SPIDER-MAN: ONE MORE DAY

[EnderWarrior36]

This is the place to talk about the famous Spidey storyline that ran from Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #544-545.

[TigerShadow]

I don't really know that much about it personally, but I did see a fairly lengthy and in-depth video review on it. Didn't sound like a well-written story, or indeed one written for the best reasons. (The art was pretty good, though. )

[EnderWarrior36]

I don't really know that much about it personally, but I did see a fairly lengthy and in-depth video review on it. Didn't sound like a well-written story, or indeed one written for the best reasons. (The art was pretty good, though. )

Yeah, personaly, I didn't like it either. Why did they have to tear apart Reter and MJ's marriage? It was horrible.

[TigerShadow]

They did it, from all accounts, because they didn't believe that readers could relate to Peter Parker if he was married, and they wanted to make him a more "fun-and-fancy-free" character who could deal with situations that were more "dramatic", because apparently wearing a wedding ring makes you boring.

This was why people liked the idea of Ben Reilly taking over as Spider-Man while Peter Parker retired from the role, which was one of the (many) projected endings for the Clone Saga back in the '90s. (There was a lot of editorially-mandated nonsense going on at Marvel at that point, especially for the Clone Saga, which was just one small part of why that era has become known as the Dark Age of Comic Books.) You had your fun-loving, web-swinging, wise-cracking, single-and-ready-to-mingle character without having to throw away decades of character development. Matter of fact, that was the whole point of the Clone Saga to begin with—to have an un-married Spider-Man, while also shifting and changing things and respecting Peter Parker's legacy. Instead, a whole host of nonsense happened, and we got One More Day instead.

[EnderWarrior36]

They did it, from all accounts, because they didn't believe that readers could relate to Peter Parker if he was married, and they wanted to make him a more "fun-and-fancy-free" character who could deal with situations that were more "dramatic", because apparently wearing a wedding ring makes you boring.

This was why people liked the idea of Ben Reilly taking over as Spider-Man while Peter Parker retired from the role, which was one of the (many) projected endings for the Clone Saga back in the '90s. (There was a lot of editorially-mandated nonsense going on at Marvel at that point, especially for the Clone Saga, which was just one small part of why that era has become known as the Dark Age of Comic Books.) You had your fun-loving, web-swinging, wise-cracking, single-and-ready-to-mingle character without having to throw away decades of character development. Matter of fact, that was the whole point of the Clone Saga to begin with—to have an un-married Spider-Man, while also shifting and changing things and respecting Peter Parker's legacy. Instead, a whole host of nonsense happened, and we got One More Day instead.

Ok yeah, I think your right about that, but honesty Ben Reilly was actully not the best either. If you read Ben Reilly: The Scarlet Spider #1-6 (2017) you see he is quite violent.

[TigerShadow]

Eh, that wasn't too uncommon when Ben was introduced. The anti-hero was all the rage at that point. That's where you also get characters like Azrael replacing Batman and Venom going from villain to anti-hero (which, if I had to guess, is why Carnage exists, so you can have an alien symbiote that you can root for while also keeping an alien symbiote as a villain). We kind of see those lingering elements in the resurrection of Jason Todd as the Red Hood, and it's my understanding that the 2017 Ben Reilly is actually a darker take on the character than how he was originally conceived. (I mean, when you're a clone of Peter Parker, it's hard to actually be "edgy" without trying really hard.)

This is why I like cinematic and television versions of these characters. They're not ongoing, so they can basically do whatever they want with the characters without having to constantly change things around (breaking up marriages, putting someone new in the costume, killing off characters only to resurrect them) just to keep things "fresh" and "interesting". They're also easier to keep up with than comics, because you don't have massive continuity cavalcades to have to keep referencing to see if everything makes sense. Incidentally, I am very fond of Marvel's newest Spider-Man cartoon; the episodes just got released last Saturday, and they preceded them with a series of YouTube origin shorts. Have you seen it yet?

[EnderWarrior36]

Eh, that wasn't too uncommon when Ben was introduced. The anti-hero was all the rage at that point. That's where you also get characters like Azrael replacing Batman and Venom going from villain to anti-hero (which, if I had to guess, is why Carnage exists, so you can have an alien symbiote that you can root for while also keeping an alien symbiote as a villain). We kind of see those lingering elements in the resurrection of Jason Todd as the Red Hood, and it's my understanding that the 2017 Ben Reilly is actually a darker take on the character than how he was originally conceived. (I mean, when you're a clone of Peter Parker, it's hard to actually be "edgy" without trying really hard.)

This is why I like cinematic and television versions of these characters. They're not ongoing, so they can basically do whatever they want with the characters without having to constantly change things around (breaking up marriages, putting someone new in the costume, killing off characters only to resurrect them) just to keep things "fresh" and "interesting". They're also easier to keep up with than comics, because you don't have massive continuity cavalcades to have to keep referencing to see if everything makes sense. Incidentally, I am very fond of Marvel's newest Spider-Man cartoon; the episodes just got released last Saturday, and they preceded them with a series of YouTube origin shorts. Have you seen it yet?

I have seen the origin shorts but I never saw the episodes.

[TigerShadow]

The first part of "Horizon High" is free to watch on Disney XD's YouTube channel; I bought the second part on iTunes.

(Also, just as a heads up, unless you're trying to respond to something specific that someone said, you don't need to quote a whole post just to reply; all you have to do is either type in the Quick Reply section right below the thread or hit the "Post Reply" button. )

[EnderWarrior36]

I have tried watching Horizon High Part-1 but it said "sorry is video is unavailable." I did not like that. ( oh and thanks for the tip. )