Will ASM #700 fan-rage replace endless OMD kvetching?

[Mark_S]

I ate a bad cheeseburger about 5 years ago, and I will never stop complaining to TGI Friday's about it.

yep, makes sense...

I didn't like Alien 3 because it made all of the suffering and sacrifice of Alien 2 pointless. Same for Terminator 3. When I talk about those movies with friends I say so. Does the fact that they happened a while back alter my opinion? No. Should I just stay silent and if so why?

[One More Day]

I didn't like Alien 3 because it made all of the suffering and sacrifice of Alien 2 pointless. Same for Terminator 3. When I talk about those movies with friends I say so. Does the fact that they happened a while back alter my opinion? No. Should I just stay silent and if so why?

Termination Salvation was the worst of all.

[Mark_S]

Termination Salvation was the worst of all.

I never saw that one. Lost heart after I saw 3. I did see Alien Resurection because it was a whole new ball game.

[Cryptid]

I didn't like Alien 3 because it made all of the suffering and sacrifice of Alien 2 pointless. Same for Terminator 3. When I talk about those movies with friends I say so. Does the fact that they happened a while back alter my opinion? No. Should I just stay silent and if so why?

For what it's worth, James Cameron has said in interviews that he dislikes Alien 3 for the same reason. I rewatched the third Alien a little while ago, when it ended up on my Netflix cue instead of the second one, and it has aged better than you might think. The relentless grimness and frantic elliptical cutting are still a problem, but the good sequences are easier to appreciate now that the fate of the series is effectively sealed. The birth of the creature is a nice riff on Francis Ford Coppola's trick of cross-cutting ceremony and atrocity, and the alien POV shots compensate for the funereal script with a much-needed dose of formal lunacy. Other than that, it's a stinker alright, underrated or not. Even David Fincher seems to respond with contempt (for the film) whenever an interviewer asks him about it.

I suppose that's a roundabout way of saying that the passing of time may well change your opinions, because the context has changed and the old irritations may be less acute, but it probably won't change them all that much. I doubt that anyone flinches when another poster mentions, when the occasion arises, that a bad story has miraculously continued to be bad. But I suspect that more than a few of us roll our eyes when another poster proclaims a time-worn opinion week after week without any diminishment in outrage, or even the smallest change in perspective. It doesn't help, of course, that the defenders act as if they might still win the argument after all these years, when no one with an ounce of sense sees that happening.

So, it's realism and perspective in the delivery of an old opinion that makes the difference. Plenty of folks get worked up when they have already made their point a dozen times. "I still don't like it but I've said my piece."

[ViewtifulJC]

I treat Alien3 and OMD the same way: they're shit stories, and I don't spend my time talking about them.

[Mark_S]

For what it's worth, James Cameron has said in interviews that he dislikes Alien 3 for the same reason. I rewatched the third Alien a little while ago, when it ended up on my Netflix cue instead of the second one, and it has aged better than you might think. The relentless grimness and frantic elliptical cutting are still a problem, but the good sequences are easier to appreciate now that the fate of the series is effectively sealed. The birth of the creature is a nice riff on Francis Ford Coppola's trick of cross-cutting ceremony and atrocity, and the alien POV shots compensate for the funereal script with a much-needed dose of formal lunacy. Other than that, it's a stinker alright, underrated or not. Even David Fincher seems to respond with contempt (for the film) whenever an interviewer asks him about it.

I suppose that's a roundabout way of saying that the passing of time may well change your opinions, because the context has changed and the old irritations may be less acute, but it probably won't change them all that much. I doubt that anyone flinches when another poster mentions, when the occasion arises, that a bad story has miraculously continued to be bad. But I suspect that more than a few of us roll our eyes when another poster proclaims a time-worn opinion week after week without any diminishment in outrage, or even the smallest change in perspective. It doesn't help, of course, that the defenders act as if they might still win the argument after all these years, when no one with an ounce of sense sees that happening.

So, it's realism and perspective in the delivery of an old opinion that makes the difference. Plenty of folks get worked up when they have already made their point a dozen times. "I still don't like it but I've said my piece."

It's a good point, but there is one other element and that is that it's easy to post in the blind. I can spot a few regulars on the boards but I also spot new people, so I don't think I should hold back an opinion that new people might not be aware of because old posters know it already.

[Mark_S]

Another thing that just occurred to me, the question of this thread can be broken down from my perspective to "Will this new terrible story make you forget the older terrible story?"

[Xenon]

Hey, I wouldn't mind an issue here or there about the legal troubles of resurrected or body-swapped heroes, but my main purpose in that post (other than the ongoing satire of lingering OMD indignation) was to joke around about how involved things have become in Spidey-land. Obviously no one cares whether Faustian bargains supersede the state laws of New York...doesn't come up too often. Although, if we consider abstract evil as existing prior to all earthly time, then the contract clause of the constitution may protect demonic contracts...

Only those that were entered into prior to the formation of the legal provisions that they conflict with. Plus, Peter Parker didn't legally die, as unless they passed a law i didn't know about, there is no legal recognition of body-swaps, mind swaps, soul swaps, demonic pacts, or any other type of resurrection, so Peter never died, legally. Hence, they'd still be married. I mean, except for the whole deal with the notDevil.

You really just reminded me about how much I hate this stupid crap in Spider-Man.

Though I would totally go for an Avengers comedy issue where She-Hulk and Daredevil are attempting to sort out the various legal situations and unique laws they had to pass in the Marvel U to deal with just such occurrences.

[Xenon]

For what it's worth, James Cameron has said in interviews that he dislikes Alien 3 for the same reason. I rewatched the third Alien a little while ago, when it ended up on my Netflix cue instead of the second one, and it has aged better than you might think. The relentless grimness and frantic elliptical cutting are still a problem, but the good sequences are easier to appreciate now that the fate of the series is effectively sealed. The birth of the creature is a nice riff on Francis Ford Coppola's trick of cross-cutting ceremony and atrocity, and the alien POV shots compensate for the funereal script with a much-needed dose of formal lunacy. Other than that, it's a stinker alright, underrated or not. Even David Fincher seems to respond with contempt (for the film) whenever an interviewer asks him about it.

I suppose that's a roundabout way of saying that the passing of time may well change your opinions, because the context has changed and the old irritations may be less acute, but it probably won't change them all that much. I doubt that anyone flinches when another poster mentions, when the occasion arises, that a bad story has miraculously continued to be bad. But I suspect that more than a few of us roll our eyes when another poster proclaims a time-worn opinion week after week without any diminishment in outrage, or even the smallest change in perspective. It doesn't help, of course, that the defenders act as if they might still win the argument after all these years, when no one with an ounce of sense sees that happening.

So, it's realism and perspective in the delivery of an old opinion that makes the difference. Plenty of folks get worked up when they have already made their point a dozen times. "I still don't like it but I've said my piece."

This is a well-reasoned post, but for movies. The beauty and horror of comics is that for good and ill they are never ending beasts, which means things can always be changed, always be fixed, always be broken, always be ruined. And new perspective is gained with each issue released. i'm not a believer in the ends justifying the means, but the ends can be used to demonstrate why a certain action was ill-advised or brilliant in hindsight.

[Spider-Fly]

Marvel could've had the so called marriage problem resolved after Mary Jane Supposedly died despite her return.

What was done between Bruce and Betty in the Hulk could've happened between Peter and Mary Jane had Marvel thought of it back then.

Bruce and Betty are no longer considered to be married since her return due to her supposed death.

[Cryptid]

Though I would totally go for an Avengers comedy issue where She-Hulk and Daredevil are attempting to sort out the various legal situations and unique laws they had to pass in the Marvel U to deal with just such occurrences.

Absolutely. And then their carefully constructed case falls apart because the provisions for resurrected persons and first-degree cloning don't apply in the case of doombots. Marvel, make this happen.

[Cryptid]

Another thing that just occurred to me, the question of this thread can be broken down from my perspective to "Will this new terrible story make you forget the older terrible story?"

Your paraphrase captures the premise of the thread, as I imagined it, to a tee. Admittedly, I liked "Dying Wish," but the story makes no effort to dodge controversy.

[DV1Band]

I don't really like the story. Not saying Dan Slott is a bad writer, I just don't like this one.

[Scott Taylor]

Nothing like the 20 years of story changes from OMD changed in ASM #700. But yah people will complain. And people will complain about the complainers. And people will complain about the people complaining about the complainers. And people will complain about the people complaining about the people complaining about the complainers. And since OMD still exists, it will still be criticized. Why not?

[Ben Smith]

I didn't like Alien 3 because it made all of the suffering and sacrifice of Alien 2 pointless. Same for Terminator 3. When I talk about those movies with friends I say so. Does the fact that they happened a while back alter my opinion? No. Should I just stay silent and if so why?

because it's annoying?