Comments

1. UnlockingDigs says:

   February 6, 2011 at 6:07 am

   Right on, sister!

   Log in to Reply
2. Swag says:

   February 6, 2011 at 6:59 am

   This isn’t a review. It’s a rant.

   Log in to Reply
3. UnlockingDigs says:

   February 6, 2011 at 7:34 am

   I agree that it’s a rant. But, it’s a rant about the things that are in a comic. I guess that also makes it a review. 

   Log in to Reply
4. Swag says:

   February 6, 2011 at 8:46 am

   I respectfully disagree. Most of this is focused on coming up with new and clever ways to belittle Marvel and Dan Slott. You give the art a 2 without any explanation/justification for your opinion in the body of the text. You seem to trash the story simply because its going in a direction that you don’t like and because it differs from the previous 600 odd issues in that “Peter Parker is happy.”

   I will concede that you make a valid point about the exposition. But thats about it. I guess what i mean is, as a review, this isnt vey well thought out. 

   Log in to Reply
5. UnlockingDigs says:

   February 7, 2011 at 2:19 am

   Fair enough. Firstly, the reason I didn’t feel the need to comment on the art is that it is average. It’s not bad, yet doesn’t seem to be inspired by anything other than the fact that things should look like the things they are supposed to look like. I also didn’t comment on the lettering, which, now that I think about it, is up there with Watchmen. I do think, though, that my review is really well thought out. You see how long this thing is? It took over an hour to write – which is funny, because the comic I’m reviewing seems like it was banged out it under 5 minutes. You’re right about my emphasis on belittling Marvel and Dan Slott. That’s mainly because, I guess, I love Spider-Man and I love this title the way I think the it should be. Subjective texts – what can ya do? So yeah, I thought I made some valid points about Spider-Man in relation to a broader context. Plus, I also called Dan Slot Dan Snot, which is deep.      

   Log in to Reply
6. CaseyJustice says:

   February 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm

   Wow. I sure disagree, but damn that is a well written rage review. Kudos.

   Log in to Reply
7. ctrosejr says:

   February 9, 2011 at 12:07 pm

   I give this review a 1 out of 5.  It is mostly an attack on Dan Slott and Marvel.  For every legitimate criticism mentioned, the writer levels 5 insults.  Legitamate points are lost in a flurry of negativity.  The author seems much more concerned with making everyone aware of his opinion of Slott and Marvel than supporting his arguments, supplying contextal backround, or providing insight.    

   Log in to Reply
8. UnlockingDigs says:

   February 10, 2011 at 8:04 am

   Well I give your comment about my review zero out of a million. Sure, I attack Marvel and Dan Slot. That’s because their ideas are stupid and I don’t like things that are stupid. My main issues with this comic are its over use of exposition, which I feel I depicted accurately enough, and its lack of any real narrative complication, which I gave examples for. I also referred to the current direction of the title in regards to past directions and even made some implicit suggestions about how a post-communist Russia draws certain parallels with both Ancient Greek expressions of totalitarianism and Nietzsche’s Ubermensch theory. I mean, what do you expect from me? This isn’t my thesis. I’m not going to include a bibliography for you. No insight? The insight is that I hate this comic, there’s nothing else I want to express. Well, I kind of went out of my way a bit to also have a dig at Howard Mackie, but even Mackie’s mum would agree that he’s terrible. I think that maybe your opinions of the comic differ from mine, and that’s your real issue with my review.

    

   Log in to Reply