2) There's very little source material about the Devil in the Bible.

3) If we are referring to Marvel, the idea that a blonde, Shakespeare-
speaking god is an accurate portrayal of Thor is funny.

Good points.  But the recent story implies he has way more power and a much different reasoning than portrayed in the Bible.  He annulled the marriage to hurt God and have Peter and MJ feel torment on Earth?  That's not very consistent at all with the biblical devil.  I thought the same thing about Thor right after I posted it.  I was thinking more of some of the Greek stuff.

I have been reading The Spirit by Darwyn Cooke since the first issue.  I have never read a single Spirit story before this and I don't know anything about the character created by Will Eisner.  I found it easy to follow and I have been loving it.  It doesn't require me to buy any past issues or trades or to know the whole continuity of the character.  This character is much older than Spider-Man but is way easier to follow and jump on.  This is how Spider-Man should be handled.  This is what the reboot could have done but didn't.

Here's another YouTube video dealing with the fiasco called "One More Day" (There seems to be quite a few videos that criticize the storyline):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDF52sDD_78

Quote: Revamps and such turn off old readers and make things even more confusing for new readers.  The best solution is to keep things at "the ground floor".

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "ground floor."  I wasn't referring to keep things at an old status quo, but rather being there at the beginning of a new one.

A series that's been around a few decades has everything well-established.  Anyone coming in today has missed the first encounters with the classic villains, the first meetings of the major supporting cast members, etc.  Even the initial bumps and ticks of a series as the creative team work out the initial kinks are long since smoothed.  So anyone coming in today is just seeing the latest dance of familiar elements.  Nothing wrong with that of course, but there's something to be said about being there for something a little bigger.  When the companies change something, the new fan gets to be there for uncharted territory, which is exciting.  Of course, such things should be handled with care, and whatever is done needs to be entertaining on its own merits.

To be fair, how much material has been produced featuring the charachter in the past 30? 40? 60? years?

Sure it is easy to follow his history, because they didn't have to worry about how to keep readers interested enough to keep buying the book every month, much less 4 or 5 books every month.

You are making my point for me.  The book does not require the reader to follow his history, which is what reading Spider-Man does.  And that has nothing to do with how much material has been printed in the past, because its all ignored.

Quote: And there is no reason to expect what appealed to me 20 years ago would appeal to a 12 year old now. More to the point, even if what hooked JB or me into comics might appeal to a 12 year old now, that doesn't mean that something ELSE wouldn't also appeal to them.

Heck, even I know the counter to that one.  If you think kids would rather read about a swordfighting kid who collects playing cards, then create a swordfighting kid who collects playing cards.  Don't pawn it off as "an exciting new direction for Batman."

The "murky" part is how much a character has to change before it's not considered to be the same character.  But the line is drawn on a fan by fan basis.  Heck, there are probably people here who would see nothing wrong with Batman getting bitten by a vampire and doing an "Angel" riff whereas others think the character's been broken since Dick Grayson quit the Robin gig. 

Quote: For a bigger reason, it just seems like today's "talent" is going to write the same crap stories regardless of what the backdrop is, and it will always be nothing but a poor imitation of previous greatness. And they are going to do it by removing the things that made the stories great to begin with.

That's a little harsher than I would put it, but it is a consideration.  The best stories tend to come from the writers who follow their muse and let the characters and situations proceed naturally.  Artifically hampering writers because the natural situations lead the character into a place where they "Shouldn't Be" won't necessarily lead to better stories.  (Obviously, the talent of the creative types involved is a HUGE factor here.)

Quote: This is what the reboot could have done but didn't.

What do you mean?  The reboot made prior knowledge of Spider-Man a handicap more than anything else.

What do you mean?  The reboot made prior knowledge of Spider-Man a handicap more than anything else.

All it added was another layer of continuity to sift through along with having people to deal with which stories are valid or not.

Now, hands up who can tell us why this fix -- love it, hate it, feel totally indifferent about it -- is better than the Mephisto fix?

Now, hands up who can tell us why this fix -- love it, hate it, feel totally indifferent about it -- is better than the Mephisto fix?

It didn't require Peter to "sell out" or make any moral choice that impacts his character.  And there is no obvious cop-out.

Better than Mephisto. by far.

Maybe some reserve about the "last time you were happy" thing, but thats how the Shapper works, and thats far easier to swallow than OMD.

The return of Bucky and the return of Jason Todd.

Wait...hear me out on this....

Those are two storylines that I would say are some of the worst ideas EVER. Absolutely reducing "classic" elements of comicdom to the scrap heap because you as a creator want something that is not, to be your way on a big scale.

Those two storylines while reading, I enjoyed TREMENDOUSLY. Moreso the Bucky one. I think that is about as good as anything I have read in 10 or more years.

++++++++++

A bad idea is still a bad idea, even if the execution is somehow entertaining.

Now at the time the problems were mainly the fact that too many people knew Pete's secret id, and the clone saga, and "Norman".

I don't consider the marriage in itself a bad thing. The reason why i'm not again letting it go away is it allows writers to do stories about the version of Spider-Man most of they seem to prefer.