And for those who haven't read it, what would this mean?
Last edited:
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Spider-Man finds out that he's really some kind of Mystical Chosen One of some Spider-God and runs into these two guys, Ezekial and Morlun, who want to kill him for their own reasons. Ezekial was basically a Failed Chosen One who wanted to Sacrifice Peter to the Spider-God to save himself and Morlun was some kind of Demon who consumed Chosen Ones. Peter gives into the Spider-God, kills Morlun and unlocks all these new powers for a while until "One More Day" reset everything.
And that was a singularly and epically crap-tastic storyline in my opinion.
Barf.
Oh, that storyline. I've heard about it.
Yeah, I really hope that's not the direction they're heading towards.
Must be the second Dark Ages because I quit during the Clone Saga for the same reason.I stopped collecting after that story line started. Those were comic book dark ages for me. The writers at the time...
I stopped collecting after that story line started. Those were comic book dark ages for me. The writers at the time...
Wasn't that Straczynski's storyline?
I stopped collecting after that story line started. Those were comic book dark ages for me. The writers at the time...
I stopped collecting regularly around the "Doc Ock takes over Peter" storyline.
The Other: Evolve or Die was a crossover of multiple series written by Straczynski, Peter David, and Reginald Hudlin, but JMS was the overall plotter of the storyline.
As much as I love Babylon 5 and Sense8 (and his own comic series, Rising Stars), everything I've heard about his Spider-Man run has sounded awful. The one exception is the 9/11 issue which I have read.
Don't forget his run on Superman and Wonder Woman. Both of which were so bad, that DC asked him to leave the titles after only half the storylines were completed.
I'd absolutely take Peter being a mystical 'Spider-Totem' figure over the direction the character has gone in thus far, so to each their own.
Oh, yes! I know.
But, what I ment was, was it considered literature at the time? Say someone made a LOTR movie in 1977 and offered Guinness the role of Gandalf. Would he feel more serious about it, even though it was a fantasy movie, because of the source material? I know we'll never know, but that was my point.
I quite liked most of JMS's run on Amazing Spider-Man. He did some terrific things, like having Peter become a teacher, having Mary Jane begin a theatrical career, and best of all, having Aunt May discover that Peter was Spider-Man, rethinking her whole perspective, and becoming his confidante and avid supporter. My 2008 novel Spider-Man: Drowned in Thunder was set during the JMS run (as well as Paul Jenkins's contemporary run on Spectacular), and I really liked making use of the elements he introduced, especially Peter's relationships with MJ and May and his teaching. By coincidence, Jim Butcher's The Darkest Hours, Keith DeCandido's Down These Mean Streets, and my novel are all set at roughly the same point in JMS's run, the brief window between MJ starting her theatrical career and Spidey joining the Avengers. So the omnibus edition collecting all three novels (as Marvel Classic Novels -- Spider-Man: The Darkest Hours Omnibus) works nicely, as they're nearly consecutive stories.
There were things about JMS's run I wasn't as fond of, though, like the whole Morlun/spider totem business, though that was only an occasional recurring thread. And I hated the ending with Back in Black and the whole Mephisto business, but IIRC, that was at editor Joe Quesada's insistence and JMS just tried to make the best of it. Also, JMS's handling of Tony Stark in the Civil War storyline was probably better and more nuanced than anyone else's.
Oh, yes! I know.
I know we'll never know, but that was my point.
A friendly note about the word "literature" -- it just means anything written. It's used incorrectly all the time, but less so in recent years. The word literary fiction is used more frequently these days, but I have problems with that word too.
I don't know about how Guinness would have felt about LOTR, but when I first read it in the early 80s, the library had it in the Children's section. In the 80s and 90s it became more acceptable for theatrical actors to take roles in fantasy and science fiction movies--I'm not sure why, but I bet that both Guinness and Patrick Stewart had something to do with it.
I'm not sure it was ever not acceptable. Donald Pleasence did Fantastic Voyage and THX-1138. Maurice Evans did Planet of the Apes. I think an actor who'd be willing to do A Midsummer Night's Dream or The Tempest or Macbeth would be willing to do a fantasy or SF movie, if they thought it was a good role.
Ernest Borgnine won an Oscar for 'Marty', then went on to star in 'McHale's Navy'.
Holly Hunter won an Oscar for 'The Piano' and is now currently staring in 'Starfleet Academy'
Holly Hunter won an Oscar for 'The Piano' and is now currently staring in 'Starfleet Academy'
True. Guinness and McKellen consider themselves stage actors first, of course. It's only speculation on my part and I'm not sure this line of conversation is particularly relevant to the thread though so I will not be posting about it after this.