Comic Book Resources

It just hit me when you said it in this post that Peter Parker has no relatives. I mean, I guess I always knew but never really thought about it like that.

Man. That's depressing.

t just hit me when you said it in this post that Peter Parker has no relatives. I mean, I guess I always knew but never really thought about it like that.

Man. That’s depressing.

Yeah, it's definitely an interesting point.

Of course, Peter points out that Aunt May has been all the family he needs, but still.

I'm waiting for BND to just show an explicit scene of Peter and Aunt May having sex. That "all the family he needs" thing, "the only Mrs. Parker in my life is Aunt May" line and the epilogue in OMD have given off way too creepy vibes.

I was rather less impressed by the first three issues, largely because I felt that so much time has been spent on setup that the arc never properly ends. We get lots of little suggestions about the relationship between Mr. Negative and his civilian identity, for instance, but not enough to really tell what's going on. Is he a Jekyll-and-Hyde shtick, or merely a cleverly disguised crook with a curious sense of honor? And we get lots of problems for Spider-Man, but not a one does he really solve; indeed, depending on how one reads the story, his problems seem to have simply multiplied by the finish.

There's also not much interaction with the supporting cast, is there? After the expo-speak in #546 that introduced them all at great length, we get two straight issues in which Robbie Robertson is the only noncostumed character who actually has dialogue with Peter. Harry, Lily, and Carlie drift along talking to each other and pursuing their goals as if their subplots were spliced from another comic entirely; Aunt May, meanwhile, seems to be working at the one homeless shelter in New York City populated entirely by supervillains. (I'm including the Bob Gale backup setting up the Freak here.)

It's very well-paced, the dialogue is very well-delivered, and the formula is hit note for note and beat for beat, but the effect is like listening to a really good cover band down at the local bar: it's a fun bit of business for an evening, but there's no especially good reason to buy those CDs they're selling out of a tatty old shoebox at the front, is there?

I think the whole "never ending" aspect of the story is a fair criticism, Omar. That may become quite annoying.

As for spending too much time on the subplots, I think that was a definite drawback of the first issue, which I would not recommend on its own, but the latter two issues (particularly the third one) really brought the story back into shape, I thought, by spending more time on action.

To wit, I would probably look at the individual issues thusly:

#546 - Not Recommended
#547 - Slightly Recommended
#548 - Recommended

And it all added up to a slightly recommended arc.

While I could want more out of the title, I think what we got was still good.

Why doesn't the blood bomb make sense. Say he's in....Positive mode in a room full of people when the gas hits. It all spreads so quickly that no one has a chance to escape, but instead of killing himself and everyone else, he kills specifically the people he wants to kill. And because there are many other survivors, it's not so easy to assume he did it.

My scarce two cents?
The “this reads just like an old school issue of Spider-Man” complaint is valid, in my humble opinion. Why? Because it reads exactly like an old issue. Meaning, it reads like something I've already read. And honestly, that made it rather boring.
And I certainly found it hard to connect with the character, considering it really doesn't feel like the Peter Parker I've been reading for all these years.

But sure, I guess young new readers would find it amusing. I wish them the best. But I'm afraid I've tried and failed to find the flavor in this post-disaster product. Maybe in 6 months I'll start picking it up again.

Aunt May looks a bit younger again...

My fear: In BND, TROUBLE is in continuity. Which would make Aunt secretly a blood relative. And it's not my fear because it puts her in jeopardy.

My major problem with the story was that there was almost zero content in the story that couldn't have been told about a married Spider-Man.

There's a new sort-of love interest? And? That can be done with a married hero; in fact, it can be done better with a married character, because it brings more drama.

Other than CSI-nerd Girl and her four or five pages of story, what at all about this "startling new direction" couldn't have been told before OMD?

Yep, it is definitely questionable whether this story needed a single Spidey to tell it.

Marcos Martin? Hot damn. That's a good call. I mean, if he's not too busy working on a pitch with Brian Vaughan for a bad-ass Dr. Strange ongoing. They're not, are they? Sigh. Perchance to dream.

I suppose the question now - probably better answered after the next arc (I know it's Salvador Larocca drawing in his current "name that actor" photo-realism style, but who's writing? Is that the Bob Gale arc?), is 1) How much do these stories wash the taste of One More Day out of long-time fans' mouths, and 2) Does all the hub-bub around it draw in any new readers?

This first run wasn't bad. Not "buy it" good, but a solid "read it while you're at Borders" good. In any event, I'm happy enough with Ultimate Spider-Man, the only Bendis book where the dialogue isn't distracting (though you would think, between the Ultimate and regular universes, SHIELD could hire a few agents that don't stammer and repeat themselves constantly).

One thing that's interesting about Brand New Day is that Marvel seem to be banking heavily on periodical readers, and not thinking too much about the bookstores on this one. We've gotten a three-issue arc of setup without much resolution, and we'll probably be getting another next month -- does anyone think we're going to see Menace introduced, explained, and captured or killed in his first storyline? -- which makes for six issues of setup plots.

We've already been told that Marvel plan to release trades of ASM every six issues. The issues themselves, though, are edited by Steve Wacker and read a lot like a more tightly-focused version of 52 than they do an arc-based method of storytelling. Is Marvel getting lots of newsstand penetration with ASM, or are they, like DC with 52 and (less so) Countdown just fighting over the 100,000 or so direct market readers who'll support a near-weekly or weekly comic if it's "big" enough?

It's a curious marketing shift, I think, neither megacrossover (which hurts that 52 comparison a bit) nor arc-based comic. It's a decidedly old-fashioned serial, and in that regard it seems...almost experimental as a publishing plan in the current comics sales system.

Uh, wait, #548 is an arc ending? I seriously thought it was just the halfway point, since nothing really resolved, the ending was a cliffhanger, and a ton of plot threads were dangling.

I mean I do agree #548 is a huge improvement from #546, but if that's how the BND "arcs" are going to work then the transitions are going to be very jarring.

My problem with the "this reads like a comic from the 70s" complaint is that it sounds too much like the whining of people who were resolved to hate the story before it ever came out.

"Spider-Man ran out of webbing in the middle of a fight. this is exactly like a comic from 1975!" No it isn't, you're just mad that Mary Jane is gone. Own up to it.

I'm repeating myself, but I'm SO tired of hearing it on every comics site:

Why does everyone says that this is a throwback to the 70s? I started reading Spider-Man on the 80s and that was pretty much the status quo: Single Peter Parker with Harry Osborn as his best friend (albeit a married Harry). And he got out of the university on the 80s, while he was there all the time on the 70s.

If this is a throwback, it would be to the 80s!

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

Probably because you can say "70s Spider-Man," and folks will know what you mean, but "80s Spider-Man" includes three years of MARRIED Spider-Man, so it's not as descriptive of a term for what we're describing here.

It will mean a student peter Parker, for example, which is most definetly not the case!

(Although I think it would be cool if he returned to his post-graduate studies, but everyone would say that it's a step backwards and all that...)

Oh, and there is still a married Peter Parker on the comic strips (written by Stan Lee, no less!) and Spider-Girl, for those who complain that there was already a single Peter Parker out there. There is also a married Peter Parker out there, you know...

(Marvel could use that to publish AT LEAST the book compilations of Spider-Man's comic strips they promised long ago.)

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

How about we call it a throwback to GOOD spider-man stories, since that's what it is. Seriously, have there been any classic Spider-Man stories since he's been married? Not that it was the marriages fault completly, but it didn't help at all, either.

Seriously, have there been any classic Spider-Man stories since he’s been married?

I think "classic" is a bit too nebulous to be used as a benchmark. As far as I'm concerned, there were no classics in between the death of Gwen Stacy and the marriage either, so what does that prove?

The question is, have there been any good stories since he's been married. The answer is, yes. Tons.

Did the "Kraven's Last Hunt" story occur before or after the wedding? I can't recall if they were married, but MJ certainly knew Peter's identity at that point.

Also, with regards to "classic" married stories: McFarlane and Michelenie's entire run of Venom's origin/early appearances definitely occur post-wedding. I think you'd be hard-pressed not to call several parts of McFarlane's run "classic," not matter what your opinion of Venom is (just look at Venom's continued influence in the New/Mighty Avengers, Thunderbolts and the Ultimates).

My problem with this BND Spidey isn't that MJ is gone, or that the stories feel like stories from the '70s, '80s or from the 16th century.

My problem is that there's no POINT to following Spider-Man's life anymore, because from now on he's frozen in amber.

A new love interest? What's the point, exactly? This relationship CAN'T go anywhere meaningful. At best he'll date the new girl for a while and then she'll either dump him, be dumped by him, or get killed to give him more "angst".

Peter's job troubles? We know for a fact that "job troubles" is an integral part of Peter's BND status quo. Peter can't get a stable or well-paid job, otherwise the fans "won't be able to identify with him" (Marvel's editorial staff apparently have a very low opinion of Spider-Man fans - if he's anything better than an abject failure in life, the fans won't "indentify" with him).

Aunt May? Can someone REALLY take seriously any future threats to May's life anymore? Aunt May is more immortal than Odin, for cryin' out loud.

What's the point of following the stories of a character who's doomed to stay as a hopeless loser forever and ever, with no hope of improvement on his personal or professional life?

The kind folks who felt that this first arc didn't have a proper ending, and that no problems were actually solved, apparently don't get it: Spider-Man's new status-quo IS to be stuck in place, like a car hopelessly spinning wheels over mud. Spider-Man has become Marvel's Archie; his life can no longer move forward, and nothing significant can happen to him again. No number of great writers and artists will change that, now while the current editors have anything to say about it.

If you enjoy Archie-style comics, more power for you. I can only speak for myself, and I'm really not interested in following or supporting this series anymore.

yeah, Kraven's Last Hunt was classic, and those early Venom issues could be considered that as well. As I said, I don't blame the marriage completely for my perceived lack of truly quality Spider-Man stories the last 20 years, but it did have a role. Like Erik Larsen said in his recent In My Opinion column, the marriage worked okay early on, because they weren't necessarily written as a married couple then. But, eventually, you have to write the characters as such, and it just seemed to age the characters too much, to the point where they didn't seem the same anymore.

So there is no point in following ANY comic character. How much did Superman change since, say, the 40s? He is married, that's it! And Batman? Robin is another guy. Every other "change" was cosmetic at best. And they are very long lasting!

Oh, and all over the world (except US, which is a place with a VERY particular comics industry) characters only really change in FINITE comic stories. The enduring comics characters (Uncle Scrooge, Archie, Asterix, Spirou, Tex, Golgo 13) are pretty much unchanged since inception. Since no one (not Marvel nor the readers) seems to want Spider-Man to end, it's unavoidable that he shall settle on a constant status quo.

But on the US comics industry, fans want both their characters to change AND to have new stories until the end of time. That's having your cake and eating it too!

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

[quote]The kind folks who felt that this first arc didn’t have a proper ending, and that no problems were actually solved, apparently don’t get it: Spider-Man’s new status-quo IS to be stuck in place, like a car hopelessly spinning wheels over mud. Spider-Man has become Marvel’s Archie; his life can no longer move forward, and nothing significant can happen to him again. No number of great writers and artists will change that, now while the current editors have anything to say about it.[/quote]

Couldn't similar things be said about the classic Lee/Kirby run of Fantastic Four once Sue married Reed?
Was the Galactus Trilogy of Fantastic Four a mediocre story arc, because no one died during the arc, no one got married during the arc, and several unresolved sub-plots were introduced during the arc?

Monthly comics are by their nature a "serial medium" which implies a certain amount of "running in place." Look at comic strips, about the only semi-major comic strip that hasn't "run in place" is Gasoline Alley which has allowed its characters to age, but even there, the characters have often reached very extended old age to avoid having to let them die.

[b]Couldn’t similar things be said about the classic Lee/Kirby run of Fantastic Four once Sue married Reed?[/b]

I'm not complaining that nothing significant happened in this run that Slott wrote; I'm saying that, by editorial fiat, nothing significant can happen to Spider-Man anymore.

After the Lee-Kirby comparison, the FF had a couple of babies, a miscarriage, Johnny got married and divorced, Reed and Sue's marriage went through rocky periods and she even left him for a while. Things HAPPENED.

Superman, you say? The problem with comparing Superman with Spider-Man is that Superman was heavily rebooted several times already, while Spider-Man, until recently, had been allowed to move forward with his life. I DON'T buy Superman comics, by the way, and one of the reasons is exactly because nothing ever happens.

Batman's comics are only marginally better than Superman's comics in that regard, because Batman's life wasn't "rebooted" as frequently as Superman's life was. While Superman's whole Silver Age existence was written away by Byrne, then slowly brought back and then recently rewritten again to fit the Smallville TV show, Batman's continuity kept moving forward a bit more naturally, with sidekicks being retired and replaced, Batgirl being crippled and staying that way, Bruce's s gradual descent into paranoia from the '90s being later retooled as a character-arc caused by Jason's death... yes, Batman isn't reaching middle-age anytime soon, but his lifestory wasn't repeatedly rebooted like Superman's.

I just find it really sad to see Spider-Man going the same way of Superman comics. Superman comics are the definition of futility. I don't want other comics to follow that path, because creatively it's a dead end.

"Johnny got married and divorced"

Did they actually get divorced, or are you simplifying for the sake of conversation?

Did they actually get divorced, or are you simplifying for the sake of conversation?

I was assuming they eventually got divorced, but honestly don't remember it that well.

"But on the US comics industry, fans want both their characters to change AND to have new stories until the end of time. That’s having your cake and eating it too!"

Very well put.

I wouldn't consider any of Michilinie's run classic. In fact, his writing was the first to ever drive me away from Amazing. Only notable thing was Venom, and that was solely due to McFarlane's contributions.

You guys should really read Erik Larsen's newest column. I think he hits the nail on the head. While I didn't really care for how it was was done, these changes needed to be made to Spider-man. My opinion, and seemingly the opinion of a lot of comicbook writers and artists, is that Spider-Man just wasn't the character he needs to be anymore, and his being married was a big part of that. I know a lot of people here probably started reading Spider-Man after he was already married, as I did, but if you have go back and read the first 20-25 years or so of Spider-Man comics and compare them to the last 20 or so, it is in my perspective plain to see that Spider-Man just went to far off the mark he needs to be at to remain the Spider-Man he SHOULD be. Stan, Steve, John Sr., Gerry Conway, Roger Stern, and a few others really defined what Spider-Man is, and it just hasn't felt the same for along time. This new story arc, for me, really is a step in the right direction, and hopefully it will just keep getting better. Whatever you may feel about One More Day, I think every Spider-Man fan should just give these new creators a chance, and don't judge the product beforehand. Just my opinion.

don't be puttin' down my boy supes!

" If you enjoy Archie-style comics, more power for you. I can only speak for myself, and I’m really not interested in following or supporting this series anymore. "

How do you know that the BND status quo will be frozen a la Riverdale? Seems to me that all Marvel did was reset Spider-Man to before the ol' Ball and Chain was attached to him. In other words, they created a new starting point to go forward, as opposed to keeping him in the conceptual dead end that was his marriage.

Really, some fans say they want the characters to grow and change, and they blast BND for being " stale ", but it's really the fear of growth and change that's the problem. When Peter was married to MJ, things were safe and comfortable; MJ would never die, they'd get through any fight better for it, and they'd never see anyone else. Now we're back in an uncertain status quo where Peter is once more single, once more professionally unstable, and once more troubled. I can see how that would be uncomfortable for some readers, but keeping fans placated isn't as important as entertaining the audience.

As for the first arc of BND itself; it was a good start. Not the best story that either Slott or McNiven has worked on, but good enough that I want to keep reading the new direction.

I agree. This new story has tickled my fancy. I love me some vintage Spidey action!

People keep talking about the way Spider-Man should be. I don't really understand this. A strong, well-developed character is not defined by his circumstances. If Peter Parker is a character worth keeping, worth reading, then no set of circumstances (e.g., age, marital status, or occupation) should be integral to him as a character. Determining that Parker needs to be placed in an ideal environment in order to be interesting or valuable as a character commodity shows a distinct lack of faith in the worth of the character.

Further, I disagree with the idea that periodical media has to tread the same ground over and again by its serial nature. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that a story that progresses through hundreds of chapters *needs* has to remain essentially static to retain interest. For instance, Naruto is (so far as I can tell) in the 330s - and is continuing to tell engaging characters whose life situations change and personalities evolve. Granted, it's still 200 chapters behind Amazing Spider-Man, but is there really a reason that Spider-Man can't grow and evolve in meaningful ways and still retain the ability to interest readers?

BND's major problem is that it was always going to wind up being a referendum on OMD. And since OMD sucked as a story even if you liked the editorial fiat it put into place, there's a hill of hostility that BND will have to overcome. I've said elsewhere and will say here that I'd recommend Brand New Day to most anyone; my own dissatisfaction with it notwithstanding, it does what it sets out to do quite well. It's just that what it wants to do is rather unambitious by my standards.

Having said that, I acknowledge wholeheartedly that Spider-man's high media profile and concomitant licensing necessities creates a book where ambitious storytelling is likely to be discouraged for sound business reasons. Just don't ask me to enthuse over the end result any more than I'd enthuse over a can of Coca-Cola because it tastes just like a Coca-Cola I had last week or last year.

"Granted, it’s still 200 chapters behind Amazing Spider-Man, but is there really a reason that Spider-Man can’t grow and evolve in meaningful ways and still retain the ability to interest readers?"

Compare the BND Peter Parker and Spider-man to the Peter Parker and Spider-man of Amazing Fantasy #15 and Amazing Spider-man #1, and I would argue that Peter Parker and Spider-man have grown and evolved in meaningful ways. I would also argue that Aunt May has REALLY grown and evolved in some meaningful ways.

I just question the idea of issues #1 to #546 of Amazing reading as one continuous and consistent story. I've actually read Amazing straight from #1 to #48, and even during this period when there was only three creators involved: Lee, Ditko and Romita, already did not read as one continuous and consistent story. And I think the facts: (1) Amazing stories are supposed to be happening "today" and (2) time passes more slowly in Marvel time than in real-time makes any attempt to treat Amazing #1 to #546 as one continuous and consistent story futile, not to mention unwise.

I agree with Mark G, you can't get too hung up on continuity. Just try and enjoy the stories for what they are, there's no way 500+ issues of a comicbook can make sense read all together. I say it's time for a Marvel Crisis!

I'd disagree that ASM #1-48 are discontinuous. The art style changes, and there's a tonal shift when Romita comes aboard, but the story seems to be quite continuous with what's gone before. Even Peter's growing confidence can be tracked during the latter Ditko issues, so that his becoming more popular and more of a ladies' man after Romita takes over still follows as a development. It's not necessarily what Ditko would've done, but that's not the same thing as marking it as some sort of crazy disjuncture from the prior 38 issues.

Good point Mark G, there is definitely a difference between current Peter and year-one Peter. I think that's baby-step evidence as to why evolution (and real evolution) can work if applied to a long-running story. I also agree with Car-L that getting too hung up on continuity isn't the answer. There doesn't seem to be any real reason why Spider-Man can't be written as contemporaneous to the current reader in any given era and still continue to tell the story of Peter Parker's life. I don't think the shifts in tone from one writer to another are really that big a hurdle. Different periods of our own lives can be marked by different tones, moods, colours, and styles, so it makes sense that such could be the case with a character like Spider-Man and his story.

Stepping back a moment, I haven't read Spider-Man in a while. Does Aunt May still remember that Peter is the vigilante hero that she used to despise? That was one of my favourite evolutions for her character. I really enjoyed the exploration of how she would come to grips with that.

Just don’t ask me to enthuse over the end result any more than I’d enthuse over a can of Coca-Cola because it tastes just like a Coca-Cola I had last week or last year.

Nerdy point of order: Coke tastes different from place to place and time to time. Every bottler makes it slightly differently with different water, so the taste of Coke is not necessarily consistent.

Wow, that sounds terrible. Satanic Spider-boy doesn't sound like a good read for me.

"For instance, Naruto is (so far as I can tell) in the 330s - and is continuing to tell engaging characters whose life situations change and personalities evolve. Granted, it’s still 200 chapters behind Amazing Spider-Man, but is there really a reason that Spider-Man can’t grow and evolve in meaningful ways and still retain the ability to interest readers?"

Some points:

1 - Manga narrative is more decompressed than US comics narrative (which is itself more decompressed than european comics narrative, but that's another story), so those 330 Naruto chapters are hardly equivalent in terms of amount of real STORIES than 330 issues of Amazing Spider-Man. Not to mention that Spider-Man has had literally DOZENS of other books!

2 - Naruto is creator-owned, not supposed to be the flagship of a big shared corporate universe, so it has A LOT more freedom and a consistent creative "voice".

3 - Naruto is supposed to end someday, even if it takes a thousand episodes. That by itself makes A LOT of difference! Compare with japanese manga NOT supposed to end (outside the death of their creators), like Kochikame or Golgo 13.

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

Being creator-owned doesn't mean total creative freedom for a Shounen Jump property. The Jump editors have final say over what's in the product, and they can and will order the production team to change elements to fit what editorial thinks is best for the series. The creator essentially can't refuse short of leaving publication, and can't take the project to another publisher. Japanese creator ownership is, basically, not at all like American creator ownership.

Prior examples of Jump interference in the stories of its properties, off the top of my head: canceling "Saint Seiya" before the creator could tell the final story arc that would've explained the characters' backstory; ordering the creator of Busou Renkin to feature more comedy and fewer combat-oriented storylines; telling the creator of Yu Yu Hakusho that his dark and serious Level E project had to become humorous; abruptly canceling the Shaman King manga in what was essentially the middle of a story arc; ordering the Hikaru no Go and Death Note mangaka to continue their projects after they felt their stories were "done" and wanted to end them.

So, really, Naruto is just as constrained by corporate formula as Spider-Man-- just a different corporate formula that works differently. The only advantage Naruto has over Spider-Man is that the property isn't even ten years old yet and hasn't had time to wear out its welcome. Spider has been going for nearly 40 years and has had more "camera time" to wear at the formula.

I didn't think it set the world on fire but it was a pretty enjoyable Spidey story. Something I haven't read in years. Curious how the switching creative teams method will work.

Good points Hunter (and counterpoint Lynxara).

In response to your third point, Hunter, is there any reason Spider-Man can't come to an end and have his full story told? Marvel could simply reboot him as they kinda just did. The only difference between that and this current reboot (BND) is that in the way they've chosen to do it (OMD) Peter's story never actually ended. There was no conclusion, only interruption—which might be fine for a John Sayles movie, but Marvel readers generally prefer more traditional (modern) story resolutions.

The companies (DC & Marvel) seem pretty comfortable with rebooting or relaunching their properties, so it doesn't seem like it would be that big a deal for them to bring a story (say, Peter's) to a satisfying conclusion and reset it to zero. Ultimate Spider-Man is essentially this concept in practice save for the fact that the series it replaces is still running. And I would argue that it's been largely successful (and would probably be more successful saleswise were it the only Spider-book available).

Marriage and other retcons aside, I hate "Brand New Day" so far because Peter is a completely worthless human being now.

He's stupid, selfish, lazy, unlucky and utterly unlovable to degrees that make the Peter who appears in Ultimate Spider-Man look like a paragon of adult maturity by comparison.

Steve Wacker has gone on record as saying that, first and foremost, he sees Peter as someone whose thougtlessness and ineptitute infuriate everyone around him.

How is this a hero? How is this anyone that I should have any interest in reading about?

Even the Peter of the Lee and Ditko issues was a science nerd, and therefore a smart kid with promise for the future. The Peter of "Brand New Day" is not shown as smart, and is not shown as having any promise in his future.

Is this what people want? Peter Parker as Al Bundy, an adult failure and sad has-been whose life is guaranteed never to get better?

Joe Quesada thinks that this version of Peter is one that readers can relate to better. Maybe that's true, but if so, then I don't think such readers deserve to have someone who they can "relate to," any more than Paris Hilton's fans deserve to have a celebrity whom they can admire for being such an idiot.

I'm honestly surprised by the positive reaction to these issues. Slott's dialogue seems noticeably forced and weak -- Peter David was writing far hipper and snappier stuff 20 years ago. Hell, Stan Lee was doing better stuff 45 years ago. And the plot has been truly inane --gutbucket superhero stuff. All in all, depressing stuff.

"In response to your third point, Hunter, is there any reason Spider-Man can’t come to an end and have his full story told? Marvel could simply reboot him as they kinda just did. The only difference between that and this current reboot (BND) is that in the way they’ve chosen to do it (OMD) Peter’s story never actually ended. There was no conclusion, only interruption—which might be fine for a John Sayles movie, but Marvel readers generally prefer more traditional (modern) story resolutions.

The companies (DC & Marvel) seem pretty comfortable with rebooting or relaunching their properties, so it doesn’t seem like it would be that big a deal for them to bring a story (say, Peter’s) to a satisfying conclusion and reset it to zero. Ultimate Spider-Man is essentially this concept in practice save for the fact that the series it replaces is still running. And I would argue that it’s been largely successful (and would probably be more successful saleswise were it the only Spider-book available). "

The thing with DC is they reboot the line en masse. Just Rebooting Spidey would cause (and has already) an uproar over the continuity with other titles.
Otherwise, as you say, not a problem.

Spider-Man: The Amazing GILF Hunter

Not bad, not great. just...eh. Had some old school vibe to it, which can be enjoyable but...eh. I didn't mind the marriage, it worked when the creators were good, just like the character of Spiderman himself. My main problem with the reboot is that it smacks of lazyness. Rather than trying to make Peter and MJ interesting as a couple, they decided to reboot the series to an earlier era and recycle the basic premise. Which is just lazy. I'm still not sure Brainy and Boobsie are welcome additions to the cast. We'll see how it goes.

Over all, I'm just...eh about it, as i said.

vintage adult babies...

How do you come up with so much material to blog with?...