Lorrie's forum posts

  • 24 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

At least when Peter died in ASM #700, he still went out a hero, even if it wasn't dignified. But to have him "die" again, but this time in utter disgrace, a man who in his darkest moment would risk (however briefly) a child's life in order to save his own? This disgusts me on a visceral level. Because that isn't who Peter Parker is, and if Slott doesn't know that, he has no business writing Spider-Man.

I could believe that Peter could lose it in a moment of anger and kill someone. A story like that would require a writer with a deft touch, but it wouldn't destroy the essence of the character. But even if Ghost Pete was just an echo, having any version of Peter Parker risk the life of a child to save himself is deeply wrong. It goes against everything the character stands for. It's character assassination plain and simple, and all to prop up Ock as a "hero."

#2 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd wonder if that design is a deliberate satire of the worst excesses superhero comics have to offer, but then I remembered how terrible the costume design for the New 52 is in general. Lol, smh.

#3 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

One dead Robin is a tragedy. Two or more dead Robins is criminally negligent. In a just fictional universe, Bruce would arrested for felony child endangerment/abuse. He should be going to prison, not getting a shiny new sidekick that he will eventually let get murdered.

Batman is pretty much ruined for me. He got his 10-year-old son killed. I can't see how he can even live with himself, let alone ever let someone else be Robin. My ability to suspend disbelief only goes so far.

#4 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

Whether or not Batman "needs a Robin" as is often said, Bruce would look like a pretty terrible person if he actually took on a new one. One dead Robin is a tragedy, two dead Robins is criminally irresponsible.

Because he'd be legally culpable for Damian's death, wouldn't he? You let your 10-year-old kid play vigilante and he ends up brutally murdered while doing it, I think the legal system would have something to say about it if they knew (felony child abuse/endangerment resulting in death, perhaps?). If Batman "gets away with it" and then finds another victim, er, sidekick.... Well, that's not a character I'd respect enough to want to read about.

#5 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman has allowed two of his kid sidekicks to be murdered, this time his 10-year-old son. He's an abject failure. He should be locked up to prevent him from finding another kid sidekick to be a sacrificial lamb. I'm only kind of joking. You let your young kid become a costumed vigilante and he gets killed doing it, your ass should go to prison.

Having the cover be a homage to BATMAN: R.I.P. also would be an insult if Damian suddenly survived.

I don't get why it would be an insult. After all, Batman didn't actually die in that story, did he? He survived, although Final Crisis confused the issue. If this Batman Inc arc was a true homage to Batman: RIP, Damian would survive against all odds.

#6 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

What are you talking about? Rowling owns Harry Potter. Morrison does not own Damian. He created him for DC comics. Unless Morrison has a unique contract, DC owns the character. It's selfish to kill off a character that adds a lot to the mythos just because he doesn't want anyone writing him after he leaves the Bat books. If every creator did that, we'd never have any new long-term characters.

#7 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

All this should teach anyone is that it's pointless to get invested in any DC character that was created less than 50 years ago. I honestly don't care if Morrison always planned to kill Damian, it's an incredibly cynical move. Once he became a hit with audiences, why not leave him in the sandbox for other writers? It's selfish. If DC had any sense they'd undo it as quickly as Marvel retconned Magneto being Xorn, but Didio does hate legacy characters so the death could stick. It's not even an original idea. I remember when Jason died. It will create short-term controversy at the cost of removing a genuinely entertaining character from the canvas.

And the death of another Robin (this time a 10-year-old child) destroys my ability to care about Batman. Really, Bruce literally shouldn't be able to live with himself. Even as an 11 year old, I found it hard to believe Bruce could just go on being Batman and get a new Robin after Jason was murdered. As an adult, I can't imagine him not going insane knowing the life he chose killed his 10 year old child. He should kill himself or end up locked in an institution (or go supervillain, since getting your child killed sounds like an origin story to me), but we know he won't. If Damian genuinely stays dead, he'll probably have a new Robin in a year.

#8 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

Why would people want to ruin Scott's character development by making him a Skrull or something? He's more interesting than ever. He's going to be the lead character of Uncanny X-Men. I don't understand what people are fretting about.

#9 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

"Not now, woman!"

The idea that M.J. wouldn't immediately realize "Peter" isn't really Peter from the way he talks to her irritates me. It's not like this is her first rodeo. She's dealt with people pretending to be Peter before, after all. If I recall correctly, he addresses her as "woman" at least twice, so it's not like there were no hints for her to pick up on. But I've not cared for Slott's characterization of M.J. and her character hasn't exactly shined under his pen (to be fair, I'm sure he was instructed by Marvel to downplay M.J.'s role), so I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't pick up on it. Now, if M.J. almost immediately realizes Peter is no longer Peter and if the other heroes quickly figure out that Superior Spider-Man isn't the same old Spidey they've known all these years, I'll take back some of my criticisms of the story (not in ASM #700, of course, because those things don't happen, but by SSM #1 or #2).

But even if my biggest worry is addressed-- that Marvel won't see the huge problem of allowing Spider-Ock to have a sexual relationship with M.J. (unless Marvel is looking for some negative attention and wants people arguing on the internet over whether it would be rape- hint: yes, it would be)-- I still don't get why this is the story they've chosen to tell.

#10 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

I know I've always wanted to read a Spider-Man series starring the man who murdered Peter Parker. No, wait, I never wanted that. I'm not opposed to Peter dying or another person being Spider-Man (I do own every issue of SM 2099, I think Miles is a doll, and I even liked Ben and still think it was a mistake to kill him), but come on.

People will say "just wait and see where the story goes," but I can't think of a more wrongheaded way to commemorate 700 issues of ASM.

  • 24 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3