Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:03PM15 comments ›
Sat Jan 3, 2009 — by Glenn Hauman
Spider-Man single again, again
Now it's reached the newspapers
A year after the events of One More Day, Spider-Man has gone back to unmarried status in the newspaper strip.
So for all of you who thought this might just be a passing phase-- like me-- your hopes have finally been dashed. At least, until the next reboot.
One of these days I have to write that blog post on how to save One More Day and make Peter's actions heroic...
Hat tip: Blog@Newsarama.
Jump to comments (15) 
More News from ComicMix
- 'Twilight Saga: New Moon' takes opening day gross record from 'Dark Knight', midnight record from 'Harry Potter 6'9 hours ago, 2 comments
- The Point Radio: 'Twilight New Moon' Exclusives1 day ago, 0 comments
- Review: 'Saga of the Swamp Thing Book Two'1 day ago, 1 comment
- Why continuity matters, dammit1 day ago, 4 comments
- Capcom Announces 'Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition'3 days ago, 0 comments
- 'Angel: After The Fall' fan film3 days ago, 0 comments
- ComicMix Six: Best Geek-Themed Games for the Holidays3 days ago, 1 comment
- Review: 'Logan's Run' on Blu-ray4 days ago, 0 comments
- ComicMix and IDW on the iPhone and iTouch4 days ago, 0 comments
- 'Global Frequency' back to TV?4 days ago, 3 comments
Comments (15)
Rick Taylor (4:03 PM on Sat Jan 3, 2009)
Is that Peter Parker or Bobby Ewing?
Neil Ottenstein (4:24 PM on Sat Jan 3, 2009)
Well, at least it was a straightforward reboot and not a ridiculous deal with the devil.
Rick Taylor (9:52 AM on Sun Jan 4, 2009)
It was straightforward because they couldn't drag it out over multiple issues with variant covers.
They had what, a quarter of a page?
Rick Taylor (9:54 AM on Sun Jan 4, 2009)
Or were these the dailies you guys colored?
Haven't seen the Spidey strip in years.
Glenn Hauman (12:13 PM on Sun Jan 4, 2009)
If I'd colored it, I'd like to think it would be more dynamic.
Rick Taylor (12:33 PM on Sun Jan 4, 2009)
For sure, Glenn.
Closer examination told me they were dailies.
So Marvel made the switcheroo over three days.
They wanted to get it over with fast.
Miles Vorkosigan (7:17 PM on Sat Jan 3, 2009)
Dumbest move Marvel has made in decades. Toss years of known, good continuity because marketing decided that the target audience was either teenage boys or prepubes. Forgetting about those of us who started reading it again because of intelligent, adult writing...
Saves me money, though. I won't buy another Marvel title again, unless the writer is named Straczynski, David or someone of their caliber.
Miles
Scavenger (10:10 PM on Sat Jan 3, 2009)
"unless the writer is named Straczynski"
Who do you think wrote One More Day?
James M. Gill (12:44 AM on Sun Jan 4, 2009)
He did, but under duress and wanting to remove his name from the story. I'm willing to give JMS a pass on that one 'cause we all know that turd of a story had Joe Q's idiocy stamped all over it.
Miles Vorkosigan (8:34 AM on Sun Jan 4, 2009)
Yeah, I'm surprised Joe didn't hang the name Cordwainer Bird on it. Harlan would've gone for that.
Miles
mike weber (7:50 PM on Sun Jan 4, 2009)
"Dumbest move Marvel has made in decades. Toss years of known, good continuity..."
One word: Clone.
About the only good thing that came out of that debacle wasn't even part of the Marvel Universe proper - large parts of Spider-Girl.
Delmo Walters Jr. (2:18 PM on Sun Jan 4, 2009)
I didn't even realize the Spider-Man strip was still running. So, when does Marvel start collecting it the way Fantagraphics or IDW is doing with Peanuts & Dick Tracy, respectively?
Mr.Hauman, please write the blog explaining how you'd save One More Day. I'd love to read that.
Rick Keating (9:49 AM on Mon Jan 5, 2009)
Yesterday's (Sunday) installment of the Spider-Man newspaper comic told us in a narrative caption that the storyline takes place "long before Peter and M. J. were married." (or was it "years before?"). So, instead of some convoluted (and out of character) deal with Mephisto, where the marriage now never happened, the newspaper strip is giving us an extended flashback. The marriage still happens, it just hasn't happened yet.
As to the relative quality of the Spider-Man strip, I have to say the stories (from the 70s or 80s, I think) collected in a trade size collection (I forget the exact title) seem a bit better written than some of the more recent offerings. The most recent storyline had a thug/gangster named "Big-Time." That, so far as I could tell, was his actual name, not a nickname. Everyone called him that, even his ex-wife. You think she, at least, would call him "Bill", or "George", anything but "Big-Time." Even "Sue" would make more sense.
Sometimes I think the newspaper strip is being aimed at kids, and I'm getting the impression that those behind it feel that's the target audience for the Spider-Man strip. The storylines seem just a bit too simplistic.
But anyway, the newspaper adventures of web-head are simply set in the past, with the marriage to M. J. not yet having occurred.
Rick
Rick Taylor (10:11 AM on Mon Jan 5, 2009)
Whatever...
Sheesh!
Allyn Gibson (12:33 PM on Mon Jan 5, 2009)
The Spider-Man comic strip had grown rather disconnected from the comics continuity in the past couple of years. Peter and MJ had relocated to Hollywood so she could pursue her acting career, and JJ had gone west to become a television talking head, a la Bill O'Reilly. Given that it was that far off from the comic books -- Spidey, a Los Angeles hero? -- I assumed that it was going to stay in its own universe. Alas.