|
Post by K-Box on Jan 2, 2009 13:43:58 GMT -8
OMD/BND in the newspaper? Yes and no ... So, let's review: Peter trusts Tony and unmasks during Civil War? Not here. Aunt May gets shot and Peter makes a deal with Mephisto to save her life? Not here. Peter acts like a lazy, stupid, selfish loser and is no longer on speaking terms with Mary Jane? NOT HERE. Ladies and gentlemen, it's official: An admittedly scatterbrained 86-year-old man, whose daily newspaper comic strip is probably ghostwritten by his slightly younger artist brother, just managed to produce a better story, in two days and six panels, than an entire rotating squadron of highly-touted brand-name "brain trust" writers managed to produce in more than ONE YEAR and 36 ISSUES. I mean, isn't that fact alone some sort of grounds for a mass-firing? Possibly followed by the seppuku of everyone involved?
|
|
|
Post by jessebaker on Jan 2, 2009 21:31:55 GMT -8
I just find it funny that it took Marvel THIS long to force the comic strip to play ball with their suicide run with Spidey having huge chunks of his backstory erased.
The only redeeming thing about this is that Lee at least sees the logic of keeping Peter and MJ together, as a passive concession to the Peter/MJ shippers. Though I have to dread that the next couple of strips will include a stupid ass "MJ is a cocksucking whore" reveal as far as Peter catching MJ with other men as far as Quesada making Lee wreck the Peter/MJ relationship too in the comic strip.
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jan 5, 2009 0:17:19 GMT -8
NuSpidey update: OMD/BND actually NOT appearing in the newspapers after all! From the Jan. 4 Sunday comic strip of Amazing Spider-Man, by Stan Lee and Larry Lieber: "In the days long before Peter and MJ were married ..." And, just to refresh our memory, what's the official position of Marvel editorial toward Spider-Man's marriage, once again? (Click the pic to enlarge it.) "Pete and Mary Jane Watson dated seriously for years, but for as-yet-undisclosed reasons, they eventually broke up." So, according to Marvel editorial, Peter and Mary Jane NEVER got married, but according to Stan Lee, Peter and Mary Jane DID get married. And this is one of the countless reasons why Joe Quesada is a punk, because everyone from an elderly Stan Lee to the fans themselves can out-think him without even breaking a sweat.
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jan 5, 2009 9:34:13 GMT -8
Rumors state this is a one-storyline flashback, not a new status quo.
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jan 5, 2009 12:12:41 GMT -8
Rumors state this is a one-storyline flashback, not a new status quo. !!! Source???
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jan 5, 2009 13:56:31 GMT -8
I forget where I saw it, but apparently it was a post on the Grand Comics Database list.
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Jan 5, 2009 14:42:16 GMT -8
Rumors state this is a one-storyline flashback, not a new status quo. In other words, Stan Lee has Punk'd the ENTIRE WORLD* ... just for the lulz. *at least the comics-page-reading world
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jan 5, 2009 16:56:12 GMT -8
Rumors state this is a one-storyline flashback, not a new status quo. In other words, Stan Lee has Punk'd the ENTIRE WORLD* ... just for the lulz. *at least the comics-page-reading world It depends on what happens AFTER the flashback. IF it ends with, "And now, let's return to Peter and Mary Jane, the happily married couple," THEN it will count as a full and proper clowning.
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jan 5, 2009 18:44:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Jan 6, 2009 14:04:27 GMT -8
Agreed that it's only a complete clowning if they go back to the married status quo. However, even if they stay in flashback land, I think it should still get partial credit for clown points, as doing the strip as an endless flashback very pointedly and very specifically does NOT undo the marriage, nor does it involve the Devil in any way.
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jan 8, 2009 12:48:43 GMT -8
So... Obama backup in (and cover of) a Spider-Man issue. Weak attempt to drum up sales?
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jan 8, 2009 14:37:35 GMT -8
So... Obama backup in (and cover of) a Spider-Man issue. Weak attempt to drum up sales? Which might work. Witness the increase of 2,000 orders for the final part of NWtD, a.k.a. "the Colbert bump."
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jan 13, 2009 1:36:07 GMT -8
Blog@Newsarama actually posts something FUNNY???
Man, I thought those days had died after Graeme McMillan left!
But of course, it wouldn't be complete without a dose of officially approved Marvel!Fail, in this case delivered by Steve Wacker, editor of the Spider-Man books:
Okay, so the "secret European funding" line was actually funny, but everything else comes across as petulant, nit-picky ass-covering.
Steve, I never thought I'd say anything this harsh about anyone, but you are Bill Jemas, except without the talent or charisma, and when you consider that Bill's talent and charisma were both nonexistent to begin with, you're dipping into the NEGATIVE FUCKING INTEGERS, asshole.
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Jan 13, 2009 9:24:22 GMT -8
I have to say, of all the hilarity going on in BND, the single funniest bit of backtracking is the constant harping that Mephisto is NOT actually the devil. That's a technicality that doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Since Marvel-U doesn't HAVE an actual Satan, Mephisto fits the bill for all intents and purposes.
Plus, Mephisto. MEPHISTO. Mephistopheles! The guy is NAMED after one of the most popular of all Satanic nicknames!
Hell, in the very story itself Mephisto says he is SPECIFICALLY doing all this just to piss off God!
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jan 13, 2009 15:43:31 GMT -8
Well, technically, Satan (aka Marduk Kurios) is someone else. Of course, he was killed, resurrected as his own grandson, aged, retconned, and probably completely ignored (what IS the status of Daimon's reign these days?), but he isn't Mephisto.
Then there's the "devil" who empowered Johnny Blaze, who wasn't Mephisto, then was, then wasn't again. But Ghost Rider continuity makes Hawkman look simple.
|
|