Was OMD pointless?

[Lars C]

And how is a franchise viable for the long term? One thing is to attract new and young readers. It was argued that a married Peter made him old, and making him a divorcee or widow would only add to that. Never mind. We are in agreement that OMD would make Spidey thrive as a franchise for the long term? If they are now replacing Peter, OMD was for naught, zero and zilch.

[Kevin Nichols]

And how is a franchise viable for the long term? One thing is to attract new and young readers. It was argued that a married Peter made him old, and making him a divorcee or widow would only add to that. Never mind. We are in agreement that OMD would make Spidey thrive as a franchise for the long term? If they are now replacing Peter, OMD was for naught, zero and zilch.

Not for naught, zero, or zilch at all. OMD had several purposes:

1. To tell a four issue story.

2. To usher in the Brand New Day era.

3. To put an endcap on the Civil War/Pete unmasking stories.

4. To put an endcap on the Spidey/MJ marriage era.

It accomplished all of these. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

[Scott Taylor]

I would argue that it did not quite put the endcap on those things. OMIT was still needed to explain some other things. And there is a third story out there somewhere that has been rumored.

OMD's main goal, to my observation, was to end the spider-marriage in the way most non-destructive to the character as possible. It succeeded, I think, with a little help from editorial damage control and decent writing and organization during the BND era.

But its still pointless. So was the Fantastic Four and anything done in X-Men ever. Pointless! At least according to my wife.

[PoorRichard]

Sounds pretty serious.

Sales of Time are down, by the way...I don't blame you though since I don't believe you in the first place.

SW

You have no idea what our numbers are at Time. You're no different than the folks on here estimating what marvel's numbers are. People have been telling us Time will fail for 50 years. Don't worry about us, we'll be fine. I've got alot more riding on this than you do.

[TheOther]

OMD was about two things to me:

1. Reversing the unmasking.
2. Keeping that old bag May alive.

[ShaggyB]

why so much hate for aunt may? she is his surrogate mother... not just some "old bag".

[Mark_S]

Someday the true story of OMD/BND/OMIT may be written, but for now all we can do is speculate. The true reason behind the story is probably something we'll never know. In the end it ended the marriage and I believe to accomplish that marvel would have paid any price, driven away any fans, burnt bridges... in my opinion the marriage ending was their only reason for writing the story.
Pointless? I don't know. Delayed, badly written, badly edited, disrespectful to the characters... that I'm certain about.

[Mister Mets]

thats what i recall... not that it makes him appeal to younger readers.

They've made hundreds of public statements about this stuff.

I'm sure that argument's been used also.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah. Not reading USM. And from what I've heard, sales are not that strong?

This is an odd response.

[Xenon]

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.

Again, see the previous post in its shiny new incarnation. "Nothing" of course, has exceptions, but again, it all comes back to what's good about BND and whether OMD is the story that facilitated the good in BND. When I listen and look for praise for BND, I can find it. For things like Unscheduled Stop, Shed (also lots of a hate for Shed, but whatever), and No One Dies. Carlie is never* mentioned and or praised, and she's the only thing that requires a single Peter, as far as I can tell anyway.

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?

I don't BELIEVE the customer is always right, I believe that's the general attitude a business must have to survive, because otherwise you leave enough customers in a negative situation that you get a bad reputation and business declines to unsustainable levels. So if I managed that burger king, and you asked me to grill the whopper, then I'd grill the whopper (if I had that capability, I don't think Burger Kings even have grills, do they?).

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!

This.

why so much hate for aunt may? she is his surrogate mother... not just some "old bag".

She's played out. JJJ Sr. is like her fourth suitor, and that's the only story they tell with her.

They've made hundreds of public statements about this stuff.

I'm sure that argument's been used also.

This.

[Kevin Nichols]

I don't BELIEVE the customer is always right, I believe that's the general attitude a business must have to survive, because otherwise you leave enough customers in a negative situation that you get a bad reputation and business declines to unsustainable levels. So if I managed that burger king, and you asked me to grill the whopper, then I'd grill the whopper (if I had that capability, I don't think Burger Kings even have grills, do they?).

1. No. No, they don't.

2. I see what you're saying. I might change it to "That's the general attitude a business is expected to have to survive...", but otherwise I agree. I think we've been conditioned to expect businesses to treat us as though sunshine and rainbows fly out of our asses. The problem with this is that it leads to the sense of entitlement that is so prevalent in America. We expect businesses to bend over backwards to fulfill our every whim, when really some people just need to be told to f*** off.

When someone like Steve comes out with the totally reasonable suggestion of "if you don't like it, don't read it" it's taken as though he's chasing customers away. He's never said that he doesn't want people to read the book, of course he does. I'm sure he'd be tickled pink if every person in the world bought a copy of ASM every two weeks. But, if you don't like the book, his suggestion makes sense. I don't like ketchup, so I don't eat the stuff. I don't like The Punisher, so I don't read it. He's really not being disrespectful. He's sharing a bit of common sense.

[BottomsUp]

why so much hate for aunt may? she is his surrogate mother... not just some "old bag".

It's because she's been on the brink of death since day one and she's been holding on for 50 years. Go toward the light, May, go toward the light!

[Tendrin]

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.

Yeah, it's a total random coincidence that it links up with all the other relaunched with perfect timing! Of course it's not. I'm pretty sure Slott sat down at his computer and said 'I want to write a good story that builds sales and lets me keep my job'. Again, replacing Spiderman is a stunt. That doesn't mean it's bad or good. Just that it is what it is. It's no less insulting then a stunt in an action movie that's desgiend to keep you on the edge of your sea and to lure people in in the first place when it's showed in the trailers.

Again, there' nothing wrong with it being a stunt because it's pretty clearly designed to get attention and bring readers back in. Calling it a stunt is not inherently defamatory. Killing Cap was a stunt too. It worked. So was replacing Hal Jordan with Kyle Rayner. As for editorial mandates, well, executive meddling has produced both good and bad things too, so it's not inherently bad either. xD

It's just -usually- bad.

[stephen wacker]

You have no idea what our numbers are at Time. You're no different than the folks on here estimating what marvel's numbers are. People have been telling us Time will fail for 50 years. Don't worry about us, we'll be fine. I've got alot more riding on this than you do.

Well that was easy...

SW

[David Walton]

2. I see what you're saying. I might change it to "That's the general attitude a business is expected to have to survive...", but otherwise I agree. I think we've been conditioned to expect businesses to treat us as though sunshine and rainbows fly out of our asses. The problem with this is that it leads to the sense of entitlement that is so prevalent in America. We expect businesses to bend over backwards to fulfill our every whim, when really some people just need to be told to f*** off.

I think you're being hyperbolic, but there's a huge gap between 'the customer is always right' and telling someone to $%^ off.

I worked in a grocery store when I was in college, and because we served liquor we occasionally had fifty year old drunks hitting on the teenage cashiers. The managers would ask them to leave or force them (it rarely came to that), but telling them to #$% off would just be escalating the situation.

So even in the most extreme situation, there's not really cause for that kind of reaction. There is the occasional need for force, but that's something entirely different. Calling someone names is just emotional masturbation--it's best done in private, and not really something to brag about!

When someone like Steve comes out with the totally reasonable suggestion of "if you don't like it, don't read it" it's taken as though he's chasing customers away. He's never said that he doesn't want people to read the book, of course he does. I'm sure he'd be tickled pink if every person in the world bought a copy of ASM every two weeks. But, if you don't like the book, his suggestion makes sense. I don't like ketchup, so I don't eat the stuff. I don't like The Punisher, so I don't read it. He's really not being disrespectful. He's sharing a bit of common sense.

It's a message board where people comment on what they like and don't like, so "just don't read it" isn't likely to end the conversation.

And hey, it's just as easy to ignore a post as to not read a comic. So once you respond to a negative comment, it just becomes an "I'm rubber and you're glue" thing on both ends.