It is rather amusing that almost everything you liked about this issue and placed in the "The Good" section will fall under many other people's "The Bad" section.
Divisive indeed, but suffice to say I'm siding with the people who are upset that the original Spider-Man is being made to look bad and unsympathetic in the fallout of his very own book. Everyone was upset when Parker died, but keeping him pseudo-alive just to do this strikes me as far more insulting than it would have been to simply off him.
@frogdog said:
There is difference between risky and plain stupid. This story falls on the latter.
Yep, exactly right .
Storylines that haven't been done before are often not done because writers have had the good sense to not write something so stupid.
It's why no one has written a romantic comedy set in Auschwitz.
^ALL THIS
I concur.
Look, every writer tries to find a new angle or direction to take a character in for more character development and growth then the last writer, or for that matter, the decades the character has been around.
But to forego all of the previous history of a villain's rage to allow him into a role such as this. *sigh* It's a copout in my honest opinion. Batman has had over 900 issues, plenty of stories and such. But looking at the current "BATMAN" series by Scott Snyder, he's been doing a wonderful job playing off of the history of his character (*cough *cough Court of Owls *cough *cough) and continues to build and create new dimensions to a classic character.
Spiderman has so many places to go, this was a horrible way of doing it. I absolutely agree, putting Peter Parker in this setting and painting him in this emotional direction was total crap. I appreciate Dan Slott and what he did prior to 700, but I can no longer support this direction.
If he wanted a new character to build with, start a new comic book.
Log in to comment