Post by driver1980 on Oct 7, 2023 7:28:42 GMT -5
The first issue of Spider-Man: Chapter One went on sale 25 years ago today:
Shall we discuss it? Did you like it or not?
A reminder of Byrne’s words might be useful:
First, it depends on how you define "fix". Aside from some wonky science more or less characteristic of the time, there is nothing wrong with the Spider-Man origin as first presented. But when Stan and Steve did that story in AMAZING FANTASY there were two important elements that many seem to forget: one, it was only fifteen pages long, and two, it was, so far as they knew, the ONLY Spider-Man story that was ever going to be told! Now, almost forty years later, Marvel has decided to "reboot" Spider-Man, but unlike the Superman reboot, this does not mean scraping away years and years of barnacles. Instead, it means taking the whole Spider-Man tapestry and looking at it with a single eye -- asking, for example, what Stan and Steve might have done with (a) more pages, and (b) a certain knowledge of future Spider-Man stories. Thus, certain scenes can be expanded, and a large degree of foreshadowing can be brought into play. CHAPTER ONE is a way of saying "Hey! Over here!" to potential new readers, while the remaining Spider-Titles will undergo what we hope will be their own Renaissance.
Okay, I grew up enjoying Byrne’s Man of Steel. To me, that is still the definitive Superman origin. Fashions, hairstyles and topical references aside, I feel it’s aged well. So when 1998 arrived, I was stupid enough…erm, I mean naive enough to believe Byrne could do similar magic with Spider-Man. Would this be the web-slinging equivalent of the Superman reboot?
But it doesn’t always work that way. Hulk Hogan vs. Ultimate Warrior at WrestleMania VI in 1990 is a great match. When WCW did Hogan/Warrior in 1998, the match sucked. Choose your own analogy. I mean, sometimes you’ll hear an album which you don’t like by an artist you do like - and you’ll think about how his/her first album was far, far superior. Sometimes, and it’ll always be subjective, artists can please you one moment and disappoint you the next.
Looking back through ‘wiser’ eyes, was there any point to a Spidey reboot? I mean, was the plan to supplant the Ditko/Lee origin? Or was this meant to be apocryphal? I must admit, either I am stupid (a distinct possibility) or Marvel didn’t exactly make it clear back in 1998. Does anyone know?
I don’t believe this added to the Spidey mythos. I understand updating some changes (a computer as a gift rather than a microscope makes sense) but I don’t understand not updating other elements; I mean, featuring radiation-based origins in stories was probably old hat in 1998. I also felt that Byrne connected dots that didn’t need connecting. It all felt pointless.
Did Marvel officially “disown” this? If so, how did they word it?
I am interested in all views because it’d be boring if we all liked the same things. So as brutal as my post might seem, please do be an advocate for the series if you really enjoyed it.
Shall we discuss it? Did you like it or not?
A reminder of Byrne’s words might be useful:
First, it depends on how you define "fix". Aside from some wonky science more or less characteristic of the time, there is nothing wrong with the Spider-Man origin as first presented. But when Stan and Steve did that story in AMAZING FANTASY there were two important elements that many seem to forget: one, it was only fifteen pages long, and two, it was, so far as they knew, the ONLY Spider-Man story that was ever going to be told! Now, almost forty years later, Marvel has decided to "reboot" Spider-Man, but unlike the Superman reboot, this does not mean scraping away years and years of barnacles. Instead, it means taking the whole Spider-Man tapestry and looking at it with a single eye -- asking, for example, what Stan and Steve might have done with (a) more pages, and (b) a certain knowledge of future Spider-Man stories. Thus, certain scenes can be expanded, and a large degree of foreshadowing can be brought into play. CHAPTER ONE is a way of saying "Hey! Over here!" to potential new readers, while the remaining Spider-Titles will undergo what we hope will be their own Renaissance.
Okay, I grew up enjoying Byrne’s Man of Steel. To me, that is still the definitive Superman origin. Fashions, hairstyles and topical references aside, I feel it’s aged well. So when 1998 arrived, I was stupid enough…erm, I mean naive enough to believe Byrne could do similar magic with Spider-Man. Would this be the web-slinging equivalent of the Superman reboot?
But it doesn’t always work that way. Hulk Hogan vs. Ultimate Warrior at WrestleMania VI in 1990 is a great match. When WCW did Hogan/Warrior in 1998, the match sucked. Choose your own analogy. I mean, sometimes you’ll hear an album which you don’t like by an artist you do like - and you’ll think about how his/her first album was far, far superior. Sometimes, and it’ll always be subjective, artists can please you one moment and disappoint you the next.
Looking back through ‘wiser’ eyes, was there any point to a Spidey reboot? I mean, was the plan to supplant the Ditko/Lee origin? Or was this meant to be apocryphal? I must admit, either I am stupid (a distinct possibility) or Marvel didn’t exactly make it clear back in 1998. Does anyone know?
I don’t believe this added to the Spidey mythos. I understand updating some changes (a computer as a gift rather than a microscope makes sense) but I don’t understand not updating other elements; I mean, featuring radiation-based origins in stories was probably old hat in 1998. I also felt that Byrne connected dots that didn’t need connecting. It all felt pointless.
Did Marvel officially “disown” this? If so, how did they word it?
I am interested in all views because it’d be boring if we all liked the same things. So as brutal as my post might seem, please do be an advocate for the series if you really enjoyed it.
