Comments on: 11/25 - Declarative Rabbit Says...

By: FunkyGreenJerusalem

FunkyGreenJerusalem — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:44:58 +0000

"Really, I think the whole thing is a non issue. She had already shown up in a previous issue. Finding out her name isnâ€™t exactly a spoiler. " I dunno, Big Two comics are so incestual that some people do enjoy wondering which version of a character it is. 'It's definetly a Spider-Woman, but which one did he bring over??? They're all so different!'.

By: DanCJ

DanCJ — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:34:41 +0000

Ignore that last post - it's on the wrong thread

By: DanCJ

DanCJ — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:33:52 +0000

except for an editor I just spotted

By: Ryan H

Ryan H — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:27:51 +0000

Really, I think the whole thing is a non issue. She had already shown up in a previous issue. Finding out her name isn't exactly a spoiler.

By: Dasbender

Dasbender — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:23:34 +0000

By the way, I just now noticed the switch to "Ultimate Spider-Womanâ€¦well played, Bendis." Thank you.

I enjoy including CSBG in my daily RSS briefing and I thank everyone involved here at CBR for all their work.

By: Dasbender

Dasbender — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:19:54 +0000

I think this is the first time I've ever complained about a spoiler online, and I've been "logging on every day" for the last 15 years. I'm normally able to avoid spoilers because if I haven't read the newest USM yet I avoid posts that look like they'll talk about USM and I'm usually fine. Unfortunately Declarative Rabbit didn't give me an option to avoid it. I'd understand if the comic had been out for a while, but this was only a couple days old. And Apodaca, what's your beef? It's not like I wrote some rant that claims the entire online comics community should kneel before me and fear my wrath. All I did was leave a short comment for the author (which doesn't involve you in the least) stating a simple fact so they might not post a similar reveal next time. Is that so outrageous?

By: Apodaca

Apodaca — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:04:28 +0000

Here's an idea! If you don't want to read about current comics, perhaps you shouldn't be where people are discussing current comics. Is it that hard to not log on every day?

By: Paperghost

Paperghost — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:03:36 +0000

Nuts. Well, I'll just continue to sit in the corner and think about Jessica Rabbit for a while. In a completely non-pervy way, of course. I've never even done the freeze frame thing. Honest.

By: Brian Cronin

Brian Cronin — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:34:17 +0000

People complained about spoilers.

3 also changed the "?" to make ED happy.

By: Paperghost

Paperghost — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:13:37 +0000

...wait, I'm confused. It didn't say Spider Woman before, why the change? Now my crappy Jessica Rabbit joke makes even less sense than before

By: fanboy d

fanboy d — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:05:47 +0000

um, i can deal...it's better than having 3+ 616 spider-women who claim to have no connection with peter although the unimaginative writers just thought 'what if peter was a girl?' - guess it's funny as a commentary on that. i just can't stand spin-off heroes: she-hulk, spider-woman, bat-girl, superboy, supergirl - WHAT THE HELL?! anyways i think bendis played it safe: 3 clones we 'know', two very very cool ones we don't.

By: FunkyGreenJerusalem

FunkyGreenJerusalem — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:24:03 +0000

"Um, thanks for spoiling that for me. "

Now you'll have to read the comic for it's exectution/storytelling prowress - not just to find out who's in it.

Damn that Bunny!

By: Dasbender

Dasbender — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:05:22 +0000

Um, thanks for spoiling that for me.

By: Paperghost

Paperghost — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:36:37 +0000

I thought it said "Ultimate Jessica Rabbit"

By: E.D.

E.D. — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:00:14 +0000

A question mark from the Declarative Rabbit? The end is nigh.

It was a pretty darn good idea for an Ultimate revamp, though.

By: Ryan H

Ryan H — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:11:34 +0000

Yeah, I liked that twist. Another case of Ultimate versions of the characters having superficial similarity to the 616 original, but unique details that have interesting possibilities.