Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Brand New Day
Two posts in two weeks. It's getting to be a habit.
Not much to report, actually, except that over at SBC, we've read the first chapter of "Brand New Day" and found it rather less than brand new. If you read Spider-Man comics at any point between, say, 1969 and 1985, you've seen all of this before. That's not to say that it's not any good, but... well, read the review.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On the review... I'd have preferred more matter, less art. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI've not read 546 yet (apart from the short online preview), but a couple of quick reactions...
1) It's Back To Basics. It's the first issue of Back To Basics, so there has to be a lot of establishing going on (especially after the mess left by OMD). To expect anything new and innovative in this issue is kind of asking for the opposite of what they HAVE to try and achieve. Let the establish the new/old status quo before blowing it up.
2) I might be in the minority here (according to net reaction), but between 1969 and 1985 was the best Spider-Man, from a storytelling point of view. I love MJ, but marriage did break the character, and took a lot of the fun out of him. Plus, after 20 years (and with the restrictions placed on the character from his position in the Marvel hierarchy), they'd played out every available piece of drama that the marriage presented them. All that was left was to retread what had gone before... or move the pendulum so far away from what makes the character work that it flies off the clock.
3) (Is three not a couple?) A lot of the people whinging that rather than this, Marvel ought to have pushed Spidey in "new and different directions" are the same people who whinged when JMS did just that. A mystical slant to the origin? Noooo! Unmasked fugitive? Noooo! Organic webshooters!?! Blasphemy!
Sigh.
Sorry, none of that was aimed at you, or your opinions, which are valid. (I gave up talking about comics online because I got fed up of people arguing with me, so I'm not here to start arguing with you!)
Still, I'm going to have to do a post of my own on all this, aren't I?
Well, there wasn't much to say about the comic, so we had to have some fun somewhere...
ReplyDelete1) Back to Basics is fine, but you can't call it "Brand New Day" and then trot out something we've seen a million times before.
2) I broadly agree. I grew up on that Stern/DeFalco era, and I'm very fond of it, but if I want to read it again, that's what the reprints are for.
3) There must be a middle ground between spider-armour (bleh) and mystic totems (didn't mind that one)and doing cover versions of old stories.
3a) I think a good half of the problem with some of the tweaking was that they did it then moved on. Does anyone even remember the insect control powers Jenkins gave him?
And yes, you are going to have to do a post about this. Sorry. :)
The problem is, I've read so much of this debate online the last couple of weeks, I'm not sure I can be bothered...
ReplyDeleteOh go on. It'd be a shame to have this "new" direction go without comment from the biggest Spidey fan I know!
ReplyDeleteI've given you loads of comment... ;-)
ReplyDeleteYes, from Rol Hirst, Born-Again oLetter Hack, but not Rol Hirst, Cmics Commentator!
ReplyDeleteSo, um...
ReplyDeleteIs Spidey actually, you know, punching bad guys these days?
(Not counting Iron Man, of course. :-) )
Just askin'.
Well Chris, Spider-Man doesn't actually appear in the first issue. It's all Parker, all the way. But he does chase a mugger at one point, which is suitably retro.
ReplyDeleteSpider-Man is big in my neck of the Congo. I think of him whenever I eat a spider.
ReplyDelete