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

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.