|
SirDan3k posted:The costume is boring but Jessica Drew is boring and only stays around through a grandfather character clause so it works. Though at this point (with some cosmetic changes) literally everyone I mentioned in that parenthetical is back except Mar-Vell (who they tease every 18 months or so) and Richard Ryder, who I am sure will be back eventually. So maybe she is grandfathered in circa 2014. None of the other Spider-Woman/Spider-Girls seem to have stuck in the ensuing three decades.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Nobody would know who the gently caress Spider-woman is if Bendis didn't have a huge crush on her. She'd be like, Shroud obscure.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Nobody would know who the gently caress Spider-woman is if Bendis didn't have a huge crush on her. Pretty much. It didn't help that her first in costume appearance was drawn by David Finch either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
The irony of Jessica Drew looking like Batgirl, of course, is that if any Spider-Woman can be said to be conceptually similar to Barbara Gordon, it's Spider-Gwen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
I still don't know why we're treating her as a Spider-Man character, either. She and Pete share a codename and that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
 Well obviously it's only temporary because she clearly goes back to her previous costume in a few months time as evidenced by Avengers
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 03:25
|
|
The article on it clearly says that the outfit is for being more low-key in street-level investigations, so obviously she's wearing this new outfit under her Avengers outfit in the Hickman stuff. 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:...Morlun apparently being married to that universe's Jessica with a full page kiss, is still pretty sexual regardless of who is writing it. Well done, a kiss is now sexual....
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
I hope in a few years, "practical" costumes are looked on with the same derision as pouches. It's capes, I want my superheroes and villains in flashy, impractical costumes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Facepalm Ranger posted:Well done, a kiss is now sexual.... It's comics. Sexual stuff is evil and icky and wrong and better not have it or will be made fun of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 18:56
|
|
Gatts posted:It's comics. Sexual stuff is evil and icky and wrong and better not have it or will be made fun of. Yeah, I'm a 5-year-old unable to perceive nuance as well.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Facepalm Ranger posted:Well done, a kiss is now sexual.... I'd say the way this kiss was portrayed certainly wasn't some romantic gesture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:I'd say the way this kiss was portrayed certainly wasn't some romantic gesture. Eh don't worry about it, facepalm has some hangups about this stuff, just let it go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
You know, looking at the 'renew your vows' teaser, is it me or does young Mary* look a bit old? I don't mean in the 'literally just a tiny adult' way (well, not *just* like that), but shouldn't she be something like a year old in comic book time, between OMD and now? For that matter, how old would Baby May be in Marvel Years? *Going from the names for the Parker kids given in that Sensational Spider-Man issue with God and to distinguish her from Baby May.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
It's an alt universe, she's whatever age the story deems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Valeria Richards is supposed to be about 4, right? And it looks like the one that's running around now was born in 2002, so May would probably be about 6-8 (except for the fact that that would never happen in the main continuity, because it would age Spider-Man too much, so she'd be permanently an infant while other young characters would slowly age, to the point that a teenage Valeria is babysitting her in 2025).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
I like Jessica's new costume a lot, even if it is obviously kind of...let's go with "inspired by"...some other costumes that are out there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
So... Dan Slott's a) apparently quitting the internet (well, message boards) and b) explains that apparently Silk got a solo book because of SO MUCH fan mail, you guys! I like how apparently he justifies it by pointing to the massive sales for ASM 1...despite the fact that a) It was a new #1 issue for one of the most popular characters in comics today who had just had a movie release, which also had like 20 variant covers to boot b) it was also packaged into Loot Crate, so a large percentage of sales was due to people who essentially bought it by accident, and c) this was Silk's debut, so people WEREN'T BUYING IT FOR HER. Any interest was due to the mystery instead of her as a character. Not to mention the whole event tie-in that's linked into her origin as well. It's especially jarring since an actual case of fan support for a character (Spider-Gwen, natch) took place nearly concurrently with her creation. I mean, he might have a point, it's very difficult for us outsiders to understand the internal politics of the industry as someone who does it as his day job, but I've not seen the same widespread support online that Spider-Gwen has.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
I wish he'd quit comics instead.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
I just wish he'd have some sort of sitcomish head injury and go back to being the Dan Slott that wrote the first of his She-Hulk run, and Spidey/Torch. But that Dan is dead now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Silk fan mail does not necessarily mean mail from fans of Silk. As truthful (or not) as he's trying to be, his statement could just as easily be interpreted as "mail from fans about Silk". Or maybe I'm just being an angry Spider-Man fanboy spreading hateful lies. drat semantics. Also, ween =/= wean. Aren't you a professional writer, bro?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:Since people were talking about Spider-Woman as of issue 5 Land doesn't appear to be around anymore and she has a new costume. The thing that strikes me most about this costume is how the jacket could be replace with a vest and yellow tie and get the same look. Which originally is what I thought the costume was. Still, I really do like it as a costume and would love if they got rid of the old one forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 04:17
|
|
Fishylungs posted:Still, I really do like it as a costume and would love if they got rid of the old one forever. Someone who grew up reading Bendis' Avengers will come along in 15 years and gently caress it up again.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
I like the new costume but I don't get the shoulder things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:I like the new costume but I don't get the shoulder things. "The new Batgirl costume has snaps so put some snaps on it."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Dreqqus posted:I just wish he'd have some sort of sitcomish head injury and go back to being the Dan Slott that wrote the first of his She-Hulk run, and Spidey/Torch. But that Dan is dead now. I agree. The difference between the writing of that Dan Slott and the Dan Slott we have now is remarkable, it's almost...like...they're two different people...MY GOD! Some dying, awful comics writer somehow swapped his mind with Dan Slott, to become...THE SUPERIOR SLOTT! Superior Spider-Man wasn't a cheap idea for a story that'd generate a bunch of controversy, he was taunting us by telling us exactly what he did! The fiend! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:I like the new costume but I don't get the shoulder things. I would guess some connection to her web wings since they disappear when it's just being a fancy leather jacket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I agree. The difference between the writing of that Dan Slott and the Dan Slott we have now is remarkable, it's almost...like...they're two different people...MY GOD! Some dying, awful comics writer somehow swapped his mind with Dan Slott, to become...THE SUPERIOR SLOTT! Superior Spider-Man wasn't a cheap idea for a story that'd generate a bunch of controversy, he was taunting us by telling us exactly what he did! The fiend! Howard Mackie?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:So... Dan Slott's a) apparently quitting the internet (well, message boards) and b) explains that apparently Silk got a solo book because of SO MUCH fan mail, you guys! He's such a twat, someone give me a nudge when he quits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
I've been a bit out of the comics game this last year and I was wondering if Doc Ock is still Spider-Man?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Happy Hippo posted:I've been a bit out of the comics game this last year and I was wondering if Doc Ock is still Spider-Man? Yes. No. The answer is both. SPIDER-VERSE!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Everyone's a little Spider-Man, when you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Happy Hippo posted:I've been a bit out of the comics game this last year and I was wondering if Doc Ock is still Spider-Man? No he got his rear end handed to him by Norman Osborn and then gave Peter back his body as he's the only person who could stop him and save Ock's girlfriend/the city.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Norman Osborne who is currently a different person until within three arcs of whoever takes over after Slott.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
But before all that he was in the future where he will recruit spider-people to beat up Twilight characters that are going to/had been eating them so now Spock and Peter are working together in the same different bodies.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Norman Osborne who is currently a different person until within three arcs of whoever takes over after Slott. Well Osborn is obviously going back to his old self, the entire point was very on the nose. It was two villains "occupying" different bodies for a story and becoming more powerful because of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
So, stupid question: I just happened across someone saying that the old Exiles version of Spider-Woman--Mary Jane with short hair who dated Sunfire for a little while--was killed in Spider-Verse #1. I'm looking right at that comic and don't see it happening, but a couple of different blogs and the Marvel Wikia are both saying otherwise. Anyone know where it is?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Just picked up issue #42 of The Amazing Spider-Man. The first appearance of Mary Jane Watson. It's not in ridiculously great condition or CGC rated. But definitely suits my standards to put in my collection. If I come across an even better quality one in the future I'll have to do a swap and off this one, but until then I am really excited to have it. Even then, this is easily the best quality I've seen from any of my local comic stores. Managed to get it for a relatively decent price as well even though the guy wouldn't haggle a loving penny. Still worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:Just picked up issue #42 of The Amazing Spider-Man. The first appearance of Mary Jane Watson. It's not in ridiculously great condition or CGC rated. But definitely suits my standards to put in my collection. If I come across an even better quality one in the future I'll have to do a swap and off this one, but until then I am really excited to have it. Even then, this is easily the best quality I've seen from any of my local comic stores. Managed to get it for a relatively decent price as well even though the guy wouldn't haggle a loving penny. Still worth it. Nice. As long as you're buying it for your personal collection and not some hypothetical future sale that's a great buy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Skwirl posted:Nice. As long as you're buying it for your personal collection and not some hypothetical future sale that's a great buy. It is indeed a personal collection. I don't really ever plan on buying anything that would be worth a fortune in the future. If I was going to do that I'd buy an already CGC rated version of a high quality. I just like collecting 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 12:16
|
|