What creators have done the most harm to Spider-Man?

[Mister Mets]

This is a companion to my What creators have done the most good for Spider-Man thread.

What creators do you think have done the worst for Spider-Man. I may need flame-resistant suits here. Feel free to include artists, and editors.

The creators I can think of............
Howard Mackie- He was involved in the Clone Saga, and later squandered one of the greatest opportunities given to any Spider-Man writer with a year, and a half-long mediocre run on both Amazing Spider-Man, and Peter Parker Spider-Man.

John Byrne- Chapter One. He wrote scripts for the Gathering of the Five, and the Final Chapter, and was heavily involved in plotting the first eighteen issue of the Amazing Spider-Man relaunch, and that was a bad eighteen issues.

Terry Kavangh- Suggested the clone saga, and killed off both the Lizard and Lance Bannon. Created a generic mystery Spider-Man villain in Facade, and that mystery was never solved.

I have not read the work of Reginald Hudlin, so I can't judge that book.

[Charagon]

It's hard to judge this because the majority of harm that has come upon Spider-Man is the direct result of editors, marketing, and idiots in power who simply don't know what they are doing.

The only person I can think of that produced truly terrible results for Spider-Man has been Millar, who seems to have no editorial restraint what so ever.

[jam1]

Byrne, Mackie, Kavanaugh, Bob Harras (editor).

[Artemis1]

Number one is JMS. He screwed with readers.

[The Shadow]

Byrne with Chapter One (though the art was good) and Millar

[cosmicspidey]

Number one is JMS. He screwed with readers.

As a reader, I humbly disagree.

I honestly never liked Todd MacFarlane's run on the character, and the "grim and gritty" feel that came with him (he may not have started it, but it happened around that time). "Grim and gritty" and Spider-Man don't mix.

[Uncensored]

John Byrne- Chapter One. He wrote scripts for the Gathering of the Five, and the Final Chapter, and was heavily involved in plotting the first eighteen issue of the Amazing Spider-Man relaunch, and that was a bad eighteen issues.

This was my first exposure to John Byrne's work years ago. It really made me wonder why in god's name he has fans.

[Headhunter]

Everyone involved in the Clone Saga should be ashamed beyond words.

Also, I thought Maximum Carnage was overrated; I really liked the concept, but the execution was so muddled and WAY too long. Also, all the nonames like Cloak and Dagger killed whatever momentum it had from chapter to chapter.

[Mister Mets]

It's hard to judge this because the majority of harm that has come upon Spider-Man is the direct result of editors, marketing, and idiots in power who simply don't know what they are doing.

The only person I can think of that produced truly terrible results for Spider-Man has been Millar, who seems to have no editorial restraint what so ever.

My top 15 Spider-Man stories list shows that I'll have to disagree with Millar's presence on the list. :)

[The Shadow]

My top 15 Spider-Man stories list shows that I'll have to disagree with Millar's presence on the list. :)
PLEASE tell me he's not on your list for Marvel Knights Spider-Man...

[tricksterpup]

Number one is JMS. He screwed with readers.
Best Sex I ever had.

[Dark Soul # 7]

PLEASE tell me he's not on your list for Marvel Knights Spider-Man...
That was a great one year run on a comic if I ever did see one.

[The Shadow]

That was a great one year run on a comic if I ever did see one.
I guess our tastes really differ. Other than the art the story was predictable and in the end *yawn* it was Norman again responsible for all Peters troubles... been there, read that MANY times (and better done) before.

[Charagon]

That was a great one year run on a comic if I ever did see one.

Great is not defined as "Series of mindless fights strung loosely together by an almost non-existant plot that's ripped off of a story that's actually good featuring characters that act like prickish parodies of themselves and coming to rediculous conclusions for no reason."

Nobody with more intelligance than a slice of bad cheese should enjoy that run.

[Dark Soul # 7]

Great is not defined as "Series of mindless fights strung loosely together by an almost non-existant plot that's ripped off of a story that's actually good featuring characters that act like prickish parodies of themselves and coming to rediculous conclusions for no reason."
That´s your opinion. I liked the action, thought that the plot was good, didn´t mind the obviousness that sometimes exsited and did not see anything wrong with how the characters were handled. If you want all the things you describe in your quote you should read MK:SM now. Which I think you do.
Nobody with more intelligance than a slice of bad cheese should enjoy that run.
And still I, who obviously have more intelligence than a bad slice of cheese since cheese is not a living being with a brain, enjoyed Mark Millars run on MK:SM.
If you don´t agree, fine! Like I give hootnanny.

[chicainery]

Great is not defined as "Series of mindless fights strung loosely together by an almost non-existant plot that's ripped off of a story that's actually good featuring characters that act like prickish parodies of themselves and coming to rediculous conclusions for no reason."

Nobody with more intelligance than a slice of bad cheese should enjoy that run.

Good post except for the last bit. Random insults are not my thing.

[ViciousX]

John Byrne.

[olympichero62]

As a reader, I humbly disagree.

I honestly never liked Todd MacFarlane's run on the character, and the "grim and gritty" feel that came with him (he may not have started it, but it happened around that time). "Grim and gritty" and Spider-Man don't mix.

I dont like to be a negative person or be insulting, but I couldnt stand john byrne's run

I didnt like sins past although JMS is one of my favorites ever

And I also do not agree with Mark Millar's run. It was very out of character, but the last issue was brilliant. That last page was chilling.

However, these are just my opinions, just like every other post on this thread

[The Shadow]

Great is not defined as "Series of mindless fights strung loosely together by an almost non-existant plot that's ripped off of a story that's actually good featuring characters that act like prickish parodies of themselves and coming to rediculous conclusions for no reason."
Nicely said. :D

[Mister Mets]

PLEASE tell me he's not on your list for Marvel Knights Spider-Man...

Check the list for yourself. It's the Top 15 Spider-Man Stories thread.

Great is not defined as "Series of mindless fights strung loosely together by an almost non-existant plot that's ripped off of a story that's actually good featuring characters that act like prickish parodies of themselves and coming to rediculous conclusions for no reason."

Nobody with more intelligance than a slice of bad cheese should enjoy that run.

To the best of my knowledge......
You could only judge the book by the first two issues, since those are the only ones you've read.

I, and Dark Soul #7 have more intelligence than a slice of good cheese, not just bad cheese.

[DDM]

This was my first exposure to John Byrne's work years ago. It really made me wonder why in god's name he has fans.

For Byrne's best work, read Fantastic Four Visionaries 1-4 TPBs, Uncanny X-Men #108-143, DC's Man of Steel #1-6, & Superman from 1987-1989. Action Comics #600 is magic with George Perez's inks!

[Mister Mets]

For Byrne's best work, read Fantastic Four Visionaries 1-4 TPBs, Uncanny X-Men #108-143, DC's Man of Steel #1-6, & Superman from 1987-1989. Action Comics #600 is magic with George Perez's inks!

I'd also recommend the current issues of Action Comics, and pretty much nothing else from the last ten years.

[The Shadow]

I'd also recommend the current issues of Action Comics, and pretty much nothing else from the last ten years.
His Next Men stuff was great! Also for new stuff Blood of the Demon is awesome!

[The Shadow]

To the best of my knowledge......
You could only judge the book by the first two issues, since those are the only ones you've read.
I read em all and agreed with Charagon 100% (except about your intellegence! I think you're waaay smarter than a slice of bad, or even good cheese :p :D )

[cosmicspidey]

I'd also recommend the current issues of Action Comics, and pretty much nothing else from the last ten years.

Y'know, I was dreading the Byrne-drawn issue of the current WW/Supes storyline, and was pleasantly surprised by what I saw. You're right, that's the best work John Byrne's done in a long time.

[tricksterpup]

Actually, I think Byrne is a fantastic artist. I love the art in his current run of Doom Patrol. His run on spider-man wasn't his best but it was much better than most out there today, and his books make deadline.

There were a few issues here and there that were good though, IMO. But I do think he was a poor choice to write the book. Not every writer has a grasp on the characters they write. ahem.. last run of alpha flight for example.
If we want to start talking really bad stories of spider-man. There is a whole list of them, people are just picking on the really big names. There are some books that were just darn bad.

1. I have to say the Mcfarlane's Spider-man. I mean the new book they created for him.
2. Spider-man and Wolverine 1 shot. Wow.. bad, when they revealed who the Hobgoblin was, everyone was screaming What THE FUDGE.
3. I think it was web of spider-man, had some lack luster issues.
4. Spider-man and his Amazing Friends one shot.. ouch.

Also we had Creation of such characters.
The Spot
Frogman
The Gibbon

I could keep on going here.. but I will stop.

[chicagokmc]

Everyone involved in the Clone Saga should be ashamed beyond words.



well put. this story lasted too long and was much too convoluted for my tastes.

[StoneGold]

Great is not defined as "Series of mindless fights strung loosely together by an almost non-existant plot that's ripped off of a story that's actually good featuring characters that act like prickish parodies of themselves and coming to rediculous conclusions for no reason."

Nobody with more intelligance than a slice of bad cheese should enjoy that run.
OK, aside from the blatantly offensive last statement (since he just said he enjoyed the series, you're saying he has the intelligence of bad cheese), how is it specifically damaging? I mean, if it was, the entire run of the original Marvel Team Up should have destroyed the Spider-Man character forever.

[SUPERMAN PRIME]

why dont u people like Mackie?

[foswell]

His Next Men stuff was great! Also for new stuff Blood of the Demon is awesome!

I think some of the art he is producing is great, I just think he should retire from writing.
I thought Chapter one was horrible.

[Dentty]

why dont u people like Mackie?

Because we've read his work?

:D


Yeah, if we're talking writers that have done the most harm (not just worst writer, although these guys would take that home too) it would have to be Mackie and Bryne sharing the award.

And compared to Hudlin's current run on MK:SM, Miller's run looks like a gift from Heaven.

[DDM]

Everyone involved in the Clone Saga should be ashamed beyond words.



I agree. I still haven't picked up Spider-Man's recent titles due to the horrible Clone Saga, although I'm reading Spider-Man: House of M. I still buy old Spider-Man backissues when Spidey was fun to read. All of these stories are 20 years or older.

[The Shadow]

I still buy old Spider-Man backissues when Spidey was fun to read. All of these stories are 20 years or older.
My FAVORITE era in Spider-Man was Amazing 200-ish to 270-ish.

Hobgoblin, Black Cat, Silver Sable... all great characters introduced in that time and the stories were so fun!

[Mister Mets]

I agree. I still haven't picked up Spider-Man's recent titles due to the horrible Clone Saga, although I'm reading Spider-Man: House of M. I still buy old Spider-Man backissues when Spidey was fun to read. All of these stories are 20 years or older.

I really recommend you check out the upcming Spider-Man/ Human Torch digest (or just buy the back issues.) Fun fun book.

His Next Men stuff was great! Also for new stuff Blood of the Demon is awesome!

Was Next Men even published in the last ten years? Regardless it's worth hunting down.
Generations was also okay (but I wouldn't say it's great.)

Actually, I think Byrne is a fantastic artist. I love the art in his current run of Doom Patrol. His run on spider-man wasn't his best but it was much better than most out there today, and his books make deadline.

There were a few issues here and there that were good though, IMO. But I do think he was a poor choice to write the book. Not every writer has a grasp on the characters they write. ahem.. last run of alpha flight for example.
If we want to start talking really bad stories of spider-man. There is a whole list of them, people are just picking on the really big names. There are some books that were just darn bad.

1. I have to say the Mcfarlane's Spider-man. I mean the new book they created for him.
2. Spider-man and Wolverine 1 shot. Wow.. bad, when they revealed who the Hobgoblin was, everyone was screaming What THE FUDGE.
3. I think it was web of spider-man, had some lack luster issues.
4. Spider-man and his Amazing Friends one shot.. ouch.

Also we had Creation of such characters.
The Spot
Frogman
The Gibbon

I could keep on going here.. but I will stop.

I don't think it's fair to judge Spider-MAn VS. Wolverine for a revelation that did not happen in that issue, although I think you can blame writer James Owsley for that decision.

And was the single issue of Spider-Man and the Amazing Friends really that bad to the character?

why dont u people like Mackie?

His great issues ("Cliche", the Spider-Man VS. Bullseye issue, the first part of the revenge of the Green Goblin crossover, the elevator story, and the conclusion of the clone saga) are outnumbered by a lot of lackluster issues, and squandered opportunities.

He was the sole writer of the Spider-Man books for a bad year, and a half.

He forgot key subplots (ie- Peter's job at Triskelion.)

[streator]

This is a companion to my What creators have done the most good for Spider-Man thread.

What creators do you think have done the worst for Spider-Man. I may need flame-resistant suits here.

The creators I can think of............
Howard Mackie- He was involved in the Clone Saga, and later squandered one of the greatest opportunities given to any Spider-Man writer with a year, and a half-long mediocre run on both Amazing Spider-Man, and Peter Parker Spider-Man.

John Byrne- Chapter One. He wrote scripts for the Gathering of the Five, and the Final Chapter, and was heavily involved in plotting the first eighteen issue of the Amazing Spider-Man relaunch, and that was a bad eighteen issues.
i would also say byrne and mackie, cyberman.

[Charagon]

Mackie is one of those writers I try to give the benifit of the doubt too. He didn't do much to pull the Spider-Books out of the pit that they had fallen into during the Clone Saga, but he wasn't the one responsible for putting it there in the first place.

[chicainery]

Mackie is one of those writers I try to give the benifit of the doubt too. He didn't do much to pull the Spider-Books out of the pit that they had fallen into during the Clone Saga, but he wasn't the one responsible for putting it there in the first place.


But would you want him on a current Spider-man book?

I wouldn't. He and Byrne are the two that got me to actually quit buying comic books for awhile (well, them and lack of money...but I blame them, dagnabit!).

[Mister Mets]

Mackie is one of those writers I try to give the benifit of the doubt too. He didn't do much to pull the Spider-Books out of the pit that they had fallen into during the Clone Saga, but he wasn't the one responsible for putting it there in the first place.

But it's not like the only bad issues he wrote were during the Clone Saga. He was writing Spider-Man stories years afterwards, and was even the sole writer for an year, and a half. A pretty bad year, and a half.

[Dussan]

Stan Lee

His run is marked with some truly crappy writing.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Stan Lee

His run is marked with some truly crappy writing.

Blasphemy! Prepare for the stoning!

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

OK, aside from the blatantly offensive last statement (since he just said he enjoyed the series, you're saying he has the intelligence of bad cheese), how is it specifically damaging? I mean, if it was, the entire run of the original Marvel Team Up should have destroyed the Spider-Man character forever.

Stone makes an excellent point here. The question is "most harm to Spider-man" not "who's the worst writer."

In that sense, I think all the votes for Byrne are misguided. Yes, Chapter One stunk on ice, but what harm did it do? Everyone read it, hated it and promptly forgot about it. Even Marvel. It had no discernable effect on Spider-man's continuity at all.

You see where I'm going here? Harm, as in "bad stories from which the franchise had a hard time, or is still having a hard time, recovering from," in my mind are:

1) the Clone Saga. Hard to argue this one. Bad idea, bad stories, horribly convoluted storyline, the "death" of Baby May. And, I even liked the Ben Reilly character. Just thought it was poorly planned from the beginning and, when Marvel chickened out and switched streams in the middle of the story, THAT's when it really went in the pooper.

2) Sins Past. I know there are a lot of fans on this board for this story, but I still can't fathom why. Leave aside the obvious and glaring continuity problems. Leave aside the mischaracterization and desecration of a character that's been dead for 30 years. C'mon, artificially aged children in gray Goblin suits? Yeesh. And there's the whole "MJ lied" thing that was just thrown in as a bonus. And I say that as a guy who was a fan of JMS prior to this story.

3) Bringing back Norman Osborn. This probably should rank ahead of Sins Past, but because Marvel did it out of sheer capitalistic impulses so that the comics would be consistent with the movie, I'll give them a bit of a pass. But the whole "Norman has been behind everything, including the Kennedy assassination" thing got old pretty quickly. And, actually, one could make a broader point here: Marvel has screwed the Green Goblin beyond belief. Let's see, there's Norm, Harry, Bart Hamilton, Harry again, Phil Urich and then Norm again. Not to mention the horribly convoluted Hobgoblin mess. Cripes. You'll notice that Lex Luthor has always been Lex Luther (well, he did pose as his kid for a time, but I digress).

4) Joining the New Avengers. Yeah, I know it's early days yet, but I think this is a bad move. Spider-man functions best with more down-to-earth stories and watching him galavant across the globe isn't exactly doing it for me.

[Kevinroc]

Stone makes an excellent point here. The question is "most harm to Spider-man" not "who's the worst writer."

In that sense, I think all the votes for Byrne are misguided. Yes, Chapter One stunk on ice, but what harm did it do? Everyone read it, hated it and promptly forgot about it. Even Marvel. It had no discernable effect on Spider-man's continuity at all.

You see where I'm going here? Harm, as in "bad stories from which the franchise had a hard time, or is still having a hard time, recovering from," in my mind are:

1) the Clone Saga. Hard to argue this one. Bad idea, bad stories, horribly convoluted storyline, the "death" of Baby May. And, I even liked the Ben Reilly character. Just thought it was poorly planned from the beginning and, when Marvel chickened out and switched streams in the middle of the story, THAT's when it really went in the pooper.

Yeah, because people like the idea of the Spidey they had been reading for 20 years not to have been the real Spidey...

2) Sins Past. I know there are a lot of fans on this board for this story, but I still can't fathom why. Leave aside the obvious and glaring continuity problems. Leave aside the mischaracterization and desecration of a character that's been dead for 30 years. C'mon, artificially aged children in gray Goblin suits? Yeesh. And there's the whole "MJ lied" thing that was just thrown in as a bonus. And I say that as a guy who was a fan of JMS prior to this story.

I love how comic fans can accept things like bites from radioactive spiders can give you super powers but articially aged children? That isn't possible. Never mind that Genis (aka Photon of The New Thunderbolts) was artificially aged...

And yeah, I know I read my Spider-Man comics to read about virgin princess Gwen...

Never mind the fact that virgin princess Gwen was a dull character. Which is one of the reasons why she was killed off in the first place.

And apparantly Peter trying to still be a hero ruins his character. Not say... when he smacked Mary Jane or chose to live out on the streets like a bum after he got kicked out of his apartment instead of going back to Aunt May's...

3) Bringing back Norman Osborn. This probably should rank ahead of Sins Past, but because Marvel did it out of sheer capitalistic impulses so that the comics would be consistent with the movie, I'll give them a bit of a pass. But the whole "Norman has been behind everything, including the Kennedy assassination" thing got old pretty quickly. And, actually, one could make a broader point here: Marvel has screwed the Green Goblin beyond belief. Let's see, there's Norm, Harry, Bart Hamilton, Harry again, Phil Urich and then Norm again. Not to mention the horribly convoluted Hobgoblin mess. Cripes. You'll notice that Lex Luthor has always been Lex Luther (well, he did pose as his kid for a time, but I digress).

Marvel brought Norman back years before the legal tanglings of the Spidey movies came undone. Norman was brought back for the sheer purpose of ending the Clone Saga as he was one of the only characters responsible for actually being able to mastermind the whole thing.

Marvel needed a villian who was manipulating the Jackal, hates Spider-Man a whole bunch and had the resources to pull this all off.

Which is why it couldn't be someone like Kang or Dr. Doom. They just don't care about Spidey all that much.

Doc Ock didn't know Spidey's ID. Neither did Mysterio.

It had to have been an Osborn... And Harry was already responsible for the Peter's parents thing.

4) Joining the New Avengers. Yeah, I know it's early days yet, but I think this is a bad move. Spider-man functions best with more down-to-earth stories and watching him galavant across the globe isn't exactly doing it for me.

Beyond the opening arc with Spidey in the Savage Land (he's actually been to the Savage Land before anyway), I haven't seen him go out and do things that are so out there for him. Just give it time.

[tricksterpup]

1) the Clone Saga. Hard to argue this one. Bad idea, bad stories, horribly convoluted storyline, the "death" of Baby May. And, I even liked the Ben Reilly character. Just thought it was poorly planned from the beginning and, when Marvel chickened out and switched streams in the middle of the story, THAT's when it really went in the pooper.

2) Sins Past. I know there are a lot of fans on this board for this story, but I still can't fathom why. Leave aside the obvious and glaring continuity problems. Leave aside the mischaracterization and desecration of a character that's been dead for 30 years. C'mon, artificially aged children in gray Goblin suits? Yeesh. And there's the whole "MJ lied" thing that was just thrown in as a bonus. And I say that as a guy who was a fan of JMS prior to this story.



I don't like you no more.. I have sent a commando squad of Raccoons to dig in your trash tonight. ;)


Actually there are some things That I really dug about the Clone saga. I did like the initial concept but it drug on to long. There were some very good moments in the run. I enjoyed Ben Reilly, Kane (yes I am a Kane fan), the birth of Baby May and the concept of Peter retiring but the best that comes to mind is actually Aunt May's Death. It was actually very moving. I like the thought that she actually knew that Peter was Spider-man all those years. Also another winner from this time was the New Green Goblin. I really liked this book and the concept behind it as well. I was really upset when they decided to go back to the villain Goblin and bring Norman back, along with Aunt May.

So actually for me, the worse of Spider-man History is the bringing back to life of Aunt May and Norman Osborn.
But I will say that JMS did redeem Aunt May coming back to life in the issue titled the Conversation. Wow.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Yeah, because people like the idea of the Spidey they had been reading for 20 years not to have been the real Spidey...

And I totally agree with that. Marvel should have been smart enough to figure that out as well. What was horrible was how Marvel started out one way and then pussied out and had to change the entire thing to bring Pete back. The whole thing was a real Chinese fire drill.


I love how comic fans can accept things like bites from radioactive spiders can give you super powers but articially aged children? That isn't possible. Never mind that Genis (aka Photon of The New Thunderbolts) was artificially aged...

And I love how condescending some comics fans can be. There is suspension of disbelief and then there is suspension of stupidity. The unknown affair/hidden pregnancy/hidden children/artifical aging thing read like something that came out of a combination of Days of Our Lives and the, uh, well, the Clone Saga.

And I thought Genis' origin was dumb, too, so there.

And yeah, I know I read my Spider-Man comics to read about virgin princess Gwen...

Never mind the fact that virgin princess Gwen was a dull character. Which is one of the reasons why she was killed off in the first place.

You've just proved my point for me. "Dull" Gwen may have been dull but that's exactly the point: she wasn't really the type to go sleeping with Norman Osborn, get knocked up, run off and have two kids and not tell Peter about any of it. And, it makes Peter look like an idiot for not having picked up on any of it at the time. And, it makes MJ the kind of wife who lies to her husband. And, it makes Norman to be either an idiot for not using his knowledge of the affair to torment Peter or uncharacteristically soft. Take your pick.

And, to top it all off, we now learn that JMS only made Norman the father because Marvel wouldn't let him write Peter as the father. So much for the well-thought out plan to give some "depth" to Gwen's character. All of JMS' foot stomping to the contrary, it wasn't even the story he wanted to write in the first place. But, of course, after the fact, all of us who disagreed with his choices in Sins Past are idiot fanboys. :rolleyes:

Other than that, though, Mrs. Lincoln, the play was awesome.



Marvel brought Norman back years before the legal tanglings of the Spidey movies came undone. Norman was brought back for the sheer purpose of ending the Clone Saga as he was one of the only characters responsible for actually being able to mastermind the whole thing.

Marvel needed a villian who was manipulating the Jackal, hates Spider-Man a whole bunch and had the resources to pull this all off.

Which is why it couldn't be someone like Kang or Dr. Doom. They just don't care about Spidey all that much.

Doc Ock didn't know Spidey's ID. Neither did Mysterio.

It had to have been an Osborn... And Harry was already responsible for the Peter's parents thing.

I've heard different things on the bringing Norman back thing, but it's been said that one of the reasons he was brought back was because the various movie scripts featured him as GG.

As to him being responsible for the Clone Saga, again, you answered your own question. It didn't have to be Norman. It could easily have been Harry.

Beyond the opening arc with Spidey in the Savage Land (he's actually been to the Savage Land before anyway), I haven't seen him go out and do things that are so out there for him. Just give it time.

I think 7 issues is plenty of time. Especially for an origin story. As I said, it's a bit early to condemn it yet, but it hasn't impressed me thus far. Spider-man is a character who works better with low-level threats and in an urban environment. Despite his sort of goofy history in going to places like the Savage Land in the past (and all of the really bad MTU stories), those were mainly temporary plot devices for the sake of a one or two issue team up, not a long-term change. I'm just not thrilled with a Spider-man who jets around the globe and lives in a superhero hideout. Not my conception of how the character works.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I don't like you no more.. I have sent a commando squad of Raccoons to dig in your trash tonight. ;)


Actually there are some things That I really dug about the Clone saga. I did like the initial concept but it drug on to long. There were some very good moments in the run. I enjoyed Ben Reilly, Kane (yes I am a Kane fan), the birth of Baby May and the concept of Peter retiring but the best that comes to mind is actually Aunt May's Death. It was actually very moving. I like the thought that she actually knew that Peter was Spider-man all those years. Also another winner from this time was the New Green Goblin. I really liked this book and the concept behind it as well. I was really upset when they decided to go back to the villain Goblin and bring Norman back, along with Aunt May.

Here, kid, have a bratwurst. You'll like me again then for sure.

Yeah, my objections to the Clone Saga have more to do with the overall concept and the execution. I liked all those things you mentioned. I think, honestly, if Marvel would have let the story run its course as originally intended, let Ben have a short run, and then brought Peter back, say, a year later, it would have worked better. I also thought killing Ben was a mistake. I had some ideas of how they could have done it differently. Obviously, they couldn't have a clone of Peter Parker running around the MU, but what if the same kind of genetic replicator virus that created Carrion was refined so that Ben seemed like a clone of Peter, when in fact he was someone else entirely? Kind of a weak explanation to be sure, but with all the fans out there of Ben Reilly, I think Marvel would have been wise to keep Ben around, move him to L.A. or San Franciso or somewhere and let him operate as the Scarlet Spider.


So actually for me, the worse of Spider-man History is the bringing back to life of Aunt May and Norman Osborn.
But I will say that JMS did redeem Aunt May coming back to life in the issue titled the Conversation. Wow.

Bringing back Aunt May was something I thought about listing, but JMS did such a good job with her in the Conversation and subsequently that I think it's added to the series and not harmed it overall, so thus, I left it off.

[Charagon]

The question is "most harm to Spider-man" not "who's the worst writer."

I'm sorry, wasn't it Millar who outed the Green Goblin ON THE FIRST !@#$ING PAGE and took Venom, pissed on all the progress the character has made in recent times, and then gave the symbiote to Scorpion.

Those are two very important Spider-Man villians who got Millar crapped on.

[Kevinroc]

And I love how condescending some comics fans can be. There is suspension of disbelief and then there is suspension of stupidity. The unknown affair/hidden pregnancy/hidden children/artifical aging thing read like something that came out of a combination of Days of Our Lives and the, uh, well, the Clone Saga.

And I thought Genis' origin was dumb, too, so there.

You want more artificially aged characters? Because there are a whole bunch of them running around comics. Post-Crisis Superboy, for example. Bart Allen (Impulse/ Kid Flash II) is another.

Comics, espeically Spider-Man comics, were built on soap opera. In case you forgot. That's why people keep coming back.

You've just proved my point for me. "Dull" Gwen may have been dull but that's exactly the point: she wasn't really the type to go sleeping with Norman Osborn, get knocked up, run off and have two kids and not tell Peter about any of it. And, it makes Peter look like an idiot for not having picked up on any of it at the time. And, it makes MJ the kind of wife who lies to her husband. And, it makes Norman to be either an idiot for not using his knowledge of the affair to torment Peter or uncharacteristically soft. Take your pick.

But Gwen wasn't supposed to be dull. She was ruined by her early writers who turned her from the flirty sexpot to whiny dull daddy's girl.

And I have issues with everything else you said about Peter, MJ and Norman.

Have you ever known a girl that has hidden her pregnancy? Have you ever heard of a girl that hides her pregnancy?

And the only way you can call MJ a liar is if you say "by ommision". Hell, she lied by ommision for years that she knew Peter was Spider-Man.

Norman an idiot? As he said, this was supposed to be in case Norman ever got caught and was exposed. Which... happened...

And, to top it all off, we now learn that JMS only made Norman the father because Marvel wouldn't let him write Peter as the father. So much for the well-thought out plan to give some "depth" to Gwen's character. All of JMS' foot stomping to the contrary, it wasn't even the story he wanted to write in the first place. But, of course, after the fact, all of us who disagreed with his choices in Sins Past are idiot fanboys. :rolleyes:

JMS still wrote the story and stands by it. I think that shows guts.

Other than that, though, Mrs. Lincoln, the play was awesome.

Yes because I read Spider-Man comics because of Gwen Stacy...

I've heard different things on the bringing Norman back thing, but it's been said that one of the reasons he was brought back was because the various movie scripts featured him as GG.

Who said it?

As to him being responsible for the Clone Saga, again, you answered your own question. It didn't have to be Norman. It could easily have been Harry.

No, it couldn't.

At the time the original Clone Saga happened, Harry couldn't have as it would have required a lot more retconning than just bringing Norman back.

Remember, Harry was still having drug problems, had trouble remembering he or that his father was the Goblin and he didn't even know Peter was Spider-Man until #134 and promptly spent time in the booby hatch from #137-151.

When did the original Clone Saga happen? In between the time Harry was locked up.

So uumm... how could Harry have done all this again?

I think 7 issues is plenty of time. Especially for an origin story. As I said, it's a bit early to condemn it yet, but it hasn't impressed me thus far. Spider-man is a character who works better with low-level threats and in an urban environment. Despite his sort of goofy history in going to places like the Savage Land in the past (and all of the really bad MTU stories), those were mainly temporary plot devices for the sake of a one or two issue team up, not a long-term change. I'm just not thrilled with a Spider-man who jets around the globe and lives in a superhero hideout. Not my conception of how the character works.

Read Spider-Man Breakout. It has Spidey dealing with all these things.

The reason why Spidey even lives in Stark Tower is because JMS wants to play with this while he still can. He knows this won't be a forever kind of deal.

[Kevinroc]

The question is "most harm to Spider-man" not "who's the worst writer."

I'm sorry, wasn't it Millar who outed the Green Goblin ON THE FIRST !@#$ING PAGE and took Venom, pissed on all the progress the character has made in recent times, and then gave the symbiote to Scorpion.

Those are two very important Spider-Man villians who got Millar crapped on.

Norman was really exposed in The Pulse by Bendis.

What progress had Venom been making? His ongoing had tanked badly, he was becoming a joke. Scorpion was already a joke. Both characters needed a real shot in the arm. I like Gargan as Venom.

[Will.S]

Norman was really exposed in The Pulse by Bendis.

What progress had Venom been making? His ongoing had tanked badly, he was becoming a joke. Scorpion was already a joke. Both characters needed a real shot in the arm. I like Gargan as Venom.
Exactly.

I'd definitely say the creators behind Clone Saga and Howard Mackie. His run was just as mediocre as they come.

I liked Sins Past but it does taint the Spiderman books a bit since it messes around with past characters too much.

[Sharcque]

It'd be easy to say JMS with the whole Sins Past debacle, but, IMO, he's done more good with the title than bad.

To echo pretty much everyone else: Byrne's Year one is at the top.

Mackie not ever following thru and giving us a decent ending to the whole "Rose" storyline was very frustrating.

And whoever thought of the "Sunburst" covers back in the 90s. :p

[Doesitmatter]

I just read EVERY issue of Amazing thanks to the 40 years cd rom.

And Howard Mackie was the worst. Not only did he repeat plots and have glaring holes that made his stories incomprehensible but his dialogue went beyond lousy into purely unprofessional. How someone could not only get into comics but stay on the flagship book for years is beyond me.

I may not like Sins Past but JMS was a breath of fresh air when he first came on board.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

You want more artificially aged characters? Because there are a whole bunch of them running around comics. Post-Crisis Superboy, for example. Bart Allen (Impulse/ Kid Flash II) is another.

Comics, espeically Spider-Man comics, were built on soap opera. In case you forgot. That's why people keep coming back.

You're focusing on once aspect of why I disliked the story. If you read my comments in context, I think it's fairly easy to understand my objections to the story.


But Gwen wasn't supposed to be dull. She was ruined by her early writers who turned her from the flirty sexpot to whiny dull daddy's girl.

And I have issues with everything else you said about Peter, MJ and Norman.

Have you ever known a girl that has hidden her pregnancy? Have you ever heard of a girl that hides her pregnancy?

And the only way you can call MJ a liar is if you say "by ommision". Hell, she lied by ommision for years that she knew Peter was Spider-Man.

Norman an idiot? As he said, this was supposed to be in case Norman ever got caught and was exposed. Which... happened...

Gwen may have been "ruined" by her early writers (which I suppose was Stan, although how he could "ruin" a character he created, I'm not sure), but still, one has to admit that JMS' characterization of her came out of not just left field, but the parking lot.

Yes, I've known girls that have hidden their pregnancies. But do I think Gwen would have hidden the affair, pregnancy and birth of her children from Peter all that time? No.

As for MJ, the distinction that you draw between intentional misrepresentation and omission works in a court of law, but not in a marriage.


JMS still wrote the story and stands by it. I think that shows guts.

I don't mind him standing by it at all. However, when he received criticism for the story (and granted, much criticism in the form of discourteous and rude and probably obscene rantings), he made comments to the effect that such critiques were without foundation. Later, it turns out that some of the very criticisms fans such as myself had, such as the fact that the Norman/Gwen affair stretched credulity past its breaking point, weren't even a part of his original plot but only added when editorial fiat declared that Peter could not be a father. Guts? Perhaps. But I think it's not out of line for a writer to admit that there could be well-founded reasons why some fans might disagree with his characterization of the characters involved.



Yes because I read Spider-Man comics because of Gwen Stacy...

Missing the point. My objections to the story go beyond the characterization of Gwen. Again, if you read my comments in context, that should be clear.


When did the original Clone Saga happen? In between the time Harry was locked up.

So uumm... how could Harry have done all this again?

Wait a minute. You're the one saying it would have been difficult to have Harry as the one behind the Clone Saga because of continuity problems, while in the same breath defending Sins Past which required far more severe gymnastics to cram it into established continuity? Interesting.

[Charagon]

What progress had Venom been making? His ongoing had tanked badly, he was becoming a joke.

The ongoing was irrevelent. The first Spectacular Spider-Man arc had taken major steps into returning Venom into the character he used to be.



Not to get back into the Gwen thing, but everybody should remember something. The line between "innocent school girl" and "will randomly give a pity !@#$ to best friend's father after a short conversation" is NOT A THIN ONE.

Even if Gwen wasn't as innocent as she's normally portrayed that doesn't mean she would, I say it again, RANDOMLY GIVE A PITY !@#$ TO HER BEST FRIEND'S FATHER AFTER A SHORT CONVERSATION!

Just because a girl will have sex doesn't mean she will have sex with anything. She and Peter could have been going at it like rabbits but that would still make her boffing Norman in his office completely out of character.

[Alan2099]

JMS is getting a lot of hits for his story abou the Love child of Gwen and The green Goblin, but not nearly enough for his Spider-Totem stuff.

Honestly, I never liked a thing he did. Bryne is right up there, except with Bryne, you could just easily forget what he did since it was so unmemorable.

[Kevinroc]

You're focusing on once aspect of why I disliked the story. If you read my comments in context, I think it's fairly easy to understand my objections to the story.

Yeah, but some of your criticisms, while some are valid, some just come off as silly to me.

Gwen may have been "ruined" by her early writers (which I suppose was Stan, although how he could "ruin" a character he created, I'm not sure), but still, one has to admit that JMS' characterization of her came out of not just left field, but the parking lot.

People complain that Bendis ruined Ultimate Gwen and he created her. (Yes, I know people are pissed that he killed her but he also technically created that version of the character.)

The main problem with Gwen was after her father was introduced. That's when she became daddy's little girl.

Gail Simone has said many times that she thought the early Marvel creative teams just plain couldn't write female characters. Gwen's whole degeneration as a character under Stan Lee could be proof enough of that.

She was pretty aggressive when she first popped up. It was when she lost that that she became the dull character.

Yes, I've known girls that have hidden their pregnancies. But do I think Gwen would have hidden the affair, pregnancy and birth of her children from Peter all that time? No.

There it is right there. You think. Not what do the people at Marvel think (which is what really matters on the subject).

As for MJ, the distinction that you draw between intentional misrepresentation and omission works in a court of law, but not in a marriage.

Look, I called you on your BS and now you're a little upset.

I don't mind him standing by it at all. However, when he received criticism for the story (and granted, much criticism in the form of discourteous and rude and probably obscene rantings), he made comments to the effect that such critiques were without foundation. Later, it turns out that some of the very criticisms fans such as myself had, such as the fact that the Norman/Gwen affair stretched credulity past its breaking point, weren't even a part of his original plot but only added when editorial fiat declared that Peter could not be a father. Guts? Perhaps. But I think it's not out of line for a writer to admit that there could be well-founded reasons why some fans might disagree with his characterization of the characters involved.

So you picture writers apologizing for stories they did that you hated? Maybe I should expect an apology out of the current DC writing staff for the characterization in Countdown.

Am I gonna get it? No.

Missing the point. My objections to the story go beyond the characterization of Gwen. Again, if you read my comments in context, that should be clear.

They are mostly about Gwen. And artificially aged children (which is nothing new to comic fans).

Wait a minute. You're the one saying it would have been difficult to have Harry as the one behind the Clone Saga because of continuity problems, while in the same breath defending Sins Past which required far more severe gymnastics to cram it into established continuity? Interesting.

I likes what I likes and I hates what I hates. Simple as that. If I like the story, it works for me.

[Petertime]

What I hate is when a writer, or more often then not, an editor doesn't realize they are not the final word on a character.

On of the things I LIKE about JMS' "Totem storyline" was that he never has the story say "This is how things are and always have been, you just didn't know"
What JMS did do was say "Hey, ever consider this possiblity?"

The clone sage, which I liked in concept, failed when the story made a statement here is the way things are, have been and will be from here on.

Just like when DC decided to change Superman into an energy being, when you make changes to a character that is not creator owned, you have to know things are going to change back eventually and really you should write with that in mind or it won't go over with readers. DC messed that up and ended up with a lame end to the story, just like Marvel messed up and got a lame ending to the whole clone saga. (Lesson: NEVER publish a storyline without an ending in mind)

So long as everyone involved realizes that whatever they do is temporary and treat it as such, little harm is done to the character. (Though there is an arguement for bad writer's turning people off reading the comic altogether)

These Organic webshooters are a load of crap in my opinion, but I also think that eventually Peter will go back to his original, man made ones (because the science of it is part of what makes the character so interesting). Just like this stuff with the New Avengers. It is a fun, different take on the character but so long as they know it ain't gonna last, its all good.

House of M is going to live or die by this.

[Magneto_X]

Ron Zimmerman for making Spiderman team up with Jay Leno. Jay Leno!

[Magneto_X]

Also we had Creation of such characters.
The Spot
Frogman
The Gibbon


Frogman is one of those villains that you aren't supposed to take seriously.
The Spot has a lot of potential, IMO. He doesn't belong in Spidey's series he should hassle the Avengers, IMO.
The Gibbon (like Frogman) isn't a "serious" villain. PAD actually made him pretty cool and had him team up with Grizzly to become super-heroes in Spectular Spiderman. They even helped Spidey defeat the White Rabbit when he was a fugitive (ala "Spider-Hunt").

[Alan2099]

Ron Zimmerman for making Spiderman team up with Jay Leno. Jay Leno!
Granted that wasn't the best story ever, but the Sweet Charity issue was solid gold.

As for JSM, I really don't think he's all that great. His characterization seems off and he seems to want to make the spider-man stories into things they aren't supposed to be. I can't really say I like any of his new characters either.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Yeah, but some of your criticisms, while some are valid, some just come off as silly to me.

I could very much say the same about your responses, but what can I say? Your mileage may vary.

People complain that Bendis ruined Ultimate Gwen and he created her. (Yes, I know people are pissed that he killed her but he also technically created that version of the character.)

I don't read Ult. Spidey, so it wasn't me.

The main problem with Gwen was after her father was introduced. That's when she became daddy's little girl.

Gail Simone has said many times that she thought the early Marvel creative teams just plain couldn't write female characters. Gwen's whole degeneration as a character under Stan Lee could be proof enough of that.

She was pretty aggressive when she first popped up. It was when she lost that that she became the dull character.

I have always liked MJ more than Gwen anyway, but one person's dull character is another person's favorite character. But, you're missing the point, again. The fact that a character may have been dull when written 30 years ago is hardly justification for inventing a whole new side for the character out of whole cloth and then pretending that side of her was there all the time. It wasn't.



There it is right there. You think. Not what do the people at Marvel think (which is what really matters on the subject).

Well, I hardly claimed otherwise. It's patently obvious that this is my opinion on the subject. I wasn't claiming that mine was the definitive view.

Look, I called you on your BS and now you're a little upset.

Uh, hardly. I merely make the point, and speaking from experience as a married man, that my wife would not draw the distinction that you did here. Neither would most spouses, I suspect.

So you picture writers apologizing for stories they did that you hated? Maybe I should expect an apology out of the current DC writing staff for the characterization in Countdown.

Am I gonna get it? No.

Who asked for an apology? I simply made the point that JMS dismissed criticism of his story as completely invalid. Now, it seems that there is some validity to some of the criticisms because much of the criticism would have been answered had he been able to write the story the way he originally intended. I believe I said that he had every right to defend his story. But I think he stepped over the line by taking the position that his view was the only valid one.


They are mostly about Gwen. And artificially aged children (which is nothing new to comic fans).

Again, you are focusing on one part of my criticism. I you read my comments in context, you would realize that.

I likes what I likes and I hates what I hates. Simple as that. If I like the story, it works for me.

Certainly true. I just find it interesting that you have problems with my criticisms of Sins Past while in the same breath you have problems with my proposed solution to who was behind the Clone Saga for many of the same reasons. Perhaps you are taking this too personally. I mean no criticism of you, nor did I intend on offending you for criticizing a story that you enjoyed. As you say, it's all personal taste in the end.

[Frank]

What I hate is when a writer, or more often then not, an editor doesn't realize they are not the final word on a character.

What I hate is a writer that doesn`t have b*lls and write the same crap we`ve always had. A writer that doesn`t change or evolve a character in any way, shape, or form. There`s a lot of those laying around. And they hurt the biz.

As a fan, Sins Past was the most compelling, exciting, intriguing Spider-Man story i`ve ever read. I thank JMS for those sweet moments.

[Charagon]

Had JMS written Sin's Past you might be right, but his story was killed by the editors who brought you the POS story that saw print because they thought Pete was too old to be a father (because it's not like he has already had one kid!).

Don't praise JMS for having balls when the story you (insanely) like so much is the direct result of him pulling down his pants and bending over for somebody who obviously doesn't know what he's doing.

[Alan2099]

I don't buy that JMS is a victim in that case. He was too heavily defending the story before he suddenly said that it wasn't the story he was trying to write.

As for evolving the character. The trick is to give the fans the illusion of chnage. Nobody really wants their characters to change too much. They want the same old characters and situations they grew up with, yet you can't just give the same stuff out all the time. What you have to do is make a story that looks like it alters things or gives an etra insite without straying too far from the forumal.

[Mister Mets]

Had JMS written Sin's Past you might be right, but his story was killed by the editors who brought you the POS story that saw print because they thought Pete was too old to be a father (because it's not like he has already had one kid!).

Don't praise JMS for having balls when the story you (insanely) like so much is the direct result of him pulling down his pants and bending over for somebody who obviously doesn't know what he's doing.

Actually JMS could just have scrapped the plans for Sins Past once Marvel told him Peter couldn't be the father. It's not a matter of him bending over for stupid editors. I doubt that the editorial decree came after his first script.

Incidentally- I liked the story anyway.

[Petertime]

Okay, so JMS (or the editors) wrote a high debateable story, but to get back to the topic at hand, did it do any harm to Spider-man or the Spider-man franchise?

[tricksterpup]

Okay, so JMS (or the editors) wrote a high debateable story, but to get back to the topic at hand, did it do any harm to Spider-man or the Spider-man franchise?

Actually, i would have to say the only Harmful plot device that could have HARMED the Spider-man Franchise was the birth of May.
I believe even Joe Q has even talked about this. The main reason is a license issue, to many companies would have been squimish if Peter was a Father. Companies would have dropped the license or not even pick it up. It was a money decision.

[We R. Venom]

Had JMS written Sin's Past you might be right, but his story was killed by the editors who brought you the POS story that saw print because they thought Pete was too old to be a father (because it's not like he has already had one kid!).

Don't praise JMS for having balls when the story you (insanely) like so much is the direct result of him pulling down his pants and bending over for somebody who obviously doesn't know what he's doing.


It sucks but it's true.

[olympichero62]

I don't know why the editors thought that telling JMS that peter couldnt have kids and switching it to Norman would be ok.

[Kevinroc]

I don't know why the editors thought that telling JMS that peter couldnt have kids and switching it to Norman would be ok.

Because Marvel doesn't want Peter to be a father. And for Peter to have children out of wedlock would just be way too controversial for such a heavily marketed character.

It's not that hard to understand.

[Frank]

Had JMS written Sin's Past you might be right, but his story was killed by the editors who brought you the POS story that saw print because they thought Pete was too old to be a father (because it's not like he has already had one kid!).

Don't praise JMS for having balls when the story you (insanely) like so much is the direct result of him pulling down his pants and bending over for somebody who obviously doesn't know what he's doing.

The story as a whole is still fucking ballsy whether Peter is the father or not.

[LabRat]

I'd vote for Mackie, his run on the Spider-Man reboot was mediocre at it's highest points... Where's he now, by the way?

[Alan2099]

The story as a whole is still fucking ballsy whether Peter is the father or not.
Just because it's ballsy, doesn't mean it's not stupid.

I still don't buy that JMS was the innoncent victim there either. he seemed to be defedning the story heavily BEFORE he decided to come out and blame the editors. Anyway you slice it though, it's a horrible arc that taints Gwen and MJ, introduces characters we don'tneed to have around, and destroys even more of the Goblin's actuall personality.

[The Shadow]

As for evolving the character. The trick is to give the fans the illusion of chnage. Nobody really wants their characters to change too much. They want the same old characters and situations they grew up with, yet you can't just give the same stuff out all the time. What you have to do is make a story that looks like it alters things or gives an extra insite without straying too far from the forumal.
Man you nailed that! Very few characters truely "evolve" or change... sure Peter grew older, or Batman had a Robin die... the essence of the characters remained and Peter still has the same troubles he had in high school/college and Batman still has a ward/partner.

[thetube]

JMS is full of himself. Plain and simple. "Sins" was one of the most disgusting stories I have read in a looong time.

[jam1]

Oh get over it.

And Sins Past rocked. :D

[Alan2099]

And Sins Past rocked. :D
I'll sort of agree with that. It should have been stoned to death. That's close, right?

[The Defenestrator]

I'll sort of agree with that. It should have been stoned to death. That's close, right?
Haw! So true. Mackie's boring, inconsistent run and "Sins Past" were, in my opinion, worse than the Clone bizness. Nothing worse than Norman Osborn's love-face.

[thetube]

Norman is a sick puppie, and so was JMS for coming up with that piece of shit storyline...

[speedy12]

JMS, Mackie and Byrne

[LiquidSnakeX]

John Byrne in my opinion nearly ruined my collection of Comics. That whole Chapter One scenrio made me cringe and made me wish i wasnt buying them. Then the relaunch directly after made me sick up until JMs came aboard.

Howard Mackie was disgusting in trying to write any form of gangster plotline. He ruined the green gobline thing later on in the relaunch.

The writer os sins past. who was she. She didnt really ruin anything, i just think she took someones idea way too quickly and just made people not like her.

[BizarroBeachHead]

Anyway you slice it though, it's a horrible arc that taints Gwen and MJ, introduces characters we don'tneed to have around, and destroys even more of the Goblin's actuall personality.
This has been going on for a while now. I think the worst thing they did so far was kill Norman in the first place. He died 20 years ago, yet they keep wanting to use him as Peters Lex Luthor. Don't get me wrong, I think Norman should have died, I just think that Marvel really regrets it and have been ham handedly trying to keep him around, despite him being dead. I suspect that is one of the big things to change with the House Of M.

[Alan2099]

if you ask me, Dr. Octopus worked for a long time as Spidey's number one bad guy and he did the job a lot better than Norman is doing these days.

[jade_nova]

Anyone who writes Spider-Man nowadays has to make him real talkative and his jokes aren't even that funny.

[Mister Mets]

I'm guessing after the events of One More Day, that there may be new answers to this question.

I have now read the work of Reginald Hudlin, and it wasn't that good, but it didn't cause years of damage to the character either.

I do have one new choice, though.

Jim Shooter- The editorially mandated marriage was a bad idea.

[DarKye]

Uh oh.

This thread is gonna make the battle of Endor look like a schoolyard fight.


Anyway, beyond the obvious answer, I'm gonna have to say that whoever came up with The Other's concept did quite a lot of damage.

[jeffgamer]

Joe Quesada Joe Quesada Joe Quesada Joe Quesada.

Did I mention Joe Quesada?



And I LOVE that Jim Shooter allowed the marriage to go forward. You can claim it was an editorial mandate all you want, but the relationship was built up to that point for MANY MANY years, and it was a natural progression...regardless of the "oh, but she hadn't been in the book in recent issues" stuff that is carted out from time to time. It made sense given these two characters, it WORKED. So I give Shooter major props.


Joe Quesada, on the other hand...........

[Alan2099]

Did I mention Joe Quesada?
No. You didn't. Might want to go back and fix that.

[mikekerr3]

Joe Quesada Joe Quesada Joe Quesada Joe Quesada.

Did I mention Joe Quesada?



And I LOVE that Jim Shooter allowed the marriage to go forward. You can claim it was an editorial mandate all you want, but the relationship was built up to that point for MANY MANY years, and it was a natural progression...regardless of the "oh, but she hadn't been in the book in recent issues" stuff that is carted out from time to time. It made sense given these two characters, it WORKED. So I give Shooter major props.


Joe Quesada, on the other hand...........
:biggrin:
You forgot to add Tom Breevort.

[BlackToe]

I would say Marvel editorially mandating a marriage to which Marvel has continuously disproved of/retconned/attempted to repair.

The 90's are clear indications of this and the damage it caused.

[CMBMOOL]

Joe Quesada Joe Quesada Joe Quesada Joe Quesada.

Did I mention Joe Quesada?



And I LOVE that Jim Shooter allowed the marriage to go forward. You can claim it was an editorial mandate all you want, but the relationship was built up to that point for MANY MANY years, and it was a natural progression...regardless of the "oh, but she hadn't been in the book in recent issues" stuff that is carted out from time to time. It made sense given these two characters, it WORKED. So I give Shooter major props.


Joe Quesada, on the other hand...........
You do realized the Shooter was also the EIC at the time and had Colossus break up with Kitty in the aftermath of the Secret Wars mini series. :frown:

So really I guess you can get a lot and lose a lot in the business. :frown:

[BlackToe]

You do realized the Shooter was also the EIC at the time and had Colossus break up with Kitty in the aftermath of the Secret Wars mini series. :frown:

So really I guess you can get a lot and lose a lot in the business. :frown:

Shooter was a dink anyways.

[ZT4]

You do realized the Shooter was also the EIC at the time and had Colossus break up with Kitty in the aftermath of the Secret Wars mini series. :frown:

Yeah, but at least that had some good writing attached to it, was beleivable, neither were married at the time, and Logan gave Collosus a good seeing to in a bar over it.

Jim Shooter- The editorially mandated marriage was a bad idea.

No it wasnt. It was REAL, something Spidey isnt anymore

In no particular order

1. Howard Mackie: Working under the gun admitedly, but still took his marching orders and began the decline of the pitiful joke of a character we see now. There remains no excuse for phoning it in your writing or your charactersation

2. Joe Quesada: Trying to please everyone at a price in 2008 with the balance of continuitiyes, but that's not going to last for much longer. Turned Spidey into "The Great Depression" variatrion of Archie's Friend Jughead.

3. Dan Slott: After the slop that was NWTD, I've realized Slott is phoning it in worse than Mackie ever reasonably did. I'm not looking to him for a good time in BND anymore.

[ShaggyB]

I'm not looking to him for a good time in BND anymore.

when did you look to BND for a good time?

[Mister Mets]

No it wasnt. It was REAL, something Spidey isnt anymore
You and I will continue to disagree about this. But I thought that it was ridiculously rushed, and didn't fit the portrayal of the character. I believe that the decision to marry off Peter and Mary Jane was short-sighted, but the execution was even worse, especially with the lost opportunities for those fans that praise progression (no Peter Parker slowly and organically coming to the conclusion that he should marry Mary Jane, very limited coverage of their engagement- an objectively important period of their lives that could've lasted for more than an year in the comics, etc.)

3. Dan Slott: After the slop that was NWTD, I've realized Slott is phoning it in worse than Mackie ever reasonably did. I'm not looking to him for a good time in BND anymore.I get that you don't like New Ways to Die, but how is Dan Slott's writing in that story (and any others) causing long-term harm to the Spider-Man franchise?

If anything, shouldn't poor writing by Slott hasten a return to the pre One More Day status quo?

[The Shadow]

It was REAL, something Spidey isnt anymore
I'm pretty sure Spidey's still real.

[Hertz]

I'm pretty sure Spidey's still real.

I'm pretty sure Spidey's just a fictional character. :biggrin:

[ZT4]

Pretty sure that crippled kid in the cataoluges has some claim...

[matthewaos]

There are countless stories that I don't like, whole runs that I don't want them existing, but I don't count JMS as one that damaged the character, cause the character was strong and alive during his run, though I didn't like it. The two that made the most damage are Mackie and most of all Byrne.

[The Shadow]

I'm pretty sure Spidey's just a fictional character. :biggrin:

................. well played sir.

Well played indeed.

[Venom]

Bob Harras because he took Mark Bagley off Amazing Spider-Man when I think the title needed him most when the "Clone Saga" was ending and replaced him with a terrible artist who was supposed to be on it for a good long while, but only committed to seven issues. I think the lame artwork really affected the main Spidey title until Joe Bennett came along who was a fantastic artist and a worthy successor to Bagley's legendary work.

I also remember reading somewhere that Harras ran off with a lot of Marvel’s money and sent them further into bankruptcy. That low-life bastard! :mad:

[albrot]

I do have one choice.

Joe Quesada- The editorially mandated break up of the marriage was a bad idea.


Look, love or hate the marraige, it doesn't matter. The people who thought it was a bad idea are consistently saying that it was rushed, there was no lead up to it, and that it was planned poorly. I think the same exact words can be used for OMD. It was rushed, the lead up to it didn't happen in the book but instead over the internet where the EiC complained about how he didn't like the marriage, and the execution was simply lacking in anything positive.


I haven't read BND, so I won't comment on it. Scratch that, I read the first arc and didn't care for it one bit. I was looking for something that would blow my socks off and that wasn't it.

[Alan2099]

I also remember reading somewhere that Harras ran off with a lot of Marvel’s money and sent them further into bankruptcy. That low-life bastard!
I've heard a lot of reasons why Marvel went bankrupt, but I've never once heard that it had anything to do with Bob Harris stealing anything.

[Venom]

I've heard a lot of reasons why Marvel went bankrupt, but I've never once heard that it had anything to do with Bob Harris stealing anything.

I read it somewhere online a few years ago. Can’t remember the site, but it said Bob Harras disappeared sometime during Marvel's bankruptcy and took a lot of what remaining funds that Marvel had and that sent them spiralling further into bankruptcy. It also said that nobody's seen, heard from or been able to track Harras down since the incident.

[matthewaos]

Yeah, Harras also did great damage to the character. JQ on the other hand... Well, at least he keeps him popular. The thing is for how long, cause all the things he's doing doesn't seem to stand for a long while. In ten years I don't think that anyone will care for Ezekiel, The Other, OMD/BND etc.