Spider-man Brand New Day

corblimey

Anyone here keeping up with the Parkers? Is it me or is this the most cynical marketing ploy that's ever happened in comics? Basically, they've wiped out most of Peter's history, no marriage, no Civil War unmasking, etc. It may have needed to be done, but there are better ways. On top of that, Friendly and Sensational have been dropped and Amazing comes out 3 times a month, primarily for the reason that "Amazing sells the best, so let's have three of those a month"

I've also read somewhere that the reason for the reset is to tie Peter's life more accurately with the movie franchise. Whether this is just fanw*nk or not, who knows, but it certainly make some sense. Peter is now not married to MJ (although she's still around), he's a dork living with the resurrected Harry Osborn, Aunt May is alive and well; it's all a bit 'Spider-Man 4'.

On the other hand, it makes a nice bookend, I can stop reading the comic now. (I have mixed feelings about this)

Fysh

Comic Book Resources has a load of columns and interviews on the subject, many of which I've read out of idle curiosity more than anything else. If you haven't already, you should check out the following:

Columns:
Erik Larsen
Keith Giffen
Steven Grant
Tom DeFalco (Amazing Spider-Girl writer)

Interviews:
Steve Wacker (Spider-man editor)
Joe Quesada (Marvel Editor-In-Chief & artist for One More Day)
1 of 5
2 of 5
3 of 5
4 of 5
5 of 5

Now, I'm kind of lucky to a certain extent in that I've never really been a big Spider-Man fan (started reading it for a brief while, only to find I had landed right in the middle of the Clone Saga and decided I couldn't bring myself to care) so these changes don't affect me in the slightest. But there are some interesting aspects to the whole story which have wider implications for comics as a whole.

1) The American comics industry is built for the most part on ongoing, essentially unchanging series. This is the model which the Big Two want to continue with for the time being, which means that there will continue to be editors who guide writers and keep stories within certain parameters.

2) Thanks to the whole "obsessive continuity" approach, a lot of fans seem to either actively ignore this or somehow manage to remain unaware of it. Ultimately, it's not profitable to have Spider-man grow and develop in lasting and permanent ways, because that alienates potential new readers. If you really want stories that will have ongoing development, lasting changes and few or no retcons, you're reading the wrong book. Go find some creator-owned book like Invincible, if that's what you're looking for.

3) Marvel has a very weird view of what contemporary America (and, by extension, the world) thinks. A faustian pact with the devil is seen as "more acceptable" than the alternative option of having a sensitively-handled divorce storyline? Because of the "negative connotations of divorce" according to Joe Q? I'd have thought that, with the rising rate of divorce in the western world, a sensitively-handled divorce storyline would show Marvel as a producer of mature and intelligent entertainment for all ages, which might even the ever-rising number of kids affected by divorce to understand and contextualise how it happens. But no, Satanic pacts to get what you want are seen as being a better message. It's just laughable, really.

As for your comments about tying the comics into the film franchise, I'm sceptical about that. One of the BND changes is to move away from organic webshooters because they were only originally introduced to provide a link between film and comic. Besides which, the film franchise is likely to be left alone for at least a couple of years now, and Raimi is unlikely to be returning as director. So that doesn't really make sense.

It's been interesting to watch what's happened with all this, especially when the exact opposite is happening with Captain America (a character who's seen as increasingly disconnected with the country he represents is ultimately killed and replaced by an only-recently-deprogrammed Soviet assassin, whose new uniform will include a handgun? I suppose it in theory represents a changing american psyche, from the defender of liberty for all to the defender of liberty for proper patriotic americans and provider of gulags for everyone else, perhaps...)

the Shades

Bit early to be judging Bucky as Captain America the story is still very much in development. That and I don't think any Captain America or Marvel readers believe that Steve Rodgers is gone for good.

spooydermot

I've yet to read those links that Fysh posted - will do so though.

The whole re-booting of Spiderman strikes me as not just corporately motivated but also lazy and bland as well.

It's the old adage in comics that sooner or later the storyline you loved will be discarded so that the next group of writers can take over and do their thing with it.
So this deletes stories from House of M, The Other, Civil War etc - which contained some very interesting ideas and directions - none of which will ever see fruition now.

Marvel have flirted with bankruptcy before and I'd imagine that there's a strict mindset in there that points everything towards making money no matter the cost to actual story lines.
I no longer buy Spiderman (in fact I don't think I have any marvel titles on the go at the moment same goes for DC - not counting Vertigo) because Marvel have just promised something interesting too many times and have never been able to deliver, or have thrown in the hat at some point.
Good point about the divorce/pact with the devil thing .....that's a weird compromise isn't it?

I'd agree with Fysh that the best way to go for interesting stories is to creator owned titles.

Fysh

Heh, around the time of the whole "Steve Rogers gets killed" thing I started reading up on the history of Captain America and found myself laughing at some fans complaining that they'd had to change their saying of "Nothing is permanent in comics except that Uncle Ben and Bucky are dead" in light of the whole Bucky-not-actually-being-dead thing.

And yeah, I suspect Steve Rogers may well return to the scene sometime down the line, in the same way as Bruce Wayne returned to take the Batman mantle at the end of the Knightfall series.

(Yeah, I know the thing of Bucky-as-Captain-America is speculation at present, but the designs for the new outfit have been released and I'm pretty sure the handgun aspect is going to draw comment...it's one thing for the Punisher, an ex-military borderline-psychopathic agent of bloody retribution, to be carrying guns. It's a pretty bold statement to make when the character is meant to represent the American ideal, regardless of who's wearing it, although it's in keeping with Marvel's whole shift towards superheroes-as-soldiers idea...)

the Shades

Fysh wrote: »

the designs for the new outfit have been released and I'm pretty sure the handgun aspect is going to draw comment...it's one thing for the Punisher, an ex-military borderline-psychopathic agent of bloody retribution, to be carrying guns. It's a pretty bold statement to make when the character is meant to represent the American ideal, regardless of who's wearing it, although it's in keeping with Marvel's whole shift towards superheroes-as-soldiers idea...)

hmmm... considering Americans consider it a 'right' to bear arms and the founding fathers included it in the constitution as a way to overthrow a corrupt government, it's not exactly too far from 'the American Way' to have a hero that has a gun. The revolution, frontier times, cowboys, gangsters... Guns have a unique place in American history and culture and quite possibly deserve to be part of the Captain America mythos.

Fysh

I'm not saying that guns aren't fundamentally a part of the american psyche - as you've mentioned, the whole "right to bear arms" thing has been with them since the frontier days. Nonetheless, Captain America has been presented for decades as a symbol of all that is great and good about America without ever needing a gun. So it's a bold statement to say that where he never needed one before, Captain America now needs to carry a gun. It suggests a certain willingness to kill that has thus far been markedly absent from the character.

There might well be good stories spun out of it, and I can actually see a sort of justification for it if Captain America is being re-cast as a sort of policeman with superpowers, but it's still a notable shift in philosophy.

Full_Circle

I no longer read the Spider-man monthly comics myself (I tend to restrict myself to buying the odd graphic novel here and there to sample a nice hefty chunk of story instead), but is this change an absolute certainty? All continuity is being wiped from the Spider-man universe? Isnt that a wee bit drastic?? :eek: I thought thats why the "Ultimate" line of all the popular titles was brought out, to clear off the cobwebs (no pun intended) and allow fresh new fans to get in touch with the characters for the first time........

Fysh

The change is not only certain but already under way. Although its exact implementation is a bit odd - the claim from Quesada & co. is that it doesn't invalidate past continuity because the events still happened, it's just that Peter and MJ weren't married at the time. The unmasking also still happened; it's just that nobody remembers that Peter Parker was the face underneath the mask.

Basically, all the inconvenient stuff involving character development & growth is gone, but the plot-based stuff still happened. Unless it's preventing writers from telling fun stories about how Spidey discovers he's into bestiality or what have you, in which case it didn't.

(Mind you, in a very real sense the continuity is not invalidated because Marvel haven't gone out and burned every copy of the old comics out there...)

corblimey

Nice links, Fysh. I'd read the Quesada ones before posting, but the Larsen one was new to me. Wow! All great points well made, from one of my favourite artists. And it shows that he still cares about old webhead, even if Marvel apparently couldn't give a flying one.

Full_Circle

Fysh wrote: »

Basically, all the inconvenient stuff involving character development & growth is gone, but the plot-based stuff still happened.

But how could they DO that? Isnt that just like give the two fingers to all their long time fans? And wouldnt removing all the "inconvenient" character building stuff surely make the rest of the plot pretty hollow and worthless? I just dont get it!

I'll check out your kindly supplied links later though, might shed some light on what possible reason they could have for doing this!

Fysh

Effectively it's somewhere between a single finger salute to people who've followed the series long-term and an attempt to revitalise the series and make it more appealing to the world in general but new readers in particular.

For the long-term fans, it looks like this has been a badly-handled example of the pointy end of indefinitely-ongoing-comics-fandom - sooner or later the weight of all that continuity will serve to alienate new readers, which reduces the book's profitability, and so the book can either carry on the continuity until it becomes a financial liability, or it can periodically reset itself and maintain its financially profitable status by offering a new generation of readers the chance to "jump on at the beginning", so to speak.

Full_Circle

Ah I know, from one point of view (a financial one!) its makes sense. When plots and arcs continue for years on end, it can be hard for the newbie to hop on board and follow things (the constant annotations of: “see issue #such and such, Ed” at the bottom of panels used to drive me bonkers ). But then why make life-altering changes to the characters at all, if they are just going to erase them for the sake of convenience? If I were a die-hard Spidey fan, I’d be up in arms!! Maybe they should have continued with at least one original title (for the sake of the fans) and reset all the others.

corblimey

This would appear to be a purely financial decision on 2 counts:

1. Amazing makes the most money, let's make 3 Amazings every month.

2. The only people reading it now are the crusty old die hards - we need the young people to start reading it as they're the ones who will, I dunno, buy crappy merchandise, enter competitions that involve $1 a text to enter, buy the comics every week no matter how shoddy they get. The only way to get young people interested - in Marvel's mind - appears to be "Bang! and nothing that has happened previously is ever mentioned again unless we want it to. Hey kids, wanna buy a spidey-man(tm)(r)(c) t-shirt?"

While I don't begrudge Marvel making a living, there are better ways to do it, Larsen's ideas bear that out, or Full_Circle's idea of resetting the other titles (or introducing newer ones, how about Splendiferous Spider-Man) and leaving Amazing the hell alone. The separate titles never really interacted with each other anyway, so why can't Amazing be post Civil War and the others be something else?

Anyway, as usual, Marvel failed to consult me before making these sorts of decisions , so I guess readers will just have to deal. Not me, though, I'm going to see what else is on offer.

Fysh

Playing devil's advocate for a bit here:

It may appear to be a purely financial decision, but bear in mind it's only 10 years since Marvel was nearly bankrupt and closed down. If the EiC and senior bosses think this is the best way to keep the title profitable and popular, then they're going to do it. They could certainly have made an effort to craft a better story out of it, but I suspect that part of the reason for the whole Mephisto deal was to have a clean slate, rather than just having a single Peter but still bogged down with 20+ years continuity and plot hanging heavy over them.

As for having several Spiderman books with different things going on - not going to happen. If the entire point of this is to revitalise the Spiderman brand and give it a fresh push, diluting it by having a bunch of different versions all appearing to be concurrent is the exact opposite of what they want, fandom-outcry or not.

I'm genuinely curious to see how this plays out in terms of sales say, six months down the line. Because there's been a lot of negative comment from fans, and while some of it is justified, some of it is utter crap along the lines of "but the fans own the character by now" or "the fans are better judges of what should happen than Marvel". Which is just rubbish of the highest order.

If the fans feel hard done by, they can stop buying the comic.

If they want to show support for the idea of Peter & MJ being married, they can start reading Spidergirl and make Marvel aware of this.

But the don't have, never have had and never will have, any claim to ownership of the character or a right to influence the stories told with him other than through the standard methods of boycotting it or supporting it. (As you can see, I'm getting somewhat sick of the more vociferous online whining, since these people are obviously still buying BND even though they claim to hate it...)

constitutionus

correct me if im wrong but isnt this the whole rationale of the "ultimate spiderman" book?

personally i can understand the fan reaction and its emblematic of why ive dropped most of my marvel books. i WANT to buy marvel books as i love the characters and the universe but i just cant stomach what theyre putting out now.

im sure its just a phase and i can get back in in a decade or two when they cop on to themselves.

MikeHoncho

constitutionus wrote: »

i WANT to buy marvel books as i love the characters and the universe but i just cant stomach what theyre putting out now.

im sure its just a phase and i can get back in in a decade or two when they cop on to themselves.

Im actually loving marvel more now than I have in years. I was never a spider man fan anyway and I havent been following this one more day stuff. I must read some spoilers at some stage.

But they are putting out some great books: Iron Fist, Daredevil, Thunderbolts, X Factor are all really good to name a few. Its certainly better than the crap that DC is churning out.

Fysh

Heh, arguing over which is better out of DC or Marvel is rather like arguing over what brand of ketchup to put on your chips. They're still chips, and you're still getting tomato sauce on them.

(I'm not defending DC here or trying to say Marvel are rubbish or whatever; my point is that there are more similarities than differences between the two, and unless you're particularly invested in certain characters, it can be difficult to tell the difference between one multiverse of spandex-clad vigilantes and another. Not to mention pointless, given that there seem to be reboots happening every few years by this point.)

MikeHoncho

I dont think anyone was arguing over who is better. I would prefer to judge each book on its own merits regardless of who printed it. I was merely saying that to say that marvel's current output is rubish is a bit strong when they are actually producing some great books at the moment.

I think retcons are just a result of all these big events in comics. How many times do you read a solicit that says "after this issue SpiderMan will never be the same again" or "Batmans world is turned upside down" etc. They pull off these big stunts to spike sales and then they realise that they have altered a book too much and have lost sight of the reason it was popular in the first place. The other side of that coin is that if nothing ever really happens in a book why would you be interested in picking it up from month to month. Its a delicate balancing act for the big 2. Sometimes they get it right and some times they get it wrong.

ztoical

MikeHoncho wrote: »

I think retcons are just a result of all these big events in comics. How many times do you read a solicit that says "after this issue SpiderMan will never be the same again" or "Batmans world is turned upside down" etc. They pull off these big stunts to spike sales and then they realise that they have altered a book too much and have lost sight of the reason it was popular in the first place. The other side of that coin is that if nothing ever really happens in a book why would you be interested in picking it up from month to month. Its a delicate balancing act for the big 2. Sometimes they get it right and some times they get it wrong.

Its become standard for the big event to happen once a year, usually during the summer months for 3 issues at least, while I understand the need to have these big events, having them occur like clockwork ever year makes it less interesting for me as a reader, you know its coming. Also alot of the writers and artists dislike it, esp if its a big cross over type deal, as it messes up the pacing for whatever story they are working on in their own book. I remember when AOA happened and alot of the writers on the smaller x-books [x-fores and excalibur] were really pissed off - Warren Ellis was writing excalibur at the time and he was really annoyed after spending the better half of the year setting up this big new big bad, black air, and introducing a new character to join the team, Pete Wisdom, he had to put everything on hold for three months do the AOA issues.

Everyone seems in such a rush for stuff to happen these days esp in the x-books. Scott Lobdell style of writing appealed alot to me as it was very much character driven rather then this weeks big bad style stories and it took ages for alot of the subplots to come together [and some never came together but alot of that was down to editorial issues and Lobdell leaving]

Fysh

You've brought up an interesting point there - as the editorial interference in storylines becomes more apparent, I think it's becoming more and more obvious to people that the people involved in writing books for the Big 2 are being more and more constrained in what kind of stories they can tell in them. Which puts me right off most of them, being honest.

Sure, I like Nextwave and the new Omega the Unknown series and a couple of other things from the Big 2, and they're a lot of fun. I'd quite like to read some stuff like that on a monthly basis, but generally I think webcomics are better suited to that kind of light-hearted action/comedy thing. But I can't bring myself to give a rat's arse about Spider-man, or Robin, or Batman, or any other mainstream comics character, because I'm aware of all the extra limitations placed on the stories that can be told with that character.

We're never going to see a story in which Peter Parker questions himself and, say, experiments with his sexuality. We're never going to see a story in Bruce Wayne develops a cocaine habit and his Batman activities suffer because he's become addicted. We're never going to see a story in which Dick Grayson hangs up his costume, starts getting therapy, and tries to live a normal life because he's decided that the whole vigilante thing is a constant reminder of the anguish he felt at his parent's death.

I'm not saying those are necessarily natural fits for the characters in question, but when you start having significant no-go areas in terms of what stories can or cannot be told, you automatically start writing off certain audience segments who don't care either for the nature of the stories or for the characters involved.

Personally, I find that most of the characterisation in the Big 2's output suffers from the fixation on heroic attributes, as if positive stories always have to have someone standing up to an antagonist in some way. Positive stories are good, but I'm sick to all hell of the idea that being a comics fan means I want to read about, and take seriously, the idea of spandex-clad vigilantes. Yes, it's fun on occasion and can lead to some interesting serious comics as well. I don't want everything to be spandex. And I certainly don't want everything to be soap opera spandex.

But apparently I'm in the minority. Same as my idea about wanting to have the option to pay for a legal download of my month's comics instead of having to buy a hard copy and then, if I like a particular run of comics, to re-buy it if I want the trades. Oh, if only I weren't such a radical idealist

the Shades

Fysh wrote: »

Personally, I find that most of the characterisation in the Big 2's output suffers from the fixation on heroic attributes, as if positive stories always have to have someone standing up to an antagonist in some way. Positive stories are good, but I'm sick to all hell of the idea that being a comics fan means I want to read about, and take seriously, the idea of spandex-clad vigilantes. Yes, it's fun on occasion and can lead to some interesting serious comics as well. I don't want everything to be spandex. And I certainly don't want everything to be soap opera spandex.

I'd actually argue with mini-series and imprints like Vertigo that the big 2 do take care of different takes on characters, sometimes they're out of continuity sometimes not. I think if you look around the variety of books is pretty strong and you can easily mix and match a collection of books to suit your own tastes or needs.

I would also agree that to me personally Marvel are producing far higher quality books these days. In general the standard of writing is more mature, writers are given more control over smaller books and room for more input than in previous years for the franchise books and in comparison DC and it's company wide crossover tie-ins are both poorly presented and plotted. DC seem to be thinking about quick sensational moments and not thinking past the immediate event, Marvel on the other hand have storylines plotted out a couple of years ahead and (Spider-man aside) seem to be treating their characters and creators with a lot more respect.

ztoical

the Shades wrote: »

I think if you look around the variety of books is pretty strong and you can easily mix and match a collection of books to suit your own tastes or needs

are we taking just within the "big 2" here or all publishers? if its all publishers then of course you will, if limited to Marvel and DC I'm not sure everyone will find something to their own tastes or needs

the Shades wrote: »

I would also agree that to me personally Marvel are producing far higher quality books these days. In general the standard of writing is more mature, writers are given more control over smaller books and room for more input than in previous years for the franchise books and in comparison DC and it's company wide crossover tie-ins are both poorly presented and plotted. DC seem to be thinking about quick sensational moments and not thinking past the immediate event, Marvel on the other hand have storylines plotted out a couple of years ahead and (Spider-man aside) seem to be treating their characters and creators with a lot more respect.

honestly I find them to be two sides of the same coin. The majority of the people working full time for either company [and by full time I mean the likes of the editorial staff] have worked for both companies at one time or another - most of the DC editors see it as a right of passage to work for marvel, be fired form marvel and then go work for DC. DC is seen as the better company to work prob due to better job security what with them being owned by time warner who own 75% of all the money thats ever been printed. That has its down side thou as you've got a higher up management team who aren't into comics, don't know how the industry work and only care about the bottom line.

As for the talent [artists/writers etc] everyone is freelance now, there are no artists working in the actually DC offices, you work from home and either fed ex or ftp your work in, Marvel work the same. You'll find lots of stressed editors stuck on endless phone calls to very bored freelancers and a handful of interns running around both offices.

You'll find alot of people working for both companies at the same time [along with a few other publishers for good measure] even when they sign those "exclusive" contracts they always leave loop holes in so they can fill in on other books. Is what Marvel are putting out better right now? For me no, we are repeating 8 - 10 years ago and with poorer colouring and inconsistent pencils all round. The notion that Marvel are treating both their characters and their creators with more respect is hilarious - last years MJ statue and the Heros for Hire cover sure weren't respectful but it wasn't that they produced these insults it was the way the likes of Joe Q and co just brushed off fan reactions to them as silly. Alot of people have their heads up their arses at both companies.

Fysh

the Shades wrote: »

I'd actually argue with mini-series and imprints like Vertigo that the big 2 do take care of different takes on characters, sometimes they're out of continuity sometimes not. I think if you look around the variety of books is pretty strong and you can easily mix and match a collection of books to suit your own tastes or needs.

...

Well, the existence of Elseworlds/What If? storylines is a pretty poor response to my point, in fairness - partly because the overall quality of both ranges is, ahem, not the highest, and partly because, well, it just reinforces the idea that the storylines present in the "real" comics won't go near some subjects, regardless of their merit.

As for Vertigo & Icon, those are small imprints that, more than anything else, come across largely as a sort of grudging acknowledgement that there might be a few weirdos out there who, for some inexplicable reason, don't like superheroes. They have quality material, and in the case of Vertigo in particular it has been the home to some awesome series, but all you need to do is compare the number of weekly releases across any given month for Vertigo to the number of releases in the DCU line. It's at best a quarter, and often not that. (Taking January as an example - average of 15.8 releases per week from DC, compared to 3.8 for Vertigo).

As for the variety of books, there are various flavours of book from the main imprints of the Big 2 - so long as you're prepared to accept someone in an improbable spandex outfit as one of your core characters. I don't think this is either a good thing or a bad thing necessarily; it's just an aspect, whether conscious or not, of their overall approach to publishing comics, and it has echoes of that old Eisner comment about when he created the The Spirit and was asked for a masked hero series, so he just stuck a mask on one of the characters and carried on telling the stories he'd planned on doing in the first place. But superheroes & vigilantes are somewhere between a genre and a framing device, like many other things, and there are lots of stories that could be presented more easily and more interestingly without having to try and crowbar them into the context of a universe that allows the existence of superheroes and all the baggage this entails.

The stupid thing being that the Vertigo stuff in particular does well outside of America and is, if anything, the sort of material that can help DC overcome the "comics=superheroes" stigma that limits the size of their target audience.

the Shades wrote: »

I would also agree that to me personally Marvel are producing far higher quality books these days. In general the standard of writing is more mature, writers are given more control over smaller books and room for more input than in previous years for the franchise books and in comparison DC and it's company wide crossover tie-ins are both poorly presented and plotted. DC seem to be thinking about quick sensational moments and not thinking past the immediate event, Marvel on the other hand have storylines plotted out a couple of years ahead and (Spider-man aside) seem to be treating their characters and creators with a lot more respect.

Heh, part of me wants to point at the Spiderman-unmasking and the Punisher-raging-hardon-for-Captain-America portions of Civil War in response to the thing about DC's crossovers being poorly plotted, but since I:

a) don't really care either way, and
b) haven't really followed the more recent crossover stuff in DC's world in any depth,

I'm quite open to the idea of them actually having screwed the pooch on internal consistency, between that Sinestro Corps War nonsense, the mess that Countdown is supposed to have been up until this point, and the general game of musical chairs that they seem to have going on with some of their writers across their titles. (And then there's the gloriously insane titles like All Star Batman & Robin, which I actually own an issue of because I figured I needed to have tangible proof of just how far Miller's insanity has gone...)

I do find it weird that Marvel is pushing for a more realistic approach to comics when they essentially expect their readers to believe that since the Marvel U's origin, barely any bystanders at all have been killed in all those superhero conflicts and fights. But, well, that's the whole "framework of a superhero universe" thing again...

constitutionus

MikeHoncho wrote: »

Im actually loving marvel more now than I have in years. I was never a spider man fan anyway and I havent been following this one more day stuff. I must read some spoilers at some stage.

But they are putting out some great books: Iron Fist, Daredevil, Thunderbolts, X Factor are all really good to name a few. Its certainly better than the crap that DC is churning out.

i used to read three of the four books you mention but i just couldnt go on. cant even quite tell you when i dropped them just happend over time.

i dont read DC so i dont know what the story is there. the only characters i liked were green lantern and firestorm and bots recent(ish) relaunches left me cold.

its weird , i used to collect dozens of titles from a fair few different companies but somewhere along the way they lost me as a regular reader . your right marvel IS producing some good stuff but more and more i find myself just buying trades instead of monthlies

i think its an editorial thing. i used to love x force for instance. then joe Q decided to can it because he didnt like how the x books were whored out. now he had a point and i dont disagree with that. but the fecker did the very same thing himself with a bunch of books i couldnt care less about and then did it with the avengers. i was enjoying the new avengers book then suddenly i gotta read two to get the full story and theres a **** load of tie ins i havent a ****ing clue about. worse , the x books , which ive been following since the dark phoenix saga have become completly unreadable to me. the only one im getting now is astonishing and TBH im not sure if warren ellis is enough to keep me reading that. ive a feeling that too will become someting i just check out as a trade.

i mean honestly can ANYONE follow a marvel event anymore? from Mday to annihilation to civil war to planet hulk. the whole feking thing is overwhelming. and i say this as a guy who followed the whole age of apocalypse/ onslaught era !

i dont know , im probably not articulating it properly. caps dead, iron mans a facist, buckys alive and spidermans doing a deal with the devil (didnt he learn ANYTHING off ghost rider:) )

Marvel just feels souless now

the Shades

You know what? I'm too old for this crap!

Fysh

the Shades wrote: »

You know what? I'm too old for this crap!

No no no, it's "I'm too old for this sh*t"!

ztoical

the Shades wrote: »

You know what? I'm too old for this crap!

thats no way to win an argument

LegacyUser

I gotta say Im enjoying getting it 3 times a month. I really like that Idea and wish that all multi title books went that way. Makes it way easier to follw, easier to trade wait and you can stay into story lines much much easier

ztoical

Will Sliney wrote: »

I gotta say Im enjoying getting it 3 times a month.

lol now that just sounds dirty