|
Post by Ozymandias on Oct 21, 2014 23:05:53 GMT
Part 2, is up.Spider-Man 2099 Meets Spider-Man (November, 1995) by Peter David & Rick Leonardi Not looking good for you there, David. Volume 2, collecting #11-14, Annual 1 and selected material from 2099 Unlimited, came out last year, in the wake of the character's appearance in SSM. Maybe a third TPB could see the day of light, if Miguel has an important role in the Spider-Verse event, but even then, I doubt this special would be included in it. In order of publication, it should go in volume 5. Damm i had better cross my fingers for a volume 5 of Spidey 2099 SPIDER-MAN 2099 CLASSIC VOL. 3: THE FALL OF THE HAMMER TPB Scheduled for January, 2015. Collecting SPIDER-MAN 2099 (1992) #15-22, RAVAGE 2099 #15, X-MEN 2099 #5, DOOM 2099 #14 and PUNISHER 2099 #13. Not yet what you want, but getting closer. If they keep publishing them so big (nearly 300 pages), the next one should include the rest of Leonardi's run. Hopefully, it'll be a little less lengthy, so as to not include later material.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 8:42:25 GMT
Its just i love that scene with Miguel and Jolly Jonah
|
|
|
Post by dav on May 20, 2015 22:33:00 GMT
First a disclaimer: I will do my best to express this in terms of my point of view and in my opinion. Please don't in anyway take anything personally or think that I have said you are wrong about anything. Your opinions are yours and from your point of view you opinions are absolutely correct. If I disagree it is because I simply see things from a different perspective. I want to stress this to ensure that no animosity can develop. Paragraph #1: Although I give #121 a higher ranking I speak from extreme naivety due to how little Spiderman I have read since about 1975! In fact I am not even qualified to do any ranking because of that naivety! Personally I Have not been able to read #121 as a standalone comic. Far too many comics issues have ended with a person presumed dead in a cliff hanger but miraculously brought back to life in the next issue! And then of course there's AUNT MAY!!! #121 didn't end with any kind of closure, so for me, #122 is essential. The real closure for me didn't happen until the funeral in #123. #90 (Death of Capt. Stacy) is an issue that could stand by itself (even though I was still hoping that somehow, someway they would miraculously bring a character beloved by me back to life in #91!) #2 I believe the lack of impact was intentional by the writers. I believe that they were aware that Gwen's death would create a shitstorm and they were just trying to move on quietly as one tries to do after making a HUGE mistake!!! LOL #3 I have a different take on this. My belief is that although Gil Kane was at the artistic helm (and he is very good at drawing characters in action poses) Romita was the reigning champ of drawing for drama and emotion (ex romance comic artist, duh!) Putting Kane and Romita together for this was almost a given. Coincidentally, same team for Death of Capt Stacy. Or is it...? #5 My personal belief is that the killing of Gwen was a long time in the making. As far back as #95 they tried to remove her, but caved under the pressure from fans. I believe that from #100 on the writers were trying to marginalize her so that her eventual death would be easier for the fans to take. [sidenote: having read stories about the death of Gwen over the years, the writers have changed their stories several times. Stan is one of the most notorious for this. We will never REALLY know what the truth is. All we can do is speculate.] If Conway wanted to or was directed to he could have kept on writing for Gwen and done a good job. My belief is it wasn't laziness on his part. I think it was laziness on Stan's part but Conway was made a scapegoat. I get the problem. Peter and Gwen were getting too close too soon at too early an age. Marriage had unofficially been put on the table in #99, but there was no way that it could happen. If things had progressed the way they were going, Peter and Gwen would have had to get married sometime around #150. Could the writers have come up with another solution to the problem they created? Yes, but this was easier. You might very well be right and Conway was lazy, but I think there's more to the story... #6 & 7 Again, I wouldn't put all the burden on Conway. Stan has used the same tired plot devices over and over again long before Conway came in. Spidey having a cold has been used at LEAST three times, just off the top of my head, by Stan between #1 and #90. Also it can't necessarily be called laziness. Overwork is a more likely suspect. These guys weren't writing exclusively for Spiderman. They were probably writing for a dozen titles or more each month. If you have a deadline looming and you're under pressure to submit a story, a great solution is pull a popular plot device out of a hat and run with it!
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 21, 2015 9:57:04 GMT
Yes, it's true what you say about cliffhangers, but seriously, who in comicdom doesn't know Gwen died for real?
It's possible they reduced the impact, to tiptoe around what they had done, but no matter what the reason was, the fact remains that it was underdeveloped.
Agreed, we'll never know the truth, basically because the people involved contradict each other (and sometimes themselves), so they cannot be trusted. What I did, was try to construct the most plausible narrative, given the interests and position, of everyone involved. As for Lee being the lazy one, I think he simply didn't care about the comic anymore, he had moved up the ladder and couldn't be bothered. From a personal standpoint, Conway was simply against the character, I was talking about creative laziness, of course there's more to him than that, but creatively speaking that's the relevant part.
Lack of memory isn't laziness per se, but if you're a hard working professional, and your memory isn't that good, you take notes to avoid things, like repeating themes in such a short timespan. Concerning Lee, if you've ever taken a look at my Rating Spider-Man 1962-1989 thread, you'll know I don't hold him in such a high regard.
|
|
|
Post by dav on May 22, 2015 9:05:49 GMT
Yes, it's true what you say about cliffhangers, but seriously, who in comicdom doesn't know Gwen died for real? It's possible they reduced the impact, to tiptoe around what they had done, but no matter what the reason was, the fact remains that it was underdeveloped. Agreed, we'll never know the truth, basically because the people involved contradict each other (and sometimes themselves), so they cannot be trusted. What I did, was try to construct the most plausible narrative, given the interests and position, of everyone involved. As for Lee being the lazy one, I think he simply didn't care about the comic anymore, he had moved up the ladder and couldn't be bothered. From a personal standpoint, Conway was simply against the character, I was talking about creative laziness, of course there's more to him than that, but creatively speaking that's the relevant part. Lack of memory isn't laziness per se, but if you're a hard working professional, and your memory isn't that good, you take notes to avoid things, like repeating themes in such a short timespan. Concerning Lee, if you've ever taken a look at my Rating Spider-Man 1962-1989 thread, you'll know I don't hold him in such a high regard. Even though I know Gwen died for real, when I read #121 I am still compelled to read #122. I just don't consider #121 a standalone comic. On this we just have to agree to disagree. Agreed, it was underdeveloped. I'm just saying it is understandable WHY it was undeveloped. To mitigate a shitstorm of protests! LOL We can both speculate, but we can never really know the truth, so you speculations are the truth to you and my speculations are the truth for me, and we just have leave it at that. As a writer, your right, Lee wasn't the best. His real contribution was in the creation of imperfect superheroes. It was that contribution that created the Silver Age of Comics. That will will be his legacy, not his writing.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 22, 2015 9:14:31 GMT
That's something else we'll never know. Was Lee responsible for the creation of those characters? Were the artists involved? It's clear they shared the merits, but to what point?
One thing Lee undeniably did, was promote those characters with interviews and conferences. That's his real legacy, and as with many other products, it's not the idea as much as the marketing, what really matters.
|
|
|
Post by dav on May 22, 2015 18:47:09 GMT
That's something else we'll never know. Was Lee responsible for the creation of those characters? Were the artists involved? It's clear they shared the merits, but to what point? One thing Lee undeniably did, was promote those characters with interviews and conferences. That's his real legacy, and as with many other products, it's not the idea as much as the marketing, what really matters. Well, I know Jack Kirby was definitely a big part of the creation of many of the characters. Lee's own words (for what their worth!) he said his wife inspired him to dedicate himself to comics and that's what started the ball rolling for the creation of the characters and the new direction at Timely/Marvel and the beginning of the Silver Age. I don't think Lee created any of the characters alone, but he was definitely at the helm for Timely?Marvel's new direction. Just like the captain of a ship does the steering, but to keep the shipping running it takes a whole crew, coordinated by the captain. I see that as his legacy. As for his promotion of characters, that came later. You can't promote what doesn't already exist, but yes, his marketing skills are definitely responsible for the characters magnitude and perpetuation of success. Having said that, it explains why he has changed his story so many times. He had to go with the flow and as times change or events dictate change, his story needed to change. This especially applies to Gwen's death. If you check out the Bring Back Gwen Facebook page, there is a video of him at a comic-con with a new story about the death of Gwen! I can understand for promotional reasons why he did what he did, but I would still like to know the truth! Maybe on his deathbed he will confess! LOL
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 22, 2015 20:05:38 GMT
The story I've heard, about the genesis of the Marvel Age, tells that Stan was facing the end of his career. He had a conversation with his wife, and decided to try and do what he wanted, before leaving. There was a big luck component to the equation. Yes, I saw and already commented on that video.
|
|
|
Post by dav on May 22, 2015 21:10:48 GMT
The story I've heard, about the genesis of the Marvel Age, tells that Stan was facing the end of his career. He had a conversation with his wife, and decided to try and do what he wanted, before leaving. There was a big luck component to the equation. Yes, I saw and already commented on that video. Having been away as long as I was, I haven't gone back and read many earlier posts. Wow! that comic book legends article, all three parts clears up a lot of things, and unlike other stories about #121 they have verified references. Well, that clears up a lot of stuff! Gerry was the perpetrator, John Romita was a co-conspirator, Roy thomas was an accessory before the fact and Stan was the mob boss who authorized the "whack!" By the way, On the first page of that Legends article there is a link to an interview with John Romita. I found it to be an extremely enlightening regarding the comic industry. I never imagined just how complex it really was! There are still questions I have: Were they prepared for as much backlash as they got? Was there more backlash than they led people to believe? Did they bring Gwen back in #99 due to fan pressure? Was she actually boring to readers or was that a fabrication? Was MJ actually more popular than Gwen? Did the inevitability of marriage factor in to the decision? How much of the reader mail in #125 was real and was their really a fifty fifty split among readers about Gwen's death? And those are just off the top of my head! Y'know if Mets had been doing his job, as moderator he would have referenced this in the "Anybody Want Gwen Back" and "The Gwen Appreciation" threads and spared a lot of the more heated exchanges, and lowered the tension on the thread. My feeling (at this moment) is that Mets likes seeing people argue. Just out of curiosity, when you asked Mets for my email address did he have anything to say about me?
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 22, 2015 21:42:40 GMT
I guess he did, but one year later, I couldn't say what it was. In that time, I haven't been particularly active over there, and yet, he's already deleted a couple of posts (of which I only remember the last one).
Everyone has a different way of moderating, but staying on topic is something the moderator has to supervise, and exercise his good judgement, to determine when a thread drift has occurred. And yet, precisely in the "Gwen Appreciation" thread, he's all but ignored my request about moving all the Spider-Gwen posts to a new thread, saying that it's up to the people, to make that decision.
|
|
|
Post by dav on May 22, 2015 22:58:17 GMT
I guess he did, but one year later, I couldn't say what it was. In that time, I haven't been particularly active over there, and yet, he's already deleted a couple of posts (of which I only remember the last one). Everyone has a different way of moderating, but staying on topic is something the moderator has to supervise, and exercise his good judgement, to determine when a thread drift has occurred. And yet, precisely in the "Gwen Appreciation" thread, he's all but ignored my request about moving all the Spider-Gwen posts to a new thread, saying that it's up to the people, to make that decision. First please reread my last post as I have done extensive editing and would like to get your feedback. Next, If you happen to remember what he said please let me know. Given what you have said in your last post my curiosity is peaked. There are a lot of things I am suspicious of regarding Mets, but I am quite confident that he is not objective nor evenhanded in his treatment of people as moderator. He has shown favoritism and discrimination. I also have feeling based on what he has said, that he is not objective with regards to the issue of bringing back Gwen and has sought to leverage the discussions against it.
|
|
|
Post by dav on May 23, 2015 5:47:33 GMT
Just finished that Romita interview and it really was fascinating. Also I discovered that a lot of conspiracy theories were unfounded. These guys weren't making big plans like we believed, for the most part they were just making it up as they went along! Considering how much they were working I now believe this to be true. Reading about all the things Romita was doing he didn't have time to plan all this stuff with Stan or anybody else. They were just going issue to issue. I realize now that we were just over-analyzing the crap out of this stuff! Occam's Razor rears it's ugly head! I feel kinda foolish now!
I realize now that although we read these complex stories that we assume the people behind these stories must be complex too and it isn't true. Their complexity is poured out in their work not in their real lives. Reading Romita's comments he was a simple, humble man with a phenomenal talent. He seems oblivious to how influential his work has been on so many people. He was however cognizant, but not in a conceited way that his work will live on long after his death, because of the effect other artists have had on him. I have to say, that interview really blew my mind!
It also blows my mind about how casually he talks about Gwen's death. Hilariously, her death was a plot device he borrowed from another comic strip artist! This interview has really been a rude awakening for me!
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 23, 2015 8:42:09 GMT
Were they prepared for as much backlash as they got? Was there more backlash than they led people to believe? Did they bring Gwen back in #99 due to fan pressure? Was she actually boring to readers or was that a fabrication? Was MJ actually more popular than Gwen? Did the inevitability of marriage factor in to the decision? How much of the reader mail in #125 was real and was their really a fifty fifty split among readers about Gwen's death? Apparently yes, they got away with it after all. I'd say yes. No idea. Probably a fabrication. You'll find this post (and the ones following immediately) quite amusing. A less relevant factor, than what they'd want you to believe. A perfect 50/50 is very unlikely, that's surely biased.
|
|
|
Post by dav on May 24, 2015 23:52:32 GMT
Were they prepared for as much backlash as they got? Was there more backlash than they led people to believe? Did they bring Gwen back in #99 due to fan pressure? Was she actually boring to readers or was that a fabrication? Was MJ actually more popular than Gwen? Did the inevitability of marriage factor in to the decision? How much of the reader mail in #125 was real and was their really a fifty fifty split among readers about Gwen's death? Apparently yes, they got away with it after all. I'd say yes. No idea. Probably a fabrication. You'll find this post (and the ones following immediately) quite amusing. A less relevant factor, than what they'd want you to believe. A perfect 50/50 is very unlikely, that's surely biased. First, These are questions that I would like to be answered by the creators. All we can really do here is speculate. #1 After the Romita interview, I now believe they didn't care. They just wrote a story, got a reaction and did damage control. #2 Agreed. Most of what they had said since then was just propaganda to diffuse the backlash. #3 After that Romita interview, my belief is no. They just figured it was a good story and that was about it. #4 Agreed, fabrication to rationalize the death. #5 Yep, quite amusing, also strengthens my belief that Mets, because of his bias toward MJ, was steadfastly against bringing Gwen back and because of this his objectivity was compromised, as well as his lack of evenhandedness with regards to members. A pro-Mj person could get away with stuff that a pro-Gwen person would be "corrected" for. Thanks for that post. I was kind of wondering if I had judged Mets too harshly. Now I am confident I didn't. #6 Yep, another fabrication to rationalize the death. #7 Yep, more propaganda to diffuse the backlash. That Romita interview was a real eye-opener to me. The writers and artists were basically just working in a grindhouse. There might have been some strategizing going on with the editors and publishers but not to the extent that we suspected or that they claim. In the case of Gwen's death, they were just trying to diffuse the backlash, rationalize their actions and mitigate their responsibility to a very passionate fan base. They really didn't care about the readers feelings much at all. Their main concern was grinding out a marketable comic in time to beat the deadline. Not anything much deeper than that. Occam's razor.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 25, 2015 9:37:26 GMT
Thomas has always struck me as an MJ fan. There's nothing wrong with that, even if you're in a moderator position, but not stating your bias, and acting on it, is definitely wrong.
Being impartial, in a debate as heated, as the one that divides Spidey fans, between Gwen and MJ, is very complicated, that's why I created two isolated boards for them. The idea was to keep fans apart, to avoid fighting. It was also clear to me, that group leaders shouldn't be moderators. Unfortunately, I'm still tasked with the duty of overseeing the MJ board, because I still haven't found anyone willing to take on the mantle of group leader, there.
|
|