If they arent then why is it even being posted? Why not just post your opinions on OMD / BND instead? Do you really need "See this guy posted an article that agrees with me" to back up your points?

[Gryphon]

why? Its an old article right?
yes it was old, but i felt his arguemnts deserved mention.

[ShaggyB]

yes it was old, but i felt his arguemnts deserved mention.

Why? Why not make your own points?




likewise its not that the board doesnt like it, most of us on both sides of the debate are for making up there own minds and coming up with there own conclusions. Posting a "here, see this is what someone said months ago that i agree with article" doesnt really do much to add to the debate of OMD in any way.

Basic point. Who is mightygodking and why should i care what he says? Doesnt matter if i hate OMD or Like it. Doesnt matter if I hate BND or like it. Why is some other guys opinions worth more than my own? If they arent then why is it even being posted? Why not just post your opinions on OMD / BND instead? Do you really need "See this guy posted an article that agrees with me" to back up your points?

[Gryphon]

Why? Why not make your own points?
i posted here so others would see his point, i dont see why you should make a whole big deal about why i havent said anything myself on it

[James Conniff]

Well, in truth, I find the "MJ is Spider-Man's Lois Lane" thought a little spurious, anyway. Spider-Man is a unique character -- there's no one quite like him in all of comics, which is part of what I think makes him special. Comparing him to what is arguably the model for what a classic superhero is strikes me as being problematic at best.

I'd have to agree with you here Jim.
Not only are Super-man and Spider-man very different characters (aside from the primary colors and an immense sense of responsibility),and the leading ladies in question, their relationships with their leading ladies is very different as well.
Superman for the most part only had ever had Lois as the singular love interest, whereas Spider-man has had a number of important leading ladies in his book, Betty Brant, Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane, Felicia Hardy. And while Lois and Superman and Clark Kent were in a two person love triangle, Peter's alter ego just gets between himself and the ladies he loves(or in the Black Cat's case Peter Parker got in the way).

If any thing Betty Brant is a much better comparison to Lois Lane than Mary Jane Watson. Both work at the paper with them, dark hair, pretty straight laced in their original incarnations.

[Jim Thompson]

I'd have to agree with you here Jim.
Not only are Super-man and Spider-man very different characters (aside from the primary colors and an immense sense of responsibility),and the leading ladies in question, their relationships with their leading ladies is very different as well.
Superman for the most part only had ever had Lois as the singular love interest, whereas Spider-man has had a number of important leading ladies in his book, Betty Brant, Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane, Felicia Hardy. And while Lois and Superman and Clark Kent were in a two person love triangle, Peter's alter ego just gets between himself and the ladies he loves(or in the Black Cat's case Peter Parker got in the way).

If any thing Betty Brant is a much better comparison to Lois Lane than Mary Jane Watson. Both work at the paper with them, dark hair, pretty straight laced in their original incarnations.Superman has basically had three love interests in his existence -- Lois, Lana Lang and the mermaid (who's name is slipping my mind). Peter, by contrast, comes off looking like a player.

And that's probably good. Superman shows a character whose powers are a boon to him. Peter shows us a character whose powers usually are not.

[Patrick Hultquist]

Superman has basically had three love interests in his existence -- Lois, Lana Lang and the mermaid (who's name is slipping my mind). Peter, but contrast, comes off looking like a player.

And that's probably good. Superman shows a character whose powers are a boon to him. Peter shows us a character whose powers usually are not.


Even though Peter has gone through a fair number of women, I'm not sure he'd qualify as a "player". He's never really been written as one. Very few of his relationships have gotten to a serious status. Although the more his continuity is squeezed into the "sliding timescale" like so much over-stuffed sausage into a stretched casing, the more he looks like a player. (Hmmm... there may have been an unintended benefit from the marriage, huh?)

And I think the mermaid was named Lori Lemaris. I hate Silver Age alliteration.

[Jim Thompson]

Even though Peter has gone through a fair number of women, I'm not sure he'd qualify as a "player". He's never really been written as one. Very few of his relationships have gotten to a serious status. Although the more his continuity is squeezed into the "sliding timescale" like so much over-stuffed sausage into a stretched casing, the more he looks like a player. (Hmmm... there may have been an unintended benefit from the marriage, huh?)Be why I said 'by contrast.' :biggrin: If there is one thing I wouldn't call Peter Parker, it's a player. It is part of the reason making him single again didn't have all that much appeal to me.

[RDMacQ]

Well, in truth, I find the "MJ is Spider-Man's Lois Lane" thought a little spurious, anyway. Spider-Man is a unique character -- there's no one quite like him in all of comics, which is part of what I think makes him special. Comparing him to what is arguably the model for what a classic superhero is strikes me as being problematic at best.

I was just thinking the same thing the other day. However, that doesn't mean that MJ's importance to the Spider-Man mythos is lessened. If you look at it, Spidey's relationship with MJ mirrors Spidey's relationship with Superman- Spidey zags where Superman zigs. Whereas Lois had always been there- from day one- in the Superman books and her importance and role was never in question, MJ was introduced four or five years into Spidey's mythos. It was never 100% certain that MJ was "the one" or "Spidey's girl" like Lois was to Superman. However, this actually served MJ well. Since Lois was the sure thing to Superman, that no other love interest could ever really challenge, there was no real need to develop her character beyond superficial means. Lois would always be known, in one form or another, as "Superman's Girlfriend." Meanwhile, MJ was allowed to grow and evolve over the years, becoming more than just the "party girl" that she was initially introduced as. She was kept in the books because the FANS liked her. And because of the work done on her character, the Spider-Man franchise has benefited as MJ has taken a more important role in outside media- its no surprised that the "crying on the inside" version of MJ was the one chosen by filmmakers of the Spider-Man films to be Spidey's love interest.

[Jim Thompson]

I think MJ has the same thing happening for in comparison to Lois Lane as Peter does to Clark: she's a much more flawed, and I think human, character than Lois is.

[RDMacQ]

I think MJ has the same thing happening for in comparison to Lois Lane as Peter does to Clark: she's a much more flawed, and I think human, character than Lois is.

Plus, in a weird inversion, MJ knew Peter's secret identity for years- despite the fact that it was well hidden and Spider-Man's ID was hard to uncover. Whereas Lois was ignorant for years that Clark and Superman were the same guy, despite having regular interactions with both of them on an almost daily basis.

[James Conniff]

Superman has basically had three love interests in his existence -- Lois, Lana Lang and the mermaid (who's name is slipping my mind). Peter, by contrast, comes off looking like a player.

And that's probably good. Superman shows a character whose powers are a boon to him. Peter shows us a character whose powers usually are not.


Lana i remember being a love interest as well, but a Mermaid? Like with a fish bottom half?

And I think the mermaid was named Lori Lemaris. I hate Silver Age alliteration.

What the hell? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/mengblom/love/07_supes_139.jpg) Man...Marvel was just so much better in the silver age.

Edit:

I think MJ has the same thing happening for in comparison to Lois Lane as Peter does to Clark: she's a much more flawed, and I think human, character than Lois is.Agreed Mary Jane is a much more interesting character to me than Lois.

[Jim Thompson]

Lana i remember being a love interest as well, but a Mermaid? Like with a fish bottom half?


What the hell? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/mengblom/love/07_supes_139.jpg) Man...Marvel was just so much better in the silver age.Those 1950s era stories are a trip! What makes me smile these days is how Morrison can use those elements and still manage to incorporate some of those elements into his current stories.

[Alan2099]

What the hell? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/mengblom/love/07_supes_139.jpg) Man...Marvel was just so much better in the silver age.
Oh come on, sometimes you just need a story about giant radioactive gorillas from the moon kidnapping a hero's mermaid girlfriend ... or something.

[Jim Thompson]

Oh come on, sometimes you just need a story about giant radioactive gorillas from the moon kidnapping a hero's mermaid girlfriend ... or something.Aren't we all supposed to be in flying cars now, anyway? :biggrin:

[James Conniff]

Those 1950s era stories are a trip! What makes me smile these days is how Morrison can use those elements and still manage to incorporate some of those elements into his current stories.

Just because Grant read all that stuff on Acid doesn't mean I should have to suffer from his flashbacks. :smile:

[Jim Thompson]

Just because Grant read all that stuff on Acid doesn't mean I should have to suffer from his flashbacks. :smile:And the great part is -- you don't have to read his stuff! :biggrin:

I like what Grant's done over at DC -- but I do understand it's not going to be everyone's cup o' tea!

[James Conniff]

Aren't we all supposed to be in flying cars now, anyway? :biggrin:

A very good question indeed. (http://www.doktorsleepless.com/index.php/You_Will_Never_Own_a_Jetpack:_Warren_Ellis%E2%80%9 9_Doktor_Sleepless_by_Steven_Shaviro)

[StoneGold]

[COLOR=DarkGreen][FONT=System]Superman has basically had three love interests in his existence -- Lois, Lana Lang and the mermaid (who's name is slipping my mind). Peter, by contrast, comes off looking like a player.


Depends on what continuity you're talking. Because post-Crisis/pre-Birthright/pre-Crisis (goddamnit!!!!) he had his cherry popped by that French chick, he starred in a porn with Barda, he had a little bit of a thing with Cat Grant (OK, more one-sided on her) and spent a virtual eternity in another dimension with Wonder Woman.


And pre-Crisis, he had that flight attendant his Kryptonian robot teacher set him up to rape. That was more the teacher's fault, though, Clark didn't know she was being mind controlled.

[RDMacQ]

Aren't we all supposed to be in flying cars now, anyway?

Yeah, people back in the day got that wrong. But then again, who could've possibly predicted the advent of the internet?

[RDMacQ]

Man...Marvel was just so much better in the silver age.

Dude, if you think that's wild you need to check out www.superdickery.com. Some of the stuff there makes "Superman as a mer-man" look down right sane in comparison.

[Jim Thompson]

Yeah, people back in the day got that wrong. But then again, who could've possibly predicted the advent of the internet?Gene Roddenberry with Star Trek. Heinlein did it in many stories, too.

[RDMacQ]

Gene Roddenberry with Star Trek. Heinlein did it in many stories, too.

I think I missed that episode of Star Trek.

[Jim Thompson]

I think I missed that episode of Star Trek.You missed how the ship's computer linked in with multiple data bases on nearly every show? Wow! :eek::tongue:

[RDMacQ]

You missed how the ship's computer linked in with multiple data bases on nearly every show? Wow!

I didn't regard that- and still don't- as anticipating the internet. It was just a database of info on the ship.

The thing that came closest to predicting the impact of the internet was William's Gibson's Neuromancer. It was the first novel to develop the concept of cyberspace.

Plus there was also Tron, but, y'know....

[Jim Thompson]

I didn't regard that- and still don't- as anticipating the internet. It was just a database of info on the ship.

The thing that came closest to predicting the impact of the internet was William's Gibson's Neuromancer. It was the first novel to develop the concept of cyberspace.

Plus there was also Tron, but, y'know....Even when the ship is interfacing with other databases from across the universe?

[Mister Mets]

Ten posts were deleted for discussing the poster as opposed to the topic.

[James Conniff]

And the great part is -- you don't have to read his stuff! :biggrin:

I like what Grant's done over at DC -- but I do understand it's not going to be everyone's cup o' tea!


I'll certainly start being more careful about what I read of his.
I enjoyed his Batman run for the most part, even if the silver age references went over my head. Grant is certainly a talented writer, The Batmen from around the world arc took a cheesy old concept and made it very interesting. But some of his Grantness just doesn't do it for me. "Chanel Zapping" comics for instance, Final Crisis's pacing was really not for me. Since I am still relatively new to the universe (only really been reading DC stuff religiously for the past 5 or six years) I really only know about a small portion of of their characters, three pages and cutting to something else wasn't a good way to keep me invested in what was happening to the characters in crisis. I know why he cut around so much, I just didn't enjoy it.


Dude, if you think that's wild you need to check out www.superdickery.com. Some of the stuff there makes "Superman as a mer-man" look down right sane in comparison.I'm familiar with Superdickery, I just really don't remember that Mermaid...I mean, a freaking Mermaid!
Come on.

[StoneGold]

Even when the ship is interfacing with other databases from across the universe?

I think the disconnect there might be networking vs. result. Because for the most part, the computer was just like the Bat Computer - ask it a question, it feeds you an answer. Like Google, really, except with better search strings. But you got more of a sense of it just being a super smart computer, as opposed to networked computers. And if they did network, it was more of a one-off connection, as opposed to a persistent network.

So while the results of the Internet were the same - ask a question, get an answer - I don't know if the method was quite as directly linkable.

Besides, in the 60s, computers were still the giant devices that will fill universities and can only be owned by the King of Siam. It really is more of a magic box that just answers your questions. You didn't need to string together a network of them because the one computer was already the Smartest Thing in the Universe. Unless you ask it to define love, then KABLOOIE!

[stillanerd]

I was just thinking the same thing the other day. However, that doesn't mean that MJ's importance to the Spider-Man mythos is lessened. If you look at it, Spidey's relationship with MJ mirrors Spidey's relationship with Superman- Spidey zags where Superman zigs. Whereas Lois had always been there- from day one- in the Superman books and her importance and role was never in question, MJ was introduced four or five years into Spidey's mythos. It was never 100% certain that MJ was "the one" or "Spidey's girl" like Lois was to Superman. However, this actually served MJ well. Since Lois was the sure thing to Superman, that no other love interest could ever really challenge, there was no real need to develop her character beyond superficial means. Lois would always be known, in one form or another, as "Superman's Girlfriend." Meanwhile, MJ was allowed to grow and evolve over the years, becoming more than just the "party girl" that she was initially introduced as. She was kept in the books because the FANS liked her. And because of the work done on her character, the Spider-Man franchise has benefited as MJ has taken a more important role in outside media- its no surprised that the "crying on the inside" version of MJ was the one chosen by filmmakers of the Spider-Man films to be Spidey's love interest.

Agreed. Notice that, unlike Mary Jane, whenever Peter a new female supporting character was created specifically to be a love interest for Peter, there's was always some development designed to eventually separate them?

For Betty Brant, who was created specifically to be Peter's girlfriend when Stan Lee and Steve Ditko wrote the books, ended up having her brother killed which made her blame Spider-Man, thus preventing Peter from revealing his identity; in addition, Ned Leeds was added as a rival for her affections. On top of that, Betty was always worried that Peter was taking too many risks as a photographer, and that she assumed Peter was cheating on her whenever she couldn't get a hold of him (due to his out swinging around as Spider-Man) and especially when Liz Allen was flirting with him. The end result was that Peter and Betty drifted apart as a couple.

To replace Betty, Stan Lee then added Gwen Stacy, who at first was presented as a sophisticate and sultry "ice queen" until she got softened up to be the "innocent girl next door." Again, situations were created to give their relationship tension--in many ways identical to what happened with Betty. She became jealous, or assumed he was a coward, and berated him for lying to her about his frequent absences. Likewise, her father was killed in which she held Spider-Man responsible, and thus Peter was once again afraid to reveal his identity to a loved one. Furthermore, in comparison to Mary Jane, Gwen seemed boring and tame. And of course, Gwen ended up getting killed since Conway and Romita felt they couldn't do more with the character other than have Peter and her get married or break up.

Mary Jane, on the other hand, as you pointed out, wasn't originally created to be Peter's girlfriend but rather a "spoiler" or a rival for Gwen. And because of this, future writers were free to develop her so that Peter and MJ started out as friends who eventually came to fall in love with one another--which frequently happens in real life. Sure, MJ was no exception to the same patterns as the other girlfriends Peter had in keeping them temporarily apart, but unlike character like Betty, Gwen, and the others who were simply created to be love interests, MJ had developed apart from that and, as a result, became a distinct character in her own right more than just a plot device when it came to Peter's relationships.


I think MJ has the same thing happening for in comparison to Lois Lane as Peter does to Clark: she's a much more flawed, and I think human, character than Lois is.

Well, many of the characters in DC started out as idealized characters rather than portrayed as realistic characters, and that included the supporting characters. After all, Lois Lane's role was essentially to provide a way for Superman to come to her rescue, given that she was a nosy reporter who often put herself in harms way for the sake of a story. It all revolved around Superman. What was considered revolutionary in the Spider-Man comics was that Mary Jane, as well as most of the supporting cast, had their own lives that didn't necessarily revolve around Spider-Man or Peter, and in some cases were just as fascinating as the titular character himself. This is partly the reason why some female supporting characters who were exclusively created to be Peter's girlfriend weren't as interesting as MJ.

[Jim Thompson]

Agreed. Notice that, unlike Mary Jane, whenever Peter a new female supporting character was created specifically to be a love interest for Peter, there's was always some development designed to eventually separate them?

For Betty Brant, who was created specifically to be Peter's girlfriend when Stan Lee and Steve Ditko wrote the books, ended up having her brother killed which made her blame Spider-Man, thus preventing Peter from revealing his identity; in addition, Ned Leeds was added as a rival for her affections. On top of that, Betty was always worried that Peter was taking too many risks as a photographer, and that she assumed Peter was cheating on her whenever she couldn't get a hold of him (due to his out swinging around as Spider-Man) and especially when Liz Allen was flirting with him. The end result was that Peter and Betty drifted apart as a couple.

To replace Betty, Stan Lee then added Gwen Stacy, who at first was presented as a sophisticate and sultry "ice queen" until she got softened up to be the "innocent girl next door." Again, situations were created to give their relationship tension--in many ways identical to what happened with Betty. She became jealous, or assumed he was a coward, and berated him for lying to her about his frequent absences. Likewise, her father was killed in which she held Spider-Man responsible, and thus Peter was once again afraid to reveal his identity to a loved one. Furthermore, in comparison to Mary Jane, Gwen seemed boring and tame. And of course, Gwen ended up getting killed since Conway and Romita felt they couldn't do more with the character other than have Peter and her get married or break up.

Mary Jane, on the other hand, as you pointed out, wasn't originally created to be Peter's girlfriend but rather a "spoiler" or a rival for Gwen. And because of this, future writers were free to develop her so that Peter and MJ started out as friends who eventually came to fall in love with one another--which frequently happens in real life. Sure, MJ was no exception to the same patterns as the other girlfriends Peter had in keeping them temporarily apart, but unlike character like Betty, Gwen, and the others who were simply created to be love interests, MJ had developed apart from that and, as a result, became a distinct character in her own right more than just a plot device when it came to Peter's relationships.



Well, many of the characters in DC started out as idealized characters rather than portrayed as realistic characters, and that included the supporting characters. After all, Lois Lane's role was essentially to provide a way for Superman to come to her rescue, given that she was a nosy reporter who often put herself in harms way for the sake of a story. It all revolved around Superman. What was considered revolutionary in the Spider-Man comics was that Mary Jane, as well as most of the supporting cast, had their own lives that didn't necessarily revolve around Spider-Man or Peter, and in some cases were just as fascinating as the titular character himself. This is partly the reason why some female supporting characters who were exclusively created to be Peter's girlfriend weren't as interesting as MJ.Fantastic post, 'Nerd!

[RDMacQ]

Agreed. Notice that, unlike Mary Jane, whenever Peter a new female supporting character was created specifically to be a love interest for Peter, there's was always some development designed to eventually separate them?

For Betty Brant, who was created specifically to be Peter's girlfriend when Stan Lee and Steve Ditko wrote the books, ended up having her brother killed which made her blame Spider-Man, thus preventing Peter from revealing his identity; in addition, Ned Leeds was added as a rival for her affections. On top of that, Betty was always worried that Peter was taking too many risks as a photographer, and that she assumed Peter was cheating on her whenever she couldn't get a hold of him (due to his out swinging around as Spider-Man) and especially when Liz Allen was flirting with him. The end result was that Peter and Betty drifted apart as a couple.

To replace Betty, Stan Lee then added Gwen Stacy, who at first was presented as a sophisticate and sultry "ice queen" until she got softened up to be the "innocent girl next door." Again, situations were created to give their relationship tension--in many ways identical to what happened with Betty. She became jealous, or assumed he was a coward, and berated him for lying to her about his frequent absences. Likewise, her father was killed in which she held Spider-Man responsible, and thus Peter was once again afraid to reveal his identity to a loved one. Furthermore, in comparison to Mary Jane, Gwen seemed boring and tame. And of course, Gwen ended up getting killed since Conway and Romita felt they couldn't do more with the character other than have Peter and her get married or break up.

Mary Jane, on the other hand, as you pointed out, wasn't originally created to be Peter's girlfriend but rather a "spoiler" or a rival for Gwen. And because of this, future writers were free to develop her so that Peter and MJ started out as friends who eventually came to fall in love with one another--which frequently happens in real life. Sure, MJ was no exception to the same patterns as the other girlfriends Peter had in keeping them temporarily apart, but unlike character like Betty, Gwen, and the others who were simply created to be love interests, MJ had developed apart from that and, as a result, became a distinct character in her own right more than just a plot device when it came to Peter's relationships.

Couldn't agree more. The reason that MJ has stood the test of time is because, like you said, there was no reason introduced to break Pete and MJ up or create an artificial strain on their relationship- like MJ blaming Spider-Man for a personal tragedy. And since she wasn't created to be "Peter's #1" gal, the writers were allowed to develop her character more. One of the first comics I can remember is AMZ#259 where MJ reveals her backstory to Peter after she tells him that she knows he is Spider-Man. To this day, that is one of my favorite comics because it made MJ a sympathetic and well rounded character. Most female love interests personal lives outside of her interactions with the main hero are almost non-existent, with the occasional personal relationship thrown in for a plot development. Here, with MJ, she had her very own backstory- her very own origin, if you will- that made her into a character that stood apart. MJ's story was one of an ordinary person, one that might happen to someone in real life. And that development couldn't have happened if she was "Spider-Man's girl" from day one, because there would be no desire to develop her character beyond that.

[mikekerr3]

Yeah, people back in the day got that wrong. But then again, who could've possibly predicted the advent of the internet?

Remenber "transparent aluminum being a big deal in The third (?) Stark Trek movie. and cell phone were Star Trek stuff. Your PC probably has more power than all the computers in the US combined did when Spidey started, if not Your Gaming system definitely does.

And as far as flying cars goes, do you really want to see the results of FWI instead of DWI?:eek: