Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Mixed Feelings by RobertMacQuarrie1 Mixed Feelings by RobertMacQuarrie1
So, yeah, the new Captain America: Civil War trailer dropped, and everyone seems to be talking about the red and blue guy at the very end.  And, for the most part, everyone seems to be excited about it.  However, I'm a little more ambivalent about the whole thing.

Now, to be clear, I don't think that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is going to go down the exact same path in terms of the narrative that happened in the comics to Spider-Man after Civil War.  However, I'm a little wary in regards to the overall philosophy regarding the character that the folks at Marvel have seem to be taken.

First off, I'm not really a fan of making Spider-Man subservient or answerable to other heroes.  I was never a fan of the idea of Iron Man being his "mentor" figure, since- by the time that storyline rolled around- he didn't really need a mentor.  In fact, there are a few things that Spider-Man could teach the other heroes.  But it tied back into a main problem that a lot of folks at Marvel had at the time, in that they argued that Spider-Man was solely defined by his youth.  

Now, while Spider-Man is one of if not the only young heroes in the MCU, his youth is not the sole aspect that has or has ever defined him.  Yes, he started off in High School.  But he didn't stay there.  The narrative progressed and moved on, allowing newer and different stories to be told with an older protagonist.  Yes, he started as a teenager.  But it was meant to highlight just what a burden of responsibility that Spider-Man had in his life, that someone so young was taking on so many adult responsibilities.  It wasn't just "Here is a young superhero" it was "Here was a young man taking on the pressures of being an adult."  I mean, there was a reason why the character was called Spider-MAN and not Spider-BOY or Spider-LAD.  

But, for a few of the decision makers, they got it into their head that Spider-Man's youth is the sole thing that defines him.  Unfortunately, that is solely where they stopped and tried to implement stories and directives to reinforce that.  Spider-Man was shown to be ineffectual and inexperienced, despite his many years as a superhero.  He was made to be more juvenile and childish, despite the fact that his humor was always used more as a way to have him deal with his problems, and he was very mature most of the time if not capable of great bouts of anger and rage.  Spider-Man wore his heart on his sleeve, and while that may result in rash decisions and flippant behaviour, it never undermined the notion that he was someone who took things seriously and was always wary of the consequences of his actions.  He was made to be answerable towards other superheroes, with characters like Iron Man, Daredevil and Captain America "instructing" him on how to "behave," despite the fact that- aside from Cap- Spider-Man had been a superhero for just as long if not longer than the other heroes.  And certainly didn't make the same mistakes the other heroes made.  Spidey never lost a company, or had to take an extended absence from being a superhero because of the mistakes he made.  But, because of the larger corporate directive towards the character, that he has to be defined by "youth," that was the directive that was taken.  And the series was not the better for it.

And you can also see this direction with their outside projects as well.  The Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon not only feels the need to define Spidey solely by his youth, but also falls into the same trap that far too many shows with younger protagonists fall into that "Young=jerk."  That making the character "young" also means to make the character into an unlikeable miscreant, in order for them to learn a "lesson" at the end.  Only for said "lesson" to be lost or forgotten by the next episode anyway.  In addition, it seems to try and make Spider-Man into an agent of SHIELD, and move him away from his roots as a character, further away from his own unique corner of the Marvel U. and more into an "Avenger-lite."  Which, again, I feel undermines the character.  It is like trying to make Batman more like the Flash, make him answerable to him.  Nothing against the Flash, but Batman has his own universe, his own status.  Making a character secondary to another does not do them any favours, especially when said character is arguably just as if not more popular than the other.  Sure, Iron Man may be the hot thing NOW, but that's just a recent occurrence.  Spider-Man has been a major hero for far longer, and didn't need a major motion picture to "raise his profile."  And, lest we forget, the Raimi films were major blockbusters without having to tie Spider-Man to Iron Man or any other Marvel hero and put him under their umbrella.

Now, that isn't to say I'm opposed to a young Spider-Man.  The Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon is one of my favorite shows, of ALL time.  And I really enjoyed now only the early Stan Lee and Steve Ditko stuff, but also Brian Bendis Ultimate Spider-Man comics.  But Spider-Man isn't JUST about his youth.  As much as I loved the USM comics, I also loved Kraven's Last Hunt.  And the first Carnage story.  And Doomed Affairs.  And the Sin Eater storyline.  I liked stories featuring Spider-Man in High School.  And I liked stories about Spider-Man when he was older.  And that is ultimately the strength of the character, that ultimately shows that, no, he doesn't have to SOLELY be defined by his "youth," and that he can grow older and grow up, and it doesn't affect WHO he is.  Spider-Man can be so much more than what he is usually limited to be by those in charge.

Not to mention that, as it may come as no surprise to anyone, my lack of interest in the current Spider-Man comics has me feeling a bit adrift within the fandom.  The material on TV and in the movies does not seem to be speaking to me as a  fan, but more trying to appeal to a "new" audience, and presenting a particular philosophy towards the character that I think doesn't really represent his strengths AS a character.  And the comics seem to not be interested in Peter Parker at all, as ASM is now more akin to a hybrid of an Iron Man/ Fantastic Four/ Batman/ James Bond comic than one about Spider-Man.  It seems as if most issues don't even need Spider-Man at all, and it could be replaced with Iron Man or some other hero and it would still be the same story.  So, right now, it doesn't seem that the series and the character that I love is really doing anything that speaks to me as a fan, or really honors or respects his history and mythos, and is more focused on changing him into something that he isn't, in order to appeal to a "wide" audience, completely forgetting that he appealed to a massive audience before without having to resort to such changes.  

Now, all this could just be for nothing.  The MCU Spider-Man film could be more Spectacular Spider-Man than Ultimate Spider-Man.  More like the comics than the cartoon.  Civil War might see Spider-Man not as the rash, inexperienced and secondary hero and more of an equal, despite his age.  The comics could be working towards setting up a status quo that speaks to me more than it does now.  And I could just be confusing cynicism with insight.  

But, at the end of the day, I feel it would probably best not to get too excited for this.  I'm not going to go the whole "I'm holding my breath" sort of attitude.  More, I'm just being more cautious with my judgement until I see more.  
Add a Comment:
 
:iconimpulsivespidercide:
ImpulsiveSpidercide Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2016
You make a lot of really good points about what's wrong with Dan Slott's ethos and approach to handling the Spider-Man series, and a lot of really great points about what makes Peter Parker as a character so great in the first place. On the former, the way you describe his ethos and attitude sounds a lot like Otto Octavius as Spider-Man: He wants to be Spider-Man, but for the glory and the celebrity, not because he sees Spider-Man as an opportunity and means to do good and right by the people and world that count on him. Interestingly, while it looked like Slott favored Otto's allegedly "superior" approach to being Spider-Man, he ultimately had that collapse on Otto's head because Otto just couldn't grasp the concept of self-sacrifice, of thinking about others before himself and his own agendas, and that was what doomed his tenure as Spider-Man and forced him to acknowledge that Peter, whom he had ridiculed, dismissed, and mocked, was the better man (and Spider-Man) between them. Kind of funny that he misses that subtext in his own work on Spidey.
Reply
:iconrobertmacquarrie1:
RobertMacQuarrie1 Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2016
However, Slott undermines his own position as he has other characters not only constantly tell Peter that Otto was in the right, but ultimately depicts Otto's actions as being the correct position.  Peter takes a hard line stance against killing, yet Otto not only kills with impunity, but many of his actions in taking lives result in positive results.  Otto's killing of Massacre is in no way punished or impairs him in any way, despite the fact that Otto killed an unarmed man in cold blood.  During Spider-Verse, Peter desperately insists that there is another way, but it is ultimately Otto killing the great weaver that turns the tide in the conflict.  Not to mention that Slott has people tell Peter that he should adopt Otto's "big picture" approach and ignore the "little things."  Which is not going to be shown to be the "incorrect" approach, as Peter's "downfall" is being set up to being due to Norman's machinations and Peter not delegating his work correctly.

As I've said, it does not seem that Slott is interested in writing Spider-Man, given the fact that he doesn't seem to be that interested in Peter and his world and is more interested in changing it into something else.  I get that he's a fan, but I think he's more of a fan in that he is more interested in what the franchise can do for his career, than what he can do for the franchise. 
Reply
:iconimpulsivespidercide:
ImpulsiveSpidercide Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2016
That is a big part of the problem, too, and it does feel a lot like Slott actually sees Otto's approach as the correct and "superior" one, but had to bow to pressure to bring back Peter and thus put forth a token disavowal of Otto's methodology and ethos that he then proceeded to undermine. And yes, if Slott's run does end with Peter losing everything and forced to start again from that point, it'll be a major disappointment and the final proof that as you said, Slott doesn't really understand the core of Spider-Man. This, from the guy who once had Mary Jane tell Peter, "Being Spider-Man never made you special. Being Peter Parker is what makes you special!"
Reply
:iconrobertmacquarrie1:
RobertMacQuarrie1 Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2016
As I've said before, for all his fanboying, Slott doesn't really seem to be all that interested in actually writing Spider-Man.

Just look at what he's done.  He removed Peter from working at the Daily Bugle, taking him away from all of his established supporting characters, replacing them with the Horizon crew.  He gave Peter a magical do anything job which allowed him to steal from his company to have an endless array of gadgets and gizmos for every occasion.  He slowly weeded out his entire supporting cast, save Aunt May and JJJ, who even now only make token appearances, instead showing preference for his own pet characters (and believe me, if he was still allowed to use Carlie Cooper, he'd likely have her in every issue and I'd bet even have her as his love interest in Renew Your Vows).  He has taken Spider-Man from a urban crimefighter to a global hero who has more in common with Iron Man and Batman than anyone else.  Heck, he even replaced Peter as Spider-Man for over a year with Otto Octavius.  Who, under Slott's pen, was so different than what he was like before he was practically a new character.  

Under Slott, Spider-Man has changed far more and in far greater ways than anyone before, or likely ever will.  And as I also said before, it's a little frustrating that Slott often complained that being married made Peter into a far different character and almost unrecognizable, and yet he has no problem changing Spider-Man to be completely different than he has ever been before.  

At the end of the day, Slott is a massive hypocrite.  This thing is wrong, unless I'm the one doing it, then it's alright.  And he's far too arrogant to not only admit it, but actually even acknowledge it.  
Reply
:iconimpulsivespidercide:
ImpulsiveSpidercide Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2016
In a nutshell, yes, which is the big disappointment.
Reply
:icondragon-sword:
Dragon-sword Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2016
After watching Civil War, I can say this version of Spidey feels more Spectacular than Ultimate. Which is fine by me, because that is still my favorite Spidey show. Also, as I hoped, Tom Holland accomplishes what neither of the past two actors did. He's great as both Peter Parker and as Spider-man. 

Although, I will say this about Ultimate Spider-man. It has really improved. Still far from perfect, but Spidey is finally acting like the character I know and love. The only thing that really annoys me now is that they insist on having him pause the episode to explain everything to the audience when it would be so much easier (and less annoying) to do a previously on segment before starting the episode. There's also him being the new head of SHIELD. I'm all for Spider-man's character growth, but this is too much. Having him be an instructor at the academy was good enough. 
Reply
:iconshadowman101:
Shadowman101 Featured By Owner May 11, 2016
Now that Civil War's out, what did you think of Spidey?
Reply
:icon14darius:
14Darius Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
as a spidey fan i agree with a lot of what you have stated. well except for what you say about his newer adventures. i grew up with spider-man just like most of the world and i've enjoyed his adventures (hated what was done to him all the same) but one of the biggest problems i've always had was that why was he in so dire shape. granted i didn't get to see him in his later life much while growing up (my dad comics of when he was in high school and college not much after he left it. from those adventures i'd seen his bravery and when i was about 14 i'd had started to read his more famous stories. with his maturity and experience. i had read a lot and saw that peter for the most part did very little with his genius. granted his job at tricorp and his inventions of the webshooters and fluid are great. hell just about anything he made to beat the bad guy was great, but thats all they were. just little things he through together to beat the bad guy. it showed his enjunuity when he didn't use it as a crutch to beat that opponent later in life. i get that was also to show his maturing superheroism. but again thats all his smarts were used for. this is a guy who created a bonding agent thats strong enough to hold the hulk at the age of 15. and at the age of 28 he has done little with his smarts (talking about what he does as peter parker not spidey) except teaching he was a cool teacher. same guy at the age of 26 or 27 was able to disable the trap mechanism on his stark tech. same guy who was able to (from a concept that doctor doom created) built a tracking device that he can uniquely follow. (doom once contacted peter via his spider-sense. when doom thought the bugle was right in thinking he was a villian.) can you really not find him interesting now that he's bringing all of those smarts to the people he's been sacrificing so much for.


believe it or not i find him more relatable now (college student with dreams of being a researcher) not because he wasn't before the whole young adult facing mature adult problems is something we all have to deal with. (this is where most people write me off) anyway i find him more relatable because now he has to use those  smarts that we only saw in fights to do so much more. like everyone who decides to leave home and fight for their future. growing up you made the foundations of what you wanted to be or who you were going to be. (peter as a young adult insert here) as a young adult you had to work to balance your responsiblitlies and face adversity that you may or may not be ready for. (end high school and junior college)  now youve made your decesions and are sticking with it making strides and learning the deeper meanings of your choices (transfer to 4yr and working on major) after that is to take what we learned and to strive for the best we can (masters or phd for those willing to walk the longer road) and after that we affect our world. everyone changes the world in their little ways and while peter was doing that as spider-man he wasn't really doing that as peter parker. in life you reach out as far as you can and change for the better what you can. as spider-man he was saving lives but as peter parker he wasn't doing as much as we knew he could. it felt like an insult that otto and chameleon could do more for peter for his life than he did for himself. ( like when chameleon smoothed some problems for his life or when otto finished his phd and  started a business.) anyway back to what i was saying before. he now has to use his smarts (the genius level smarts that performed those feats above) to affect the world around him and naturally it will take him far. As a fan i'm proud of Peter parker again not like i wasn't before but i'm prouder.
Reply
:iconrobertmacquarrie1:
RobertMacQuarrie1 Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2016
The thing of it is, the biggest problem with Spider-Man the past few years is that Marvel seems to only think in him in terms of extremes.  When they decide on a depiction for his character, they go whole hog with it, regardless of how it may come across.  And when they decide to go another way with him, they do the exact opposite, going to far in the opposite direction.

When they decided Peter "had" to be "young," they went and decided to make Peter an unskilled, directionless man-child who had to have his hand held in every instance, and had him forget important lessons that were central to his being, and that he should have learned years ago.  They tried to depict him as if he was a rookie again, who had just gotten his powers, and needed to be directed by other heroes, even if he has served as long as them.  He was incapable of holding down a job or even balance a chequebook, and instead of depicting it as if was just a consequence of him being Spider-Man, they made it seem like Peter was a looser in terms of employment or money.

But then they decided to go in the opposite direction.  And now the guy who couldn't pay his bills on time managed to take a company that was in ruins and in less than a year turn it into a global superpower.  Now he's so rich, he can literally offer to buy off and all bad guys who cross his path.  He can make any toy or weapon he desires.  And nothing in his current life really seems to be that much of a sacrifice for him.  

I get wanting to do something different.  But Marvel has gone SO far overboard with how they decide to tackle Spider-Man that it warps the character to the point where he is practically unrecognizable at this point.  Just because people don't want Peter to be a loser, doesn't mean that they want to see him on the same level as Tony Stark.  Just as people who want Peter to struggle don't want to see him depicted as a loser.  There can be a happy middle ground.  Unfortunately, Marvel seems to have forgotten that when it comes to the character, and only care about the extremes.  
Reply
:icon14darius:
14Darius Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
well they did have a middle ground. in his beginning tenure at horizon labs he was upper middle class. but all everyone else kept doing was complaining about his co cast members. they didn't care or even like them (grady and uatu jackson were my favorite side characters.) saying they were one dimensional and not worth much.  it seems fans are as to blame for this as marvel is. honestly though he seems more stressed nowadays sacrificing time instead of his relationships. honestly i think we might be a little to close to this. we may need to wait a couple more issues to see how he is when he's off the clock. cause that baxter building situation was nice (since we had no idea what happened to read in the beginning) but it didn't really show us how he is away from everything right now. i think I'm missing a comic but there is this one were these guys are coming back from the dead. it might be that comic that i need to read to see how he is doing.  
Reply
:icon14darius:
14Darius Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
damn i didn't think like that. shit. thanks for twisting the knife buddy. hopefully it turns out leagues better than what happened in the comics.
Reply
:iconmarvelguru:
Marvelguru Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Considering the movies are different from the comics I hope it does better.
Reply
Hidden by Owner
:iconrobertmacquarrie1:
RobertMacQuarrie1 Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2016
Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. 
Reply
:iconroisepoise101:
roisepoise101 Featured By Owner Mar 13, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Relax, i can grantee 100% that no one in this movie will sell anything to the devil, at least not directly.
Reply
:iconwyote:
Wyote Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016
This, just what you said right there.  I've said similar stuff to a lot of that to some friends before, just maybe not as in as good of words.
Reply
:iconreygaby:
ReyGaby Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016
What do you think of the new "series"? Spiderman (morales) Spidey, Spidergween and for the moment my favorite (mostly for the concept)  Webwariors?
Reply
:iconmikepriest83:
MikePriest83 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016
I totally agree with what you've said about Spider-Man and youth.  I'm fond of pointing that the "Old Parker Luck" used to mean that Peter missed out on something in his personal life because he had to go handle something as Spider-Man, but it has morphed in the last decade to mean "Peter gets dumped on and made to look like an idiot because he's immature and careless".
Reply
:iconrobertmacquarrie1:
RobertMacQuarrie1 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016
Only under the pen of writers of low talent and skill.

Slott, in my opinion, is a lazy writer.  He puts out half the content of other creators out there, and has one of the most lax schedules for a writer there is.  He puts more emphasis on ideas than story.  He focuses less on the legacy of the franchise and more about warping it into his own vision of what it "should" be.  Putting his own "stamp" on it.  

It's clear that he wants to be a "big" writer like Morrison or Millar or Bendis and others of a similar ilk.  He wants to be a "celebrity" writer, whose ideas are celebrated throughout the ages.  Whose work impacts the series from that point on. 

The problem is, he doesn't want to do the work to get it there.  His plot don't serve the characters.  His characters serve the plot.  He's more interested in replacing and eliminating elements than he is about strengthening what comes before.  He wants HIS ideas to take centre stage, but doesn't want to do the work that comes with that. 

Someone like Grant Morrison or Mark Millar throw out idea after idea after idea after idea.  But they don't care if they stick or not.  They just want to EXPRESS the idea.  Slott will throw out an idea, and then throw a temper tantrum when that idea isn't IMMEDIATELY accepted by the fanbase for the BRILLIANT idea that it is.  He'll complain that other writers did something similar, and NO ONE complained then.  He'll insist there is NOTHING wrong with his concepts, and it's just the fans who don't *get* what he is trying to do.

In the end, all it shows is that Slott is far more interested in being a celebrity, in putting HIMSELF ahead of the material, in making HIMSELF into a celebrity, than actually telling a decent story.  His legacy comes first.  The franchise second.  And the story third.  

Yes, I get that Slott is a fan of Spider-Man.  But that doesn't mean he wants to do right by the franchise.  There are those fans that LOVE the series and all of it's mythology.  That enjoys practically every aspect of the series.  There are some things they like, some things that they hate.  But it all comes from a place of love FOR the franchise.  Then there are those fans who look at a franchise as successful as Spider-Man and think "How can I use that to benefit me."  They see it as a way to establish their legacy, their importance, their status across the generations.  They don't want to honor what came before.  They want to warp it so that there is a clear divide between "THEN" and "NOW," so that they can be remembered for generations to come.  

And if someone has doubts, well... in the history of Spider-Man, there have only been two creators who have EVER had their face on the cover of a Spider-Man comic.  One is Stan Lee.  The other is Dan Slott.  Oh, sure, AFTER the fact Slott said he protested the decision and didn't want his face on that cover.  

Sure.

And Silk was the reason that ASM sold over 500,000 copies.  
Reply
:iconmikepriest83:
MikePriest83 Featured By Owner Mar 13, 2016
Ha, that sounds pretty dead-on.

I felt he was a better writer BEFORE he started Spider-Man.  I will give him credit for Spidey/Human Torch, which would make a top 15 list for me (even though he flat-out stole that laughing at Paste-Pot Pete for a whole page gag from Joe Kelly's Deadpool).
Reply
:iconrobertmacquarrie1:
RobertMacQuarrie1 Featured By Owner Mar 13, 2016
I think that's because Slott works better when he has a rigid structure to build from.

When he is building off the foundation of others, he's fine.  When he's not innovating, but expanding.  Working within the guidelines that other, more talented creators set down.  Which makes sense, given that most of the hard work is already done for him and he's just adding his own spin to it.  

But when he has to build a story from scratch, that is when he falters.  Because he doesn't know how to lay down a foundational structure on his own.  He's too quick and eager to move onto the next idea, and confuses ideas with stories, which aren't the same thing.  He doesn't really know how to build a good base to work from, and because of that his stories suffer.  That's why you have things just "happen" to Peter.  He doesn't work or struggle to gain these accomplishments.  They are just handed to him, with the details glossed over to get to the "big idea."  Because he's more interested in the idea than the story behind it.  
Reply
:iconmikepriest83:
MikePriest83 Featured By Owner Mar 13, 2016
Yeah, how he handled the Hobgoblin in his stories was super-annoying to me, especially considering the original one is my favorite Spidey villain.

Everyone complained when Kingsley was supposedly killed off, then he brought him back and was like "Duh, Kingsley has a twin brother, that's who died!"  But he never explained how or why it happened and treated it as if it was a given instead of building a story around it.
Reply
:iconrobertmacquarrie1:
RobertMacQuarrie1 Featured By Owner Mar 13, 2016
Not only that, but people pretty much figured that it wasn't Roderick who was killed, but his brother Daniel.  And when they pointed that out, he just ridiculed them for it.

And it was all to set up Phil Urich as a supervillain and as the new Hobgoblin, but for no explained reason as to why or how he decided to just be a villain one day.  Slott tried to justify it that he was setting up Phil as a "Anti-Peter Parker," but he never really did much with that story at all.  He just had Phil as a villain, and did nothing of real importance with him.  

I also really have to wonder how much of this was also at the urging of Stephen Wacker, who clearly understood NOTHING about the franchise, its' characters, or its' history, and who was more interested in shocking and pissing people off than he was about telling a decent story.  
Reply
:iconmikepriest83:
MikePriest83 Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2016
That was also a sore spot with me, as Phil's Green Goblin series was also a favorite of mine.

Granted, Phil's villain turn started in that Loners mini-series, but Slott just made the situation a lot worse.  I used to relate to Phil and thought he had a pretty cool status as "the only one to escape the Goblin curse".

But now he's a crazy murderer and a loser and I can't really take the "Goblin Knight" or Goblin King or whatever he's calling himself seriously.  He's a xerox of a xerox of a xerox now.

I feel bad, because Christos Gage co-wrote a lot of that later stuff in Superior, and I like Christos Gage on his own.
Reply
:iconrobertmacquarrie1:
RobertMacQuarrie1 Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2016
That goes back to the problem with Slott I identified earlier- that ideas aren't stories.  

He's more interested in the idea than the story.  More interested in the concept than the follow through.  He's so focused on the "Oh, this is a great idea!" that he tends to forget what comes next.  

That's why so many of stories just end on dead notes.  The Phil Urich/ Norah Winters arc?  Just ends on a total dead stop.  The Carlie Cooper arc? Dead stop.  Horizon Labs?  Dead.  The Pedro stuff?  Dead.  There is not finality to it.  No follow through. 

Slott gets a lot of praise for being a "master planner," but in reality he seems more interested in just setting up the next "Idea Box" for him to play with.  Horizon was just there to set up Superior, and once they were done Slott had nothing left for them, so off they go.  Pedro was just there to occupy time, but once plans changed, that entire arc was just a waste of time.  Same goes for Carlie Cooper.  "A Waste of Time" is perhaps the best way to describe that character in her entirety.  But because Slott was more interested in the ideas rather than developing a decent story, the arcs that make up the journey just fall flat.  And the more you look at it, the worse it becomes.  

Because you see there isn't a "grand plan."  It's just zigzagging to plot element to plot element, with very little carryover.  It doesn't come across as a cohesive whole.  It's just Peter being dragged to plot points and dumped there, with very little agency of his own.  Peter isn't an active agent.  He's just a tourist on Slott's odyssey.  
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconnightlife9k:
NightLife9k Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016
Could not have said it better.
Reply
:iconmarkfanboy:
MarkFanboy Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
They gotta keep going after that youth market because old people are too busy getting married and raising children to follow superheroes.
Reply
:iconbjv016:
bjv016 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016  Student Digital Artist
Point taken.
Reply
:iconfantasylancer:
fantasylancer Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016
if anything I thought u were referring to video game
Reply
:icondeathchrist2000:
deathchrist2000 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016  Student Writer
It's especially funny once you realize "If this be my destiny..." is a story about Peter Parker forgiving himself for his role in the death of Uncle Ben (hence why his ghost doesn't appear in Peter's mystical experience during Kraven's Last Hunt). No wait, not funny, Infuriating.
Reply
:iconthescarletmercenary:
TheScarletMercenary Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016  Student Filmographer
Well judging how the movie will go, I think he'll be fine.
Reply
:iconrobertmacquarrie1:
RobertMacQuarrie1 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016
Yeah, probably.  This is most likely just me worrying needlessly.  Spider-Man is my favorite character, so I worry that he won't be used properly.  
Reply
:iconthescarletmercenary:
TheScarletMercenary Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016  Student Filmographer
Yeah. He probably wants to do things responsibly and not end creating events like New York, Washington and Sokovia himself.
Reply
:iconrobertmacquarrie1:
RobertMacQuarrie1 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016
I'm just a little worried that with him siding with Tony, that means that Tony will know his secret ID, and therefore whoever is in Tony's organization in the Government, essentially setting up a similar situation to the USM cartoon.

I'd more prefer it that either Tony doesn't know, or ONLY Tony knows his secret, and it's not something he is sharing with anyone else.  
Reply
:iconthescarletmercenary:
TheScarletMercenary Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016  Student Filmographer
Well.. My idea for Spider-Man involves a lot of twists... Wanna note me about it?
Reply
:iconbastard-bird:
Bastard-Bird Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016
The thing that worries me most about having Spidey involved with Iron Man is they're likely to forget, AGAIN, that he's not just spider-powers and wise-cracks, but a damned genius. He built his own gear in his bedroom for years. Parker himself developed the web-fluid, the spinners, spider-tracers, etc - he didn't kife anyone else's designs or ideas.
Reply
:icongreyking46:
GreyKing46 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016
Exactly. He is as smart as Tony. The reason why he dosen't have anything like Tony's gear is because he didn't have the money, the equipment or the resources
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
March 12, 2016
Image Size
1.0 MB
Resolution
1600×2200
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,185
Favourites
30 (who?)
Comments
40
Downloads
3
×