What do you want from the new Spider-Man?

**Sam Johnson** · 07-13-2007, 09:44 AM

Whether the rumours regarding Dan are true or not, what do you want from Marvel's new direction on the wall-crawler? We're getting a return to the soap-opera style that marked Spidey's best stories (good), but I'm not so keen about the Steve McNiven art, I think he lacks a certain dynamism and energy for portraying Spider-Man. I'd also welcome a higher panel-count than I've seen in his work so far.

The thing I want the most is the return of VILLAINS! (And I don't mean crappy spider-totems and the like.) Marvel stories recently have been sorely lacking in old-fashioned hero vs villain stuff - they tend either to be used as jokes, made all too "realistic" or forgotten entirely while the heroes fight among themselves. Hopefully the new Spidey stories will be centred around plots where classic, cool villains are used menacingly and appropriately, while telling stories about Peter Parker. I want stories that tell the rich tapestry of Spider-Man's life WHILE he has to fight credible threats - and hopefully some lesser-known or forgotten Spidey villains will be given the light of day, without being secondary to the story or used as a gag.

While we're at it, what's your favourite era of Spidey stories? My personal preference is anything from the 70s to mid-80s - Gerry Conway, Len Wein, Roger Stern, and artists like Ross Andru and Gil Kane!

**tom daylight** · 07-13-2007, 03:13 PM

down with the marriage. I know people are going to complain about it cheating the readers but honestly, NOTHING could cheat the readers as badly as the original wedding, which I just recently read for the first time. PETER AND MJ WEREN'T EVEN DATING AT THE TIME!!!!!

my favourite runs on Amazing Spider-Man are Lee/Ditko, the Lee/Romita/Buscema/Kane run (not including the earlier Romita stuff which I didn't like very much), Len Wein/Ross Andru (WONDERFUL stuff!), Roger Stern/John Romita Jr (even better!!), and bits and pieces of Straczynski's run (it's been a little uneven at times, and The Other wound up being a bit of a nadir, but there have been some great stories along the way). Peter David's scant few issues of ASM are absolutely GREAT. the rest I didn't really care for. I think Conway's run, for example, is horribly overrated, and Michelinie's run got off to a bad start (as I've described above) and never really recovered. I know a lot of people disagree with me on both of those but when you compare them to the highlights I've picked out it really is impossible to advocate them, they are comparatively rubbish.

**Sam Johnson** · 07-14-2007, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by tom daylight

down with the marriage. I know people are going to complain about it cheating the readers but honestly, NOTHING could cheat the readers as badly as the original wedding, which I just recently read for the first time. PETER AND MJ WEREN'T EVEN DATING AT THE TIME!!!!!

I think a good writer can make pretty much anything work. I don't really believe in going back and "correcting" stuff from the past. Hopefully the new writers will be able to have the marriage make sense and tell cool Spider-Man stories with (or around) it.

One thing I'm definitely NOT a fan of is MJ as a super-model though. It's way too "happy ending" for Spidey.

**tom daylight** · 07-14-2007, 02:54 AM

but, the whole marriage thing was BUILT on "corrections" from the past. MJ knowing peter was spider-man all along, MJ's family life being totally screwed up, for instance. and the woman who was spider-man's wife IS NOT MARY JANE!!!

**Crimson** · 07-14-2007, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by tom daylight

but, the whole marriage thing was BUILT on "corrections" from the past. MJ knowing peter was spider-man all along, MJ's family life being totally screwed up, for instance. and the woman who was spider-man's wife IS NOT MARY JANE!!!

MJ's Family Life being screwed up wasn't a "correction" it was something that hadn't been revealed before... it didn't change anything we already knew.

**tom daylight** · 07-14-2007, 06:59 AM

it fundamentally altered Mary Jane's character. it did give her depth, yes, and I do like the idea that she wore a mask the same way Peter does (although I don't think any of the writers really noticed that) - but it would be inaccurate to say that it didn't change anything.

**Crimson** · 07-14-2007, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by tom daylight

it fundamentally altered Mary Jane's character. it did give her depth, yes, and I do like the idea that she wore a mask the same way Peter does (although I don't think any of the writers really noticed that) - but it would be inaccurate to say that it didn't change anything.

It did change something but it wasn't a correction... a term I think you are using instead of retcon.

Oh and the topic of fav runs. It's between the Hobgoblin era (So Stern and then DeFalco) and the Stan Lee run.

**tom daylight** · 07-14-2007, 08:20 AM

so is "Mary Jane's been a Skrull since #250"...

**Crimson** · 07-15-2007, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by tom daylight

so is "Mary Jane's been a Skrull since #250"...

I still think there is a slight difference... otherwise everything that is revealed after an #1 from a characters past is retcon.

It would be like saying Norman Osborn being the Green Goblin was a retcon because we weren't told it there and then. It was a reveal however as it didn't negate anything we already knew.

**tom daylight** · 07-15-2007, 07:53 AM

well, it IS a retcon. ditko created them as separate characters. (the goblin was meant to be just some anonymous crook the cast and readers had not otherwise encountered.)