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

In Reply To
Mr Honey Bunny

Subj: Maybe...
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 03:04:22 pm EST
Reply Subj: You made me realize something ...
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:30:30 am EST (Viewed 125 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?
> >
>
> Because when your main character is aware of something, readers are supposed to either. (You know, thought bubbles are here for that. Readers are the first to be aware of the main character's problems and state of mine. It's a way to create a link between the readers and the main character) Now, our Spidey is hiding us things. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the first time in Spidey's history. I thought it was working like that until now but I must have been wrong obviously.
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> We've seen characters acting dumber than that in the 60's and 7O's ... plenty of villains had ridiculous conclusions while the obvious was in front of them. So I assumed it was just once again the case here.
>
> Now, I would wonder why we had to wait for the second part of NWTD for Peter to make a reference to how the statu quo about his secret ID is now working. Why not just telling us that "something" or "someone" Peter is aware of is preventing people to think of Peter as Spidey in ASM 546 ? Instead we were told that "some" people might remember the unmasking but not the face under the mask ... really all this sounds like a mess.
>
> > 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 never said that : I said they put it all on Mephisto's back first. So Norman not knowing was making sense. Though, the writers didn't think of the clones and Gwen's kids maybe. That's what I think.
>
> While I read about the camera, I just thought Norman was acting dumb just like it happened 100 times before during the 60's. See, Dock Ock unmasking Spidey and everyone assuming it can't be Parker in ASM 12 lol
>
> At the time, there weren't a "we" ... but it worked !
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> It was just adressed in an interview on the net. While reading the comics, you just think Norman and the new Kraven don't see the obvious because, heck, as ridiculous as it is, it worked like that for years ! ... (We all see that Superman is Clark ... but not the characters around him in the comic pages lol)
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
> No need to result to personal attacks, I didn't say Slott or the others were full of themselves to make my points.
>
> The way I see it, they all started to say Mephisto made everyone forget Peter's ID and wanted to go that way ... But then, while writing their stories, they saw contradictions with previous storylines (the clone saga for instance)so they went another way.
>
> Fact is, apart a reference to a "we" in the second part of NWTD, why do we have to read an interview to understand how it supposed to work ?
>
> It's really confusing to say the least.
>
> But anyway, the Bottomline is :
>
> While I read ASM now : I already know any girls Peter will find on his way, it will just be temporary. Not one of them will be "the one".
>
> But, most importantly :
>
> You just made me realize that no matter what villains Spider-Man is fighting, we now know they can't find out who he is ! ... No more stories about Peter wondering if Dock Ock or someone else discovered his ID; it's now impossible ! Way less drama since Peter doesn't have to fear being unmasked during a fight. To a larger extent, he doesn't have to fear to put the life of his close ones in danger anymore since his villains won't attack them as Peter isn't Spider-Man in their mind ! Another thing is now Norman Osborn don't know who Peter is, what makes him different from a E-list villain ? He lost the thing that made him such a great character before.
>
> Really, I see no points reading a book like that anymore if the new statu quo kills loads of stories possibilities.

If you believed that it was something that was going to last forever. I doubt whatever is going on will last longer than its own explanation.

You seem to be completely unable to see the difference between bad storytelling and storytelling you do not personally care for. There are no rules that say that the audience has to know everything that Spider-man knows. This would certainly hurt the concept of a mystery, yes? Now, you may not like the presence of the mystery, but that does not mean that everyone who is involved in the endeavor is a poor writer, incapable of planning one out.

You have stated it before: you saw things that have been indicators of this mystery and have written them off as bad writing. Now their indicators of something bigger and you simply haven't been reading critically enough.

I would say that your complete and utter inablilty to believe in thought-out complex writing, instead seeing sloppy cover-ups at every turn, does come off as disrespectful if not just dense.

It is one thing not to care for a direction or a storytelling device, but that isn't what you are doing. You don't like it and thus you seem to be driven to prove to everyone why it is "bad", justifying your dislike.

But have fun.


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