INFINITE IMPROBABILITY: Superior Spider-Man, worse storyline - The Weekender
When you’re writing a film, there’re only a few endings you can give your character. One of those possible conclusions is killing them off.
When you’re writing a continuing comic book series, however, that’s usually not an option, particularly when it’s your title character. Marvel Comics, yet again, is scoffing at that notion, for better or worse. Actually, it’s just for the worse.
After 50 years, and just before co-creator Stan Lee’s 90th birthday, “The Amazing Spider-Man” comic series is ending with issue No. 700.
This is a big deal, but almost all major comic characters have had their comics restarted at No. 1 over the years, mainly to sell more books (first issues are usually very collectible) and to give new readers a good jumping on point if they hadn’t been following along and didn’t know where to start. This is probably not a good time for any jumping, other than up and down angrily.
You see, the long-running story of Peter Parker is ending with his death in this issue, and it doesn’t happen in that “heroic sacrifice” kind of way that you would assume it would. You know, giving the character some sort of justice after all this time. Instead, his mind is stuck in the body of his dying his arch nemesis, Dr. Octopus, and Otto randomly decides once he inherits Peter’s memories that he’s going to stop being a bad guy after a lifetime of crime and devotes himself to being a better Spider-Man, re-launching the series as “The Superior Spider-Man” in January.
Yeah, I actually read comics and it doesn’t really make any sense to me either.
I realize that Marvel was bought out by Disney a few years back, but is this take-off of “Freaky Friday” really the best way to end this beloved series?
It’s interesting as a “What If…?” story, but for writer Dan Slott to actually end the life of one of the greatest superheroes ever just to experiment with this idea seems a bit excessive, particularly since Marvel contends that this is a “permanent change.”
History says differently.
No. 700 brings about yet another death in the Marvel Universe.
When you’re writing a film, there’re only a few endings you can give your character. One of those possible conclusions is killing them off.
When you’re writing a continuing comic book series, however, that’s usually not an option, particularly when it’s your title character. Marvel Comics, yet again, is scoffing at that notion, for better or worse. Actually, it’s just for the worse.
After 50 years, and just before co-creator Stan Lee’s 90th birthday, “The Amazing Spider-Man” comic series is ending with issue No. 700.
This is a big deal, but almost all major comic characters have had their comics restarted at No. 1 over the years, mainly to sell more books (first issues are usually very collectible) and to give new readers a good jumping on point if they hadn’t been following along and didn’t know where to start. This is probably not a good time for any jumping, other than up and down angrily.
You see, the long-running story of Peter Parker is ending with his death in this issue, and it doesn’t happen in that “heroic sacrifice” kind of way that you would assume it would. You know, giving the character some sort of justice after all this time. Instead, his mind is stuck in the body of his dying his arch nemesis, Dr. Octopus, and Otto randomly decides once he inherits Peter’s memories that he’s going to stop being a bad guy after a lifetime of crime and devotes himself to being a better Spider-Man, re-launching the series as “The Superior Spider-Man” in January.
Yeah, I actually read comics and it doesn’t really make any sense to me either.
I realize that Marvel was bought out by Disney a few years back, but is this take-off of “Freaky Friday” really the best way to end this beloved series?
It’s interesting as a “What If…?” story, but for writer Dan Slott to actually end the life of one of the greatest superheroes ever just to experiment with this idea seems a bit excessive, particularly since Marvel contends that this is a “permanent change.”
History says differently.
