Was OMD pointless?

[Shade 20x6]

From Dictionary.com

en·ter·tain·ment [en-ter-teyn-muh nt]
noun
1. the act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement: Solving the daily crossword puzzle is an entertainment for many.
2. something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, especially a performance of some kind: The highlight of the ball was an elaborate entertainment.
3. hospitable provision for the needs and wants of guests.
4. a divertingly adventurous, comic, or picaresque novel.
5. Obsolete . maintenance in service.


In regards to my comment about you being entertained...

See Definition 1. "Agreeable occupation for the mind" - While you clearly didn't like the story, it also clearly occupies space in your mind. There also must be something about it that you find agreeable, or else you wouldn't be constantly going back to the subject in conversation. "Diversion" - With all the debating that's gone on since OMD, can you really deny that has not created a diversion? The story itself is intrinsically a diversion because it gives the reader something else to think about (good or bad). "Amusement" - Once again, even though you didn't like the story, there's something you find amusing about it, r at least about discussing it.

In regards to the story itself...

See Definition 4. While not overly comical, OMD was absolutely adventurous and picaresque. It diverts the reader's attention away from reality for a time. That's the very definition of entertainment.

By your definition, every single thing that I've ever thought about would be considered entertainment.

OMD was not pleasurable or amusing.

[Kevin Nichols]

By your definition, every single thing that I've ever thought about would be considered entertainment.

OMD was not pleasurable or amusing.

OK, I guess you must be right then.

[ShaggyB]

By your definition, every single thing that I've ever thought about would be considered entertainment.

One could argue that everything that you think about to pass the time is you trying to create entertainment for yourself. If its not essential thought that is.... and OMD is not essential to your day.

[David Walton]

I think there's two ways of looking at it.

If you see OMD as an attempt to restore an older status quo, then it does seem...off. I mean, less than five years after Joe Q and Tom Breevort make the argument that Peter needs to be single for the long-term interests of the franchise, ASM is cancelled and Pete (presumably) isn't Spidey.

If you see OMD as an attempt to shake things up again, then it's not a paradigm shift. And that seems to be how Dan Slott and Steve Wacker always viewed it (which differs from the case Quesada and Breevort made IMO). Wacker's said things to the effect that Peter probably will marry again eventually...in other words, it's all part of the occassional shake-ups you need to keep a title fresh.

[Lars C]

Ah. It should be possible to keep a title fresh without having semi reboots and main characters replaced...

[David Walton]

Ah. It should be possible to keep a title fresh without having semi reboots and main characters replaced...

As long as the new character, new status quo, new #1 issues continue to spike sales, Marvel will keep it up.

SSM strikes me as a pretty big risk, though, given how consistent ASM has been selling with Peter Parker in the lead role. Then you factor in that readers have nowhere else to go for a Peter Parker story now that USM is all about Miles...

[stephen wacker]

Ah. It should be possible to keep a title fresh without having semi reboots and main characters replaced...

Happens all the time...and also sometimes reboots happen.

Comics have been doing this for 85 years. Why are you now claiming the rules should be different?

SW

[Lars C]

Well, I've never said reboots is a bad thing. On the contrary! I think it's necessary to keep things alive. I think DC:s New 52 was wise, and I was also a fan of Brand New Day. But if Peter is replaced? Then OMD was pointless. OMD was supposed to be for the long run after all.

[Chobbly]

Well, I've never said reboots is a bad thing. On the contrary! I think it's necessary to keep things alive. I think DC:s New 52 was wise, and I was also a fan of Brand New Day. But if Peter is replaced? Then OMD was pointless. OMD was supposed to be for the long run after all.

It was supposed to be for the long run, because there were supposedly legion number of stories with an unmarried Peter Parker that couldn't be told when he was with MJ.

Having said that, a big event every few years bringing in new readers is essential as older readers eventually fall by the wayside. I suppose that's like me, because after OMD I dropped ASM.

[stephen wacker]

Well, I've never said reboots is a bad thing. On the contrary! I think it's necessary to keep things alive.

You a couple hours ago:

Ah. It should be possible to keep a title fresh without having semi reboots and main characters replaced...

It's confusing.

SW

[Lars C]

It SHOULD be. In my opinion, why was OMD needed? Because they made Peter married and unmasked him in Civil War. But I'd prefer a reboot or a semi reboot before replacing the title character. Spider-Man should be Peter Parker, Batman should be Bruce Wayne and Superman should be Clark Kent. That's how huge Spidey is, and if there's a problem telling stories about him? Guess what, it might not be because of the character...

[Kevin Nichols]

It SHOULD be. In my opinion, why was OMD needed? Because they made Peter married and unmasked him in Civil War. But I'd prefer a reboot or a semi reboot before replacing the title character. Spider-Man should be Peter Parker, Batman should be Bruce Wayne and Superman should be Clark Kent. That's how huge Spidey is, and if there's a problem telling stories about him? Guess what, it might not be because of the character...

And Batman shouldn't be Jean Paul Valley?
And Superman shouldn't be Hank Henshaw?
And Cap shouldn't be Bucky?
And Thor shouldn't be Eric Masterson? Or Beta Ray Bill?
And Green Lantern shouldn't be Kyle Rayner? Or Hal Jordan?
And The Flash shouldn't be Wally West? Or Barry Allen?
And Robin shouldn't be Tim Drake?

All these have been successful, and some VERY long-term.

[Lars C]

As most Spidey fans should attest it's about Peter Parker mainly. Not about the mask. Flash and Green Lantern is something else entirely, and Hank Henshaw and Jean-Paul Valley wasn't very succesful, no.

[stephen wacker]

As most Spidey fans should attest it's about Peter Parker mainly. Not about the mask. Flash and Green Lantern is something else entirely, and Hank Henshaw and Jean-Paul Valley wasn't very succesful, no.

They were successful, yes. At this point, don't believe anything you think you know.

Also this isn't like that since it's permanent.
SW

[Darrell D.]

What's an OMD?