Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
clayton

In Reply To
Mr Honey Bunny

Subj: Wait...
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 03:05:13 am EST
Reply Subj: Re: An Explanation
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:26:34 pm EST (Viewed 103 times)


> > > It was said in an interview with Dan Slott that there is something actively stopping people who should know from re-knowing, which explains why She-Kraven found the costume in the flat but naturally assumed it was Vin's not Peter's. And how Vin didn't think it might be Peter's costume.
> > >
> > > The same is true for Norman. He found the camera & detector on Spidey's costume, but he only deduced that Spidey uses Peter as a front to sell photos rather than considering the obvious. This is part of the larger mystery that we are going to learn about in the new year.
> > >
> > > Although this explanation would have benefited being in the letters pages since i did not realise that magic was making these people leap to these conclusions until i read the interview.
> >
> > It would have. Unless all these things was meant to be a sort of "ah so thats why!" type of thing, so when it was revealed in the comic story it woudl give punch.
> >
>
>
> “Not only do people not seem to know, but you can have Anna Kravinoff discover a Spider-Man costume in Peter Parker's apartment and think it belongs to his room mate Vin Gonzales,” Slott continued. “You can have Venom sitting right in front of Peter Parker in his apartment and not detect symbiote residue in Peter Parker. Yet Anti-Venom can sense it in Spider-Man. You have Norman Osborn finding Peter Parker's camera webbed to a wall with Spider-Man pictures on it and he goes, 'Ah-ha! I've got it! Spider-Man takes pictures of himself and uses Peter Parker as a front!' So Something fishy is going on here.”
>
>
> Now I've read this part, it really sounds like a back door for every mistakes writers will make, in the end, it will be because of "we".
>
> What's "we" stand for ... the less they tell us, the longuer they don't adress it, the easier it is for them to write the stories they want without caring about continuity problems related to Peter's ID.
>
> I think they saw lots of continuity mistakes were made (like Norman not knowing in NWTD as he would be able to deduce it anyway) and so, Slott and Wacker decided to throw the "We did it". (Peter and someone. Who ? We don't know)
>
> Anyway, WE SHOULD KNOW if Peter knows. It shouldn't be a mystery. And the same apply to Harry's return.

Why is it a mistake if they've been actively alluding to something like this?

I think your embedded underestimation of these writers is preventing you from seeing anything relating to complex plotting. Do you really think that this entire "we" business stems from Guggs not realizing that the Kraven girl might think that Peter could be the owner or the costume?

Furthermore, the Symbiote and Camera instances happened AFTER the "we" mention, so I would say it ISN'T a mistake and merely adding to a subplot. If you don't like the subplot, that's your own preference. But its a might judgemental of you to just flat out assume that the thing that answers your question is just a halfhazard attempt to cover up sloppy writing as if every single person involved in Amazing Spider-man had never read the Death of Gwen Stacy and hadn't realized that Norman not knowing Peter's ID would put a hitch in that continuity.

I'm not sure why you persist to underestimate the plotting ability of this new team. There haven't been any continuity mistakes yet. The angle you brought up has indeed been addressed. You may not like the method that they've used, but the fact remains that it is there.

I really don't think they're all just completely clueless, none of them as smart as the great mr honey bunny who was able to see a problem with continuity in 10 minutes that they, having worked with the direction for over 2 years, completely forgot about. They completely forgot about it, even after writing a story that featured the two major spidey villains that knew peter's id. Then they stuck the "we" in as a bandaid. Oh what fools.





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 on MacOS X
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software