Gleason Unleashed: A Review of The Amazing Spider-Man #75

 written by Zeb Wells

drawn by Patrick Gleason

colored by Marco Menyz

With the conclusion of Nick Spencer's three-year run on Marvel's flagship book, The Amazing Spider-man, a new "brain trust" kicks off the "Beyond" era for the wall-crawler with a visually-striking first issue that, more than almost anything that was produced during Spencer's run, really showcasees Patrick Gleason's artistic chops. 

Following the gut-wrenching conclusion of Peter Parker's confrontation with Kindred, Peter finds himself struggling to deal with the death of Harry Osborn. Wanting to clear his head, he goes out webslinging, only to find another Spider-Man swinging around too. Peter is unable to catch this seeming impostor, but shortly after this encounter, he is approached by an old "frenemy," his clone Ben Reilly, who for the first time since his resurrection a few years back is sporting blond hair and the Spider-Man identity again.  The twist this time, however, is that Ben has adopted the Spider-Man identity as an employee of the Beyond Corporation, a company that has bought the exclusive right to use the identity, along with other assets of Parker Industries, the company that Otto Octavus founded while he was possessing Peter Parker's body, and which Peter has since run into the ground.  Ben then drops a bombshell on Peter: he cannot legally use the Spider-Man identity anymore. When the U-Foes threaten Empire State University, however, Peter suits up, only to find that Ben is already on site. Will the two Spider-Men team up or face off? 

Marvel's been teasing this new status quo for some time with some glorious cover art by the legendary Arthur Adams, and I have to say, it's off to a pretty good start.  The script by Spidey veteran Zeb Wells almost immediately gets right into the meat of what's going on, with a talking-heads scene between Peter and Ben setting the stage for the next big storyline, and there's some pretty glorious webswinging art courtesy of Gleason, who seems to have stepped up his game a bit since working wth Nick Spencer,

 It's fairly obvious right out the gate that Ben Reilly's stint as Spider-Man will be temporary, unlike his ill-fated stint as the wallcrawler in the 90s which was originally intended to be a permanent status quo which Marvel walked back after fan outrage compelled them to do so. I mean, Beyond Corporation (or at least, a company sharing its name) was last seen in the pages of Warren Ellis and Stuart Immonen's Nextwave making evil broccoli men and basically trying to take over the world. Having them manage Spider-Man is unquestionably bad news. I just hope this doesn't end with Ben dying again. 

As single issues go, this one is a strong one, with a tight script and great art, and sets up the storyline pretty effectively, with a heck of a cliffhanger ending the main story. There are a few throwaway stories featuring Misty Knight and Colleen Wing and one featuring Ashley Kafka doing something at Ravencrot, but nothing to really write home about, even though they're meant to somehow justify the six dollar cover price. The main story is good enough, and if the Spider-Man "brain trust" can keep churning out this level of quality week after week, this storyline may yet live up to the hype.  

8.5/10

Why One Major Retcon Was Undone...But Not Another (MAJOR SPOILERS FOR AMAZING SPIDER MAN #74)

This post talks about developments in The Amazing Spider-Man #74. Anyone who has not read this comic book and plans to do so should stop reading this now.

(SPOILER ALERT)

 And with the conclusion of Nick Spencer's run on The Amazing Spider-Man he has officially excised from canon the 2004 story by J. Michael Stracyznski and Mike Deodato, "Sins Past," which retconned into Spider-Man's history a sexual tryst between Norman Osborn and Peter's then-girlfriend Gwen Stacy, the way a skilled surgeon might extract a tumor.  This risible tale was a story that had stood as part of Spider-Man canon for seventeen years, with editors and writers refusing to touch it because of how intricately the retcon had been woven into the history; apparently people simply lacked the imagination needed to make it work...until Nick Spencer came along.

As gratifying as it was, however,  Spencer stopped short of undoing arguably the one Spider-Man story more widely loathed than "Sins Past," namely the 2007 story "One More Day," in which Peter Parker quite literally sold his marriage to the devil to save Aunt May's life.  It was honestly a crying shame, because Nick Spencer would have gone down in history as a legend.  He had already undone the resurrection of Kraven the Hunter in a misguided but well-intentioned sequel to "Kraven's Last Hunt" and with "Sins Past" he had managed to show just how serious he was about righting wrongs that had been done to Spider-Man's history.  Undoing "One More Day" would have been his crowning achievement, the story that would have sealed his place in the firmament of truly great Spider-Man writers like Stan Lee, Gerry Conway, Roger Stern and J.M. DeMatteis, to name but a few. 

So why didn't he?

It's simple, but worth stating anyway.   "Sins Past" may created a headache that proved too complicated for Marvel editorial to undo for years, but it was also a completely unnecessary evil that touched on a character who had been dead at the time for thirty-one years. There had been no new Gwen Stacy stories from the time she had died in 1973.  Her story had been told and was a cherished part of Spider-Man's history, right up until its bitter ending.  Retconning it with "Sins Past" was completely pointless as it added nothing to the character, or to Peter Parker, and had proved to be far more trouble than whatever "benefits" Marvel editorial imagined they had gained from the brief moment of notoriety.  Marvel didn't see any value in keeping this story canon; the fact that it was ignored by almost every writer after Straczynski showed how deeply they wanted to bury it. A few writers and fans have said Marvel were just better off pretending it never happened, but I beg to disagree.

Fortunately, so did Nick Spencer, who had both the imagination and the balls think of a story that would undo "Sins Past."  Sure, he had to think out of the box, tapping into a storyline that took place at a time when Norman Osborn was supposed to be dead, but he made it work. Bottom line, Spencer did Marvel a huge favor, and it's highly doubtful that any writer or editor would ever want to restore this abomination to canon. Straczynski himself, who has long denounced "Sins Past" as a complete distortion of what he wanted to write, has given his seal of approval. 

Now, "One More Day" was a similarly detestable storyline, but it achieved an important goal for Marvel which they had been working towards for quite some time.

It's no secret that Marvel had been trying to undo Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson's marriage for several years prior to "One More Day." The infamous "Clone Saga" which introduced Ben Reilly and even attempted to retcon him as the "true" Peter Parker was actually Marvel's first high-profile attempt to make Spider-Man single again, which ended in catastrophic failure and Ben Reilly's (ultimately temporary) death, but it would not be the last.  In the early noughties, Marvel made an attempt to kill off Mary Jane that ended up being so half-assed that they coudn't even keep her dead for a year. She and Peter ended up separating, which didn't last very long either.  Then, "One More Day" was hatched, and the rest is history.

Reinstating Gwen Stacy's squeaky clean, all-American girl image was hugely beneficial to Marvel, especially since they're now actively promoting an alt-universe version of her as one of their heroes. In contrast, the benefits of reinstating a married Peter and Mary Jane are debatable at the very least, especially considering the trouble that Marvel's editorial had gone through for years to get to this point. I imagine it's not an ordeal editorial would want to repeat, so even if Spencer had pitched it to them, they must have ultimately said no.

I'd argue that Marvel has even come full circle, with Ben Reilly (who got better) about to resume his duties as the main Spider-Man again, though I'm sure this is but a temporary status quo. Rather than regret what they didn't do, though, I prefer to just bask in what they actually did. 

Harry's Redemption: A Review of The Amazing Spider-Man #74 (Mild Spoilers)

 written by Nick Spencer and Christos Gage

drawn by Marcelo Ferreira, Mark Bagley, Ze Carlos, Dio Neves, Carlos Gomez, Ivan Fiorelli and Humberto Ramos

colored by Andrew Crossley, Edgar Delgado, Alex Sinclair

After three years, seventy-five issues, and a whole bunch of somewhat convoluted storylines, Nick Spencer finally brings his run on The Amazing Spider-Man to a close.

To make a long (and it has been VERY long) story short, the saga of Kindred comes to an end. As Spider-Man faces off with Kindred one final time, Mephisto and Doctor Strange engage in a high-stakes game of chance, the prize in the balance being the soul of Harry Osborn himself.  The revelation last issue that Kindred was actually two people, Gabriel and Sarah Stacy, and that the two of them were not actually Norman Osborn's children by Gwen Stacy but were actually just clones that were a part of Harry Osborn's scheme to exact revenge on his father, also seees its ultimate resolution here.  Also, we readers get a glimpse into why Mephisto was so keenly interested on ending Peter Parker's marriage to Mary Jane Watson.

For those that have been following--nay, enduring--Nick Spencer's seemingly endless story in the keen hope, like I have, that his endgame was the undoing of the deplorable plotline "Sins Past," the biggest payoff was last issue, but this issue serves as an effective denouement, and like I said in my review of the last issue (#73) it provided me with a retcon that I never even knew I needed: the redemption of Harry Osborn. 

It's hard to go into detail about what I liked about this issue without spoiling key plot points so I'll end my plot synopsis there, but to be perfectly honest, for an issue that's nearly a hundred pages long, surprisingly little happens, apart from a lot of punching and a little last minute exposition between Mephisto and Doctor Strange. The last issue, for all its flaws, had more going on.  Still, I did appreciate how Spencer wrapped everything up quite neatly, leaving the little mini stories at the end to lay the ground for the "Beyond" era that's set to follow his run.

As is the usual malaise of Spider-Man comics these days, the issue has too many artists to maintain any kind of visual consistency. I understand that with the new status quo they'll go back to single artists being able to illustrate whole story arcs as opposed to this utterly ridiculous "jam" approach to art.  Hell, I'd even take (some) of Humberto Ramos' issues over this unmitigated chaos. The real shame is that some of these artists seem genuinely talented, with Ze Carlos in particular standing out somewhat. I had to Google-search to find out which one he was, incidentally; apart from Mark Bagley and Humberto Ramos, whose styles, for better or worse, are instantly recognizable, it's hard to identify these new artists who have yet to leave their mark on this title, especially since Marvel isn't really giving them the chance to do so.  

It's a shame that Spencer's run, which started out quite strongly with a topnotch creative partner in Ryan Ottley, ended on such a messy, if auspicious note. Had it been better curated, the "Kindred" Saga could have gone down as a genuine epic, a fresh, tall glass of lemonade made from the lemons known as "Sins Past."  As it was, with its battalion of rotating artists and its sprawling, unreasonable length, it became a real chore to sit through.  I'm just glad the story managed to end on a satisfying note, because at one point I would have just been happy to see it end.   

Still, Spencer deserves kudos for having the balls to tell the stories that Dan Slott and the other Spider-Man brain trust from 2008 to 2018 (the post Stracynzki era) couldn't, so I can't be all mad at him.   

6.5/10 (Main story)

I enjoyed the mini stories, from Christos Gage and Todd Nauck's poignant tale in which Peter learns of one more life that his Uncle Ben touched in his life, to the entertaining two-page recap of Spidey's history from Sean Ryan and Gustavo Duarte, to the enticing sneak peek, courtesy of Zeb Wells and Ivan Fiorelli, at the return of Ben Reilly to the Spider-Man mantle, as told from the perspective of Janine Godbe, Ben's brief squeeze in the largely forgotten "Spider-Man: The Lost Years" miniseries from the mid-90s.  It's common practice to tease a new status quo with side-stories in an oversized "conclusion" issue, like how Ben Reilly's new status quo was teased in the epilogue of "The Clone Conspiracy," and as teases go, this was a pretty good one. 

7.5/10 (Extra stories)

So, How About Those Twists? (Sinister War Edition - SPOILERS GALORE)

 It's been a while since I've written a post like this; I used to make them a lot for my movie blog, back when I was still watching movies in the theater, especially the big Marvel tentpole films. It's fitting, then, that I repurpose this post for this blog as I discuss the twists that have characterized the latest issue of "The Amazing Spider-Man," namely Vol. 5. No. 73 (or No. 874 in "Legacy" terms for those keeping count).  Given that it's only twenty pages of story, there's not THAT much to unpack, but the three main story developments are well-worth revisiting, to my mind.

1. SINS PAST IS GONE, FOR GOOD

I find it immensely satisfying that a number of comics news writers have basically bannered their stories on this issue with variations on the theme "Marvel rewrites its creepiest story ever." There's no mincing of words, and no pulling of punches, just a descripton of befitting a truly despicable story.

I may be in the minority (or not, actually) but I think I'm one of the people who actually hated "Sins Past" more than "One More Day," and not quite for the reasons that one might think.

Truth be told, I didn't actually grow up with Gwen Stacy. The character was killed off from the Amazing Spider-Man series two years before I was even born, and I didn't exactly seek her out when I started reading comics in the mid to late eighties. I grew up with Mary Jane, and the first few Spider-Man issues I started collecting actually featured a happily married Peter and Mary Jane.

Why then, was I somehow less uncomfortable with Marvel literally using demonic magic to undo Peter's marriage to Mary Jane while their act of retconning Gwen's one-night-stand stuck in my craw so badly? I mean, I didn't even know Gwen as a character.

Here's the thing, though; Gwen and her storied love affair with Peter were one of his most cherished memories, which very much formed a part of who he was as Spider-Man and, like Uncle Ben's death, kind of defined him as a character.  That was what Gwen represented to me, since I had not met her as a character: she was someone who brought out the best in Peter.  This was best exemplified in Jeph Loeb's and Tim Sale's "Spider-Man: Blue."

That J. Michael Straczynski and the Marvel "brain trust" behind "Sins Past" saw fit to not only keep Gwen dead and buried but also to tarnish that memory of her by essentially having her cheat on Peter with a middle-aged Norman Osborn just completely confounded me. It added nothing to the character; it didn't enrich her history in any way. It was like digging up someone's rotting carcass and defacing it, somehow.  

Make no mistake, I think "One More Day" is a truly wretched story, but I got the imperative behind it, as misguided as I think Peter's supernatural divorce was.  In contrast, I never understood why they felt the need to do what they did to Gwen Stacy, and why they saw fit to take a giant shit on one of the most beloved characters in Spider-Man canon. 

What also rankled about "Sins Past" was how seemingly untouchable it was as canon. For the longest time various writers and editors who handled the character refused to undo this blighted storyline. Longtime writer Dan Slott famously declared at a comics convention that he would "never" touch upon "Sins Past" which was especially annoying when Norman Osborn suddnely became the big bad guy near the end of Slott's run. Was it because he couldn't figure out how to undo that piece of crap or because editorial had not given him the green light? We'll probably never know, but for all of his stories, some of them actually very good, Slott will now go down in my memory as the writer who could not undo "Sins Past" despite having nearly a decade to do so. 

That's kind of a shame, because in my opinion, at least, Slott gave us some really good stories, and even undid at least one big mistake on his own by bringing back a fan-favorite character in Ben Reilly. By and large, however, Slott's run was characterized by supposed "game changing" stories that never really made any lasting impression on the status quo. Peter loses his Spider-sense? He gets it back in the next few issues. Doc Ock takes over Peter's body? Peter gets it back in a little over a year.  Peter becomes a billionaire CEO?  Just wait until it all comes crashing down. Doc Ock gets a new, superior clone body so that he's no longer a schlub with a bowl cut? Don't count on that lasting very long. Norman Osborn loses his mind and forgets Peter's secret identity? Puh-LEAZE.  Flash Thompson dies? Shhyeah right. That's probably what's really sad about Slott's writing, whether it's by his own design or that of his editors: so much of it is disposable.

Spencer, for all of his flaws, will be remembered for stories that will last. His effort to restore the grim effects of "Kraven's Last Hunt" while ultimately blunted by the need to keep an incarnation of Sergei Kravinoff alive, was still valiant and is unlikely to be retconned away.  His undoing of "Sins Past" will stand through the ages, and I cannot think of ANYONE who would want to reinstate as canon one of the most hated Spider-Man stories in the history of the title.  THIS new status quo is going to STICK, and all future Marvel writers and editors will owe Spencer a debt of immense gratitude.  

If Nick Spencer manages to undo "One More Day" as well, he will be a hero for all the ages, whatever the flaws of his individual stories may be. 

What makes Spencer's tale-weaving remarkable was how deep he dug into Spider-Man's history to find just the right story to retcon the retcon, and he found an unlikely but brilliant candidate in the "Lifetheft" saga of 1993, a time when, as far as the readership was concerned, Norman Osborn was still dead and buried.  Spencer basically folded Harry's long-term revenge scheme against Norman into his revenge scheme against Peter, which helped explain the admittedly convoluted way in which he manufactured the fake Osborn/Stacy progeny Gabriel and Sarah. 

How did Spencer address the fact that, when Harry actually hatched the scheme back then, Norman was supposed to be dead? Simple: "I knew you'd come back."  It was succinct, and oh-so-true to the spirit of Marvel Comics, in which death is basically a revolving door.

But that brings us to the second twist...

2. HARRY OSBORN REALLY DIED.

My younger sister doesn't read comics.  Like most of the world, she watched Avengers: Endgame and even watched Spider-Man: Far From Home with me and my family with a casual fan's understanding of the lore. I don't mind, it just wasn't her thing, that's all. 

But when she read J.M. DeMatteis and Sal Buscema's "Spectacular Spider-Man"  #200 sometime in the 1990s, despite never even having been introduced to Harry Osborn prior to that issue, it brought her to tears. That was how powerful and effective DeMatteis' storytelling was back then; a first-time reader, right off the bat, was emotionally affected by a single issue.   Harry Osborn's death, in my humble opinion was one of the best-written moments in all of Spider-Man canon, and it redeemed a character who had undergone a truly dark journey dating all the way back to before I'd even been born. 

There was something distinctly "meta" about how Norman Osborn revisited that moment in The Amazing Spider-Man #73.   We had already seen the series' artists recreating Sal Buscema's deeply moving rendition of Harry's death, but Osborn verbalized it beautifully: "You died a hero! You died loved."  Norman may have addressed this to an artificial intelligence construct of Harry who had been uploaded years before (and whom I think was originally just written as a recording), but it distinctly felt as though Norman spoke with Spencer's voice, addressing the numbskulls who had undone one of the more poignant moments in Spider-Man's history.  Harry had managed to come into his own just before he died. 

Harry's abrupt resurrection in the post-"One More Day" status quo was emblematic of how much contempt Joe Quesada and Marvel editorial had for the last couple of decades of storytelling that they had callously undone.  Not only did Quesada want to transplant Peter back into an updated version of the swinging sixties, he also wanted to bring along his spoiled, ne'er-do-well bestie and all of his daddy issues.  The annoying retcon of Norman stealing Harry's body from the morgue went further towards cheapening what was a landmark moment in Spider-Man's history, and coupled with the fact that Norman had (or thought he had) two other children to carry on his "legacy," it made Harry seem even more pathetic. Fortunately, we've now learned that the whiny millennial who's been posing as Harry Osborn since 2008 is actually someone else. 

Spencer didn't just restore Harry's death; he restored his dignity as a character. 

Also, given the heavily supernatural component of the story, it would appear that Harry's death is not at all permanent, which brings us to the third twist that I'd like to revisit...

3. NORMAN'S FAUSTIAN BARGAIN

When it comes to making deals with the devil, why should Peter Parker have all the fun? Norman Osborn's deal with Mephisto, in which he obtains fame and fortune at the cost of his son's soul, is the retcon I never knew I needed. 

Similar to the case of Gwen Stacy, I only really got to know Norman as a character after his resurrection by Howard Mackie and John Romita Jr. back in 1996, but the notion of him selling his son to the devil seems entirely in line with the character as he has been written since his return from the dead: vain, superficial, and utterly self-centered. Of course he'd sell his son to the devil to benefit himself! It makes so much more sense than Peter selling his marriage to the devil!

Sure, Spencer gives him a dose of much-needed humanity in these last few issues of his run, but he makes it clear that Osborn is finally paying the price for his many, many sins, and not just by having Volstagg smack him in the face. 

There was something distinctly repetitive about how Dan Slott wrote Norman Osborn stories, which he did for the better part of a decade, longer even than Norman's original life-span in the Stan Lee (and later Gerry Conway) comics. I kid you not.  He'd come up with some scheme, Peter would thwart him, and Norman would suffer humiliation and anguish and then just come back again, meaner and more powerful than ever. It's one of the reasons why Slott's writing felt so disposable, even when he was backed up by sublime collaborators like Stuart Immonen. 

Spencer's writing feels different, though; this story is not even about Norman's dynamic with Peter. I'll admit it's a little too early to call this, with one issue yet to go, but it genuinely feels, in light of everything that's come before, that there will be lasting consequences for Norman following the culmination of Harry's grand plan from beyond the gate of Hell itself. 

Does it mean Norman will die? No, and even if he does, that's the easiest thing to undo in comics. It does feel, though, like nothing will ever be the same with him again. 

All of that in one issue. Wow.

Also, having Carlie Cooper, a cast member introduced in the post-"One More Day" status quo, discover the true Harry's corpse along with ersatz Harry, neatly ties past together with present, and establishes that Spencer is firmly taking this book into the future. 

For better or worse, Nick Spencer may not be remembered as the best Spider-Man writer of all time, but he will be remembered as the guy who fixed a LOT of the book's problems. 

Nick Spencer, You are My Hero: A Review of The Amazing Spider-Man #73 (HEAVY SPOILERS)

 written by Nick Spencer

drawn by Ze Carlos, Carlos Gomez and Marcelo Ferreira

colored by Alex Sinclair

Spider-Man goes to confront Kindred one last time, while Mary Jane Watson and Norman Osborn, who have gone to meet with the mysterious villain ahead of Peter, are confronted with some shocking truths. Meanwhile, Carlie Cooper and Harry Osborn make an equally startling discovery in the morgue. 

It was a decent enough issue, and that's all I'll say for those wanting to avoid spoilers.  For those who want to know more, read on...

(SPOILERS BEGIN)

And with one issue, Nick Spencer almost manages to atone for three years of the often insufferable build-up and filler he stuffed my reading list with to get to this very moment. 

This is the moment that the Kindred Saga comes to its head, in which Spencer reveals that "Sins Past," the widely-despised 2004 story in which Marvel's "brain trust" retconned into Spider-Man canon a sexual affair between a middle-aged Norman Osborn and a teenaged Gwen Stacy, was nothing but an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Harry Osborn, acting in conspiracy with Mysterio and Mendel Stromm, on his dad Norman.  Not only that, but Mary Jane, who was actually the one who revealed the affair to Peter back then, learns that she was a victim of the hoax too, courtesy of "therapy" sessions with Mysterio masquerading as a psychiatrist. 

For a good chunk of the issue, Norman talks to what appears to be an artificial intelligence version of Harry, who tells his "dad" that the elder Osborn never had sex with Gwen, and that he did not father children by her.  The entire thing was basically a memory implanted by hypnosis and hallucinogens courtesy of Mysterio and Stromm, who were working under orders that the actual Harry Osborn had given them just before his death in 1993's Spectacular Spider-Man #200. 

Thus is the second bombshell dropped in less than five pages: Harry's resurrection from the dead, which was retconned into canon shortly after the events of the similarly-reviled "One More Day," has also been undone. It turns out that the real Harry has spent the last several years either as wormfood or burning in hell while an AI version of him who's been around since the 1990s (our time, not theirs) has been carrying out a really elaborate, long-term revenge plan on both Peter and Norman.    Why has Harry been in hell? Well, in yet another retcon, apparently Norman sold Harry's soul to Mephisto when he was just a kid in exchange for fame and fortune.

This is the issue that, for the last seventeen years,  I have been pining for, and more recently, since Dan Slott started focusing on Norman Osborn as Peter Parker's biggest of baddies in the last year or so of his run on The Amazing Spider-Man.  This is the issue that neither Slott nor Marvel's editorial brain trust during his run had the balls or the storytelling chops to pull off.

As much as I love to take potshots at Spencer's writing, for the remainder of the series I will lay off, because he has done exactly what I have been hoping he would do from the moment it became clear that he had big plans for Norman Osborn in his run.  When he undid Slott's silly, hackneyed, "secret identity amnesia" which was never going to last, it became increasingly clear that Spencer had something big planned, especially after his big Kraven arc played out.  When he actually NAMED one of his mini story arcs "Sins Past," it was definitely a huge wink and nod to that 2004 clusterfuck, but apparently no one picked up on because they all thought it was a reference to Sin Eater, who was front and center in that story, and because everyone else was obsessed with the notion that Marvel was working up to undo "One More Day" instead.

So no matter how big a headache this issue may be for anyone who isn't familiar with the last three decades of lore, I'm really happy that Spencer pulled the trigger on this audacious retcon of a retcon. 

I'd be happier if the art wasn't the usual mashup of several disparate art styles that has been the norm on this book for the last year or so, but given that Marvel has granted one of my most ardent wishes for this title, I have little reason to complain.

There's actually a more than even chance that Spencer could, with his valedictory issue, undo "One More Day" as well, given Mephisto's heavy involvement in this story, but at this point this would just  be icing on the cake for me. 

8.5/10

 

My Thoughts on Marvel's "Sinister War" and Their Annoying New Habit

 Sinister War

Written by Nick Spencer

Drawn by Mark Bagley and too many other artists.

I'll be honest; I was skeptical of the storytelling merits of "Sinister War" when it was announced. I know that as an entertainment company, basically Marvel is all about cash grabs, but this one felt a little more gratuitous than usual. It wasn't unlike the manner in which Marvel, especially during Spencer's run, has made a habit of swelling up his storylines with extra issues during which parallel stories run right alongside the main one as not quite necessary reading but definitely as an important supplement.  They did this with the godawful Kraven story, as well as the Sin-Eater/Kindred story.

"Sinister War" had a different feel to it, and from a pure story perspective, I feel it actually worked better than a lot of the other "parallel" stories Marvel has put out as companion pieces to "The Amazing Spider-Man." 

The premise is simple: Kindred, whom we thought was Harry Osborn but apparently isn't (as is disclosed over in the main title), has made a deal with five different supervillain teams: kill Spider-Man, or face an eternity of damnation.  Spidey is basically in for the fight of his life, but may yet find some unexpected help along the way.  Also, in the background, a mysterious conversation takes place between Doctor Strange and Mephisto.

I guess Marvel figured that people were getting sick of this "plus" style of storytelling, so they packaged this latest batch as a miniseries to change the marketing angle a little bit. That said, "Sinister War" reads pretty well on its own.  Rather than shed light on the backstory of Kindred, which is still being teased agonizingly slowly in the main title, the story stays focused on Peter's battle royale with three dozen supervillains, and it's a brisk and decent, if slightly insubstantial read.

The only thing I truly disliked about this was the irritating "jam" style art. The story was drawn mostly by legendary Spider-Man artist Mark Bagley (who's probably a bazillionaire owing to the fact that his art has adorned Spider-Man merch for a good portion of the 21st century) but unlike the good old days in which he drew Ultimate Spider-Man all by himself for Brian Michael Bendis for a record-setting number of issues, for some reason he needs  an army of backup artists filling in random pages for just four issues of story.  While I patiently sat through this format for something like two years, it's no longer fun, whether it's here or over in the main title, and makes for a distinctly unpleasant reading experience. Bring back John Romita, Jr. for gosh sakes.

As Nick Spencer wraps up his run, which I thought started so strongly back in 2018, I can't help but have mixed feelings about the stories he produced.  He set out, for example, to undo the resurrection of Kraven the Hunter, which essentially invalidated the modern classic "Kraven's Last Hunt" story, only for editorial to allow him some half-assed compromise in which Kraven is killed but survived by his clone. His buddy-comedy storyline involving Boomerang becoming Spider-Man's roommate was, oddly enough, one of his more solid pieces of narrative, with the most genuine emotional resonance and the best artwork, courtesty mainly of Ryan Ottley and Patrick Gleason, and it has a tragic footnote right  here in "Sinister War."  

The centerpiece of Spencer's run appears to be this meandering mess involving Kindred, which is either an attempt to undo the infamous "One More Day" or, given the heavy involvement of Norman Osborn, a revisiting (and hopefully eradication) of his retconned sexual affair with Gwen Stacy, the abhorrent "Sins Past."  While I'd be happiest if it was the latter, at this point I really just want it to be over, whatever the outcome.

And with two more issues two go for Spencer's run, I'm about to get my wish.

In the meantime, though, "Sinister War" was a decent enough distraction, muddled art notwithstanding. 

6.5/10

Kevin Smith's Clumsy, "Bait and Switch" Writing Is NOT a New Thing

 Much has been written and posted on Youtube about how filmmaker Kevin Smith has desecrated one of the sacred cows of 1980s pop-culture, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, with his new Netflix series, Masters of the Universe: Revelations.  I would even go as far as to argue that the firestorm of controversy that this series has kicked up has gotten Smith more exposure than he has had in some time, and that's bearing in mind his stature within the geek community.  I've already weighed in on the series itself here, so I won't be reviewing this series in this blog post.

What I would like to point out, though, for the angry fans, is that, unfortunately, this is not the first time that Smith has hijacked a story which was supposed to feature a beloved character in order to hamhandedly push some clumsy advocacy.  We comic book fans experienced this from him some time ago, long before the hotly-debated topic of "woke culture" was even a thing.

In 2002, Smith and artist Terry Dodson launched a mini-series that featured Spider-Man, then white-hot thanks to the record-breaking success of his first-ever feature film, and his ex-girlfriend and on-again, off-again ally Felicia Hardy, aka the Black Cat, in a series title "Spider-Man and Black Cat: the Evil that Men Do."  Smith's stock among comic-book fans was soaring at the time; he had already completed the eight-part Daredevil epic "Guardian Devil" which was one of the flashpoints that brought about Marvel's renaissance at the turn of the millennium, following a truly disastrous period for the company in the 1990s, and had also just finished a highly-successful run on "Green Arrow" over at DC Comics.   

The first three issues of the series shipped one after the other, and offered an intriguing, brand new villain who had both telepathic and teleportation abilities. It was fairly clear why Spider-Man and Black Cat needed to team up to take this bad guy down, and yet, by the end of the third issue, readers were left with a cliffhanger as the bad guy had mentally paralyzed Felicia and looked, from all indications, like he was  about to rape her.

And then, for nearly three years, the miniseries went on hold as Smith stopped writing to take care of...stuff. It was one of a pair of embarrassments for Marvel as Smith had actually launched two miniseries that year, the other one being "Daredevil: Target" with Glenn Fabry, which, incidentally, was cancelled after one issue because Smith simply couldn't get his act together. 

When the story was finished in 2005, things had taken a turn for the ridiculous as the Black Cat was in jail for the killing of the guy who had been poised to rape her at the end of the last issue, and suddenly the focus of the entire story was on Felicia's sudden, weird bond with the brother of the villain (and eventual villain himself), who had barely uttered any dialogue during the first three issues, but who turned out to be similarly superpowered, and a victim of rape growing up, something Felicia connected to as Smith had retconned a date-rape into her history as well.

Sound familiar, He-Man fans?  Yup, Spider-Man had become a guest star in his own fucking book.  There were a couple of gratuitous cameos by Daredevil and Nightcrawler, but the effect was still the same; Spider-Man was sidelined.

It didn't even bother me that Black Cat was the focal point of the remainder of the series; at least her name was in the title. No, what really got my goat was how hard Smith pimped his new villain, trying in the course of a few issues to both build him a backstory and make him formidable, and by the end actually made him the new Mysterio.  A few years earlier, Smith had made Quentin Beck, the original Mysterio, blow his own brains out in the pages of "Daredevil."  It felt somewhat presumptuous that Smith could just slot some "rando" into the bubble helmet and green tights after Beck had spent decades becoming an iconic villain, but, well, Smith presumed to do just that.  And as one might expect, this new character didn't take at all; within less than two years, Beck was brought back from the dead--from Hell, in fact--and Smith's creation Francis Klum was killed off in the pages of another Spider-Man book and never heard from again.  Similarly, Kevin Smith never wrote a book for Marvel again.

I don't really know if it's any consolation for disgruntled He-Man fans to know that Smith has done crap like this before, but, well, he has, and unlike Masters of the Universe, which has at least one more season to wrap up its obvious cliffhanger, that Spider-Man miniseries came to a most unfortunate  conclusion. 

One can hope, though, that Mattel has learned the same lesson that Marvel did and will never put Smith in charge of one of their most beloved properties again.