UnlockingDigs

August 13, 2011 9:03 pm

"Our tagline should be 'It ain't Shakespeare! Shut up and have fun!'" - Dan Slott, talking about Spider-Island.

I guess we should all count ourselves lucky that Alan Moore doesn't think like this. Or Shakespeare, for that matter.

February 10, 2011 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.

 

February 7, 2011 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.      

February 6, 2011 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. 

February 6, 2011 6:07 am Right on, sister!

August 6, 2010 8:24 am

It's wrong of you to say that this is a badly written comic because you don't agree with the statements of one of the characters. Especially a sexy lady character. I mean, who can say what goes on in their heads? MJ came off as a little self-centred and not too sure of herself. I was okay with that. And I'm usually pretty sensitive to over-dramatic and/or exposition-heavy dialogue and this issue didn't ring any alarm bells. Plus it's a scientific fact that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the art. The 'borrowed' art that you refer to from this (and the previous) issue was used for effect and not out of laziness. And it achieved its purpose. Plus JQ has great way of drawing faces, capturing the exact microsecond that tells us the most about scene.

All of that said, your review was excellently written and you're totally right about the story being rubbish. The last page is not just stupid, it's stupid as! CPR my ass! Last issue's big 'Is that it?' moment was what MJ said to Mephisto. This time around it was that whole thing about Peter and MJ acting out their marriage without being married. The main problem I have with OMD/BND/OMIT is getting my head around why some malevolent and omnipotent force would care about Spider-Man's marriage. I was really hoping there would be more to it than the 'true love' angle. There's not. If anything, OMIT has taught me to expect way less.

I still don't see how the plot holes the size of The Grand Canyon can be filled and BND seems more pointless than ever. Diablo ex machina. Well said.

March 24, 2010 7:59 am I don't know about this one, but I'm hoping Fred can make up for his last attempt. Does anybody else remember Lady Dr. Octopus? I've been trying to forget but the nightmares wont go away.

March 13, 2010 7:19 pm

I'm sure that Peter has faked photos once before. I can't remember when, but it was in ASM and it was pretty early on - maybe even in the Lee/Ditko days. Regardless, I don't think it's out of character. I think Peter's got some weird, misplaced love for JJJ where he subconsciously mistakes the abuse and criticism for a fatherly figure. He would use all his resources for the greater good. But everything else you said, about why this was an implausible ending, was spot on.

February 27, 2010 7:55 pm

@akamuu: Yeah, the Rhino story was OK, but I thought it was too coincidental that Peter Parker just happened to be on the scene at the casino when the new Rhino came. Besides, Rhino was perfected in Flowers for Rhino from Tangled Web. By the way, I read the Morbius story yesterday and you're right about it being terrible.

February 26, 2010 10:13 pm

Van Lente's Sandman story was easily the best thing to come out of Gauntlet. The story blurred the lines between right and wrong, while most issues of Amazing blur the lines between crap and sucks. He's the best thing to happen to Amazing since Straczynski.