Page 14 of 42 FirstFirst ... 410111213141516171824 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 623
  1. #196
    Senior Member Xenon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Smith View Post
    I've never seen an editorial mandate pencilled, inked, lettered, and colored before. what will Marvel do next?! illustrate an intra-office memo!?
    Didn't you read 101 ways to end the clone saga?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Smith View Post
    To answer the primary question, the purpose of all stories is to entertain.

    The idea that the stories should also "count" and/or "matter" to the ongoing narrative is a peculiar part of comic book fandom, and not something I understand. I prefer to be entertained first and foremost, not worry about how each story is going to affect the larger universe. Otherwise, it's a little bit like putting the cart before the horse, and that's how you end up with Flash Rebirth and the secret origin of Barry Allen's bowtie.

    If there's a story I didn't like, no problem, it's not part of my personal continuity.

    Fans like to take the puzzle pieces that serve as 50 years worth of stories produced by hundreds of different people, and then fit them all into the same puzzle perfectly, and they are never, ever going to do that.
    Except, they did for a long time, at least largely. People aren't asking for the puzzle to fit perfectly, people are asking for there to be some effort to fit. Because it's all one big story that lots of people find (or did find) entertaining.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Smith View Post
    you're not the only one to say this, but you're the most recent so I'm going to respond to it.

    this is such faulty logic. so you actually believe the addition or subtraction of a character, and an entire status quo, has no effect on the final story being told?

    structurally, each story would have been changed, because you have to fit Mary Jane into each one, changing the page count of the main story. tonally, the stories change, because Peter doesn't have the built in support system that a marriage provides. even the way the creative teams are going to approach creating the story is going to change, because there are different parameters in place.

    it's like saying my life would have happened the exact same for the past 5 years if I hadn't been married. which is impossible.
    Funny. That seems to be exactly what Marvel was telling us with OMD. That everything in Peter's life for the previous five years was exactly the same even though he wasn't married. So it's only faulty logic when applied forward now?

    No, of course there would be differences. That's part of the reason OMD is so stupid as a status quo. That's not the point. It's not that everything would play out in exactly the same manner as before. Certain parts (anything involving romance) would be cut out, certain lines of dialogue would be changed. But there's nothing about the majority of BND that is fundamentally different with a single or married Peter Parker. That's the point. You can still have Shed (whether you like it or not), you can still have the Gauntlet and Unscheduled Stop. These stories are not fundamentally different with a married Peter Parker, they don't get robbed of their quality or weight because he has a wife at home. And you don't even have to acknowledge her in every issue. Hell, we just had an issue of Spider-Man published that Spider-Man wasn't even in!

    Quote Originally Posted by stephen wacker View Post
    If you aren't enjoying the book, I think you should stop. Why is that controversial?


    SW
    Because people enjoyed the book and loved the franchise long before you were on it and before you or I were born. And they believe that what is coming out now is not a product that's quality is sufficient for the franchise. Like how people hate the Prequels. Or get mad at Jerry Jones.

    Also possibly because such an attitude flies in the face of the customer is always right mentality that we're told to expect in all areas. And while I wouldn't run my business that way if I owned a restaurant, I'll admit I find this less of an issue with creative endeavors. Though it's still a little weird.
    When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.-C.S.Lewis

  2. #197
    Spider-man/DCU Moderator ShaggyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In Moderator land
    Posts
    28,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenon View Post
    Didn't you read 101 ways to end the clone saga?
    lol only a handful of us did. So far its just me and you.

    Funny. That seems to be exactly what Marvel was telling us with OMD. That everything in Peter's life for the previous five years was exactly the same even though he wasn't married. So it's only faulty logic when applied forward now?
    if so, then why are fans who argued against OMD via that being faulty logic now trying to use the same faulty logic they so passionately rallied against?

  3. #198
    Senior Member Lars C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Smith View Post
    I'm pretty sure Slott didn't sit down at his computer and think "I'm going to write a stunt today." No, it's a story he's been building to since Amazing Spider-Man #600. What makes it a "stunt" is the marketing and promotion of the story. So much so that, I'm pretty sure, if they weren't restarting with a new #1, people wouldn't be nearly as riled up with their fake furious anger about this "stunt" storytelling.

    You don't think it sounds interesting enough to follow, there's nothing wrong with that. but using words like "stunt" and "editorial mandate" in some effort to devalue the effort or intent of the people working hard to try and tell stories, well that just seems weird. not liking something doesn't automatically equal sinister intent on behalf of the people that created it.
    Sinister intent? Of course not. Taking the easy way out by making a controversial story that'll sell just because of that? That's something else.

  4. #199
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaggyB View Post
    if so, then why are fans who argued against OMD via that being faulty logic now trying to use the same faulty logic they so passionately rallied against?
    Technically that would be the faulty logic of OMIT. Applying the faulty logic of OMD would be getting Peter and MJ back together by having Peter sell his ability to be single to the devil in order to save someone.

  5. #200
    Senior Member Lars C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,505

    Default

    This is how I see it. They did OMD to make Peter "younger"/more relatable, more likely to attract new readers and last longer. If they are going to replace him they didn't have to end his marriage at all. It's that simple.

  6. #201
    Senior Member Xenon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaggyB View Post
    lol only a handful of us did. So far its just me and you.
    No it's just you. I've only flipped through it. =p

    if so, then why are fans who argued against OMD via that being faulty logic now trying to use the same faulty logic they so passionately rallied against?
    It's not the same argument. The point that things wouldn't have been the exact same in the past is a challenge of logic. That necessarily there would have been changes because of the single status, and that those changes would have led to different outcomes. The point that "you didn't need a single Peter Parker for those stories" is a challenge of causality. It's a counter to the claim that is sometimes made that "well, OMD was worth it because I loved BND". The assertion that you could tell fundamentally the same stories, even though they would be slightly to moderately changed by his marriage, attacks the idea that these stories were the result of OMD. Everyone is aware that changes would have been made in several; that they wouldn't be the exact same stories. But we don't care that they're not the exact same stories, the point is that they would have been stories of the same or better caliber even with a married Peter Parker. The point is that OMD is not justified by these stories, because the primary effect of OMD had little to no positive impact on the quality of those stories.

    Simplified, the argument they're making is not that things would be the exact same. The argument is that the quality of BND has nothing to do with Peter's status as a bachelor or husband, and therefore, the cost of OMD is not justified.
    Last edited by Xenon; 12-13-2012 at 12:15 PM.
    When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.-C.S.Lewis

  7. #202
    Spider-man/DCU Moderator ShaggyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In Moderator land
    Posts
    28,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenon View Post
    No it's just you. I've only flipped through it. =p
    doh

    It's not the same logic. The argument was never that BND would be the exact same. The argument is that you don't need a single Peter Parker to tell fundamentally the same stories that you did in BND. Which you don't. The stories would not be the exact same. But no one ever thought they would be.
    then why did so many people argue it under the premise that it would be the exact same? Many, many people repeatedly claimed the stories would be the exact same if peter was married and that nothing in BNd couldnt be told with married peter vs the unmarried one.

    I get what you are saying, but it seems now that the shoe is on the other foot people are using the very same argument they so passionately argued against.

  8. #203
    Spider-man/DCU Moderator ShaggyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In Moderator land
    Posts
    28,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Juxtapozed View Post
    This is how I see it. They did OMD to make Peter "younger"/more relatable, more likely to attract new readers and last longer. If they are going to replace him they didn't have to end his marriage at all. It's that simple.
    One could argue that, but where did they specifically say that was the reason. Do you have a quote to back that up or is it just what you see their reasoning to be?

  9. #204
    Senior Member Lars C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,505

    Default

    It's not just my reasoning, it was something Joe Quesada actually said in his "Cup of Joe" columns. But I have no idea or time to really find it. But seriously. Why else would they have done it?

  10. #205
    Senior Member Xenon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaggyB View Post
    doh



    then why did so many people argue it under the premise that it would be the exact same? Many, many people repeatedly claimed the stories would be the exact same if peter was married and that nothing in BNd couldnt be told with married peter vs the unmarried one.

    I get what you are saying, but it seems now that the shoe is on the other foot people are using the very same argument they so passionately argued against.
    Sorry, I didn't like my previous argument, it wasn't quite clear, so I redid it. If it helps, the two arguments that you cit "stories woudl be the exact same" and "nothing in BND couldn't be told with married peter vs the unmarried one", I think are wholly seperate and distinct arguments, with the first being incorrect and the second being correct.

    As for why people continue following faulty logic, people aren't good at expressing themselves, as I demonstrated by re-editing that post half a dozen times.
    When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.-C.S.Lewis

  11. #206
    Spider-man/DCU Moderator ShaggyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In Moderator land
    Posts
    28,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenon View Post
    Sorry, I didn't like my previous argument, it wasn't quite clear, so I redid it. If it helps, the two arguments that you cit "stories woudl be the exact same" and "nothing in BND couldn't be told with married peter vs the unmarried one", I think are wholly seperate and distinct arguments, with the first being incorrect and the second being correct.

    As for why people continue following faulty logic, people aren't good at expressing themselves, as I demonstrated by re-editing that post half a dozen times.
    I think neither is correct. Especially the second one. One could not have Peter date Carlie (and do the deed with her) while being married to MJ without it being a completely different story entirely.

  12. #207
    My Turn. Kevin Nichols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    6,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenon View Post
    Also possibly because such an attitude flies in the face of the customer is always right mentality that we're told to expect in all areas. And while I wouldn't run my business that way if I owned a restaurant, I'll admit I find this less of an issue with creative endeavors. Though it's still a little weird.
    Do you honestly believe that the customer is always right?

    I prefer my hamburgers grilled over flame-broiled. If I go to Burger King, should the grill one specially for me, or should I perhaps eat somewhere else where I will enjoy my meal?
    "Women... they come and go, but the Jonah is eternal." - ViewtifulJC

  13. #208
    Marked for Redemption David Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,411

    Default

    Pretty sure both Quesada and Breevort argued that eliminating the marriage was better for the franchise's long-term viability.

    Which does seem kind of silly in light of his story supposedly getting wrapped up in ASM 700. Because if Peter's marital status is so integral to the franchise's viability, it would seem to follow that his continued existence would be even more so!
    "I came to the conclusion that the optimist thought everything good except the pessimist, and the pessimist thought everything bad, except himself." -- G.K. Chesterton

  14. #209
    Spider-man/DCU Moderator ShaggyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In Moderator land
    Posts
    28,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Walton View Post
    Pretty sure both Quesada and Breevort argued that eliminating the marriage was better for the franchise's long-term viability.
    thats what i recall... not that it makes him appeal to younger readers.

  15. #210
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    198

    Default

    I hate catching these threads so late. I always come to them when the conversation is only going between two or three posters and as nature orders, close to be abandoned.

    Whatever. I can't very well let this chance of giving my always "eager to be read by the rest of the posters" insight go, so I'll give it anyway.

    For the most part, I don't think OMD was pointless, the coming status change quo is going to last two years at most (if Marvel ever learned something about the Clone Saga), so the status quo to return to after that is obviously the one set by OMD. So it wasn't pointless in that regard. Except that maybe a single Spidey could have been the result of the upcoming status quo, so maybe OMD was pointless: If the current status quo lent itself as a way of getting rid of the marriage, I would have been arguably better than OMD. Just speculation, so no need to comment further than that.

    But as a personal note, OMD was pretty pointless because it pointlessly made me believe that anything was possible with regards to Spider-Man and his story and this is plainly obviously not true. So thank you, One More Day, for pointlessly raising my hype for nothing, I hope you are happy! (And this, ladies and gentlemen is the incredibly good insight I was talking about earlier).

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •