The Four Color Media Monitor

Yeah, it was rather expected Marvel's staff would eventually restore Peter Parker to his own body. But that doesn't excuse the long obvious publicity stunt tactics and political metaphors that the Dr. Octopus-takeover story was built on. Slott says in this article:

“(Parker’s coming back) just in time, fancy that, for a major Spider-Man motion picture,” quipped Slott. “It seems uncanny. It was very nice for Sony to schedule the movie around the story.”

Only because of another movie they've reversed this? It was a tale that wasn't worth telling at all. The worst part is that he and the editors no doubt ran this hoping that some Spider-fans would give fandoms a bad name by acting irrationally - which sadly happened - no doubt hoping it would ultimately embarrass comics fandom and purists. Sure, the would-be purists who responded with repellent language over the move did commit a very serious disservice to fandom. But that still doesn't justify alienating plenty of far more sensible audiences with a storyline that's meaningless and just another example of "experimentation".

“It would have been great if you took a photo of my face at that time. I was not very thrilled,” says Marvel Editor in Chief Axel Alonso of Slott’s initial pitch, during an editorial retreat several years ago. “Let’s just say that as cynical as the hard-core fanboy was, I was more cynical.”

I don't buy what he's telling. I'm sure he was all for this move decades ago. But here's where the article really becomes awful:

Alonso, however, adds that after five decades of stories that featured Parker battling a recurring set of villains and personal problems, “I do feel people will appreciate him a little more after this. I do think people have been taking him for granted.”

And over the past 13 months, the unthinkable happened: many fans gravitated towards the meaner, more arrogant Doc Ock version of Spider-Man — some maybe even prefering him to the goodie-two-shoes original.

Oh look, they're even sensationalizing an unhealthy facination with evil. Yes, there are tragically some insular basement dwellers out there who think a villain possessing Peter's body is the most extravagant, awesome classic idea ever conceived. But judging from the low numbers they don't even give here, which were below 100,000 copies, it shouldn't be that hard to tell not many people were interested, even if the cover price were still just a dollar instead of a whopping 4.

Another part of Spidey's world not mentioned in this article is Mary Jane Watson, and the Spider-marriage is unlikely to be restored under this mess of an editorial. But even if it is, I wouldn't bother at this point to read it, because writers as bad as they have now do not guarantee that Mary Jane's presence alone will make it worthwhile, and there's every chance they could mistreat her very badly, as happened already. No, it would not be a good idea to reward Slott and company with the way they're going.

In the end, it's terrible to think of how many years of Spidey publication have been wasted on political correctness and editorial mandates/favoratism.

Labels: dreadful writers, marvel comics, msm propaganda, Spider-Man, women of marvel