There are many great Amazing Spidey story arcs during the 1970s. This is not one of them. Why does everything from the cover to MJ's lame dialogue about a 'politician for the people' seem soooo 60s? Well, it's probably because this issue (and the two issues preceding this one) are re-worked reprints from the Spectacular Spider-Man magazine from 1968. This was a pretty bland story the first time around, and didn't age particularly well. It's quite a bit worse, as Gerry Conway has stretched things out over three issues, and many superfluous scenes are inserted. The plot is quite convoluted. We've got a populist politician, Richard Raleigh, gaining support throughout NYC. At the same time, the Smasher (formerly known as Man Monster, or something along those lines) is tearing apart NYC. In the original, there's no 'Disruptor' and the audiences is given much more info. Even so, the big surprise isn't really all that surprising. I must say, though, that after re-reading this - I was struck by the similarities to Batman's decision re. Harvey Dent/Two-Face's identity at the conclusion of the Dark Knight. Overall, it's a big bore - and shame on Marvel for regurgitating such a lame story just a few years later.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
You've Been Warned: Amazing Spider-Man #118
There are many great Amazing Spidey story arcs during the 1970s. This is not one of them. Why does everything from the cover to MJ's lame dialogue about a 'politician for the people' seem soooo 60s? Well, it's probably because this issue (and the two issues preceding this one) are re-worked reprints from the Spectacular Spider-Man magazine from 1968. This was a pretty bland story the first time around, and didn't age particularly well. It's quite a bit worse, as Gerry Conway has stretched things out over three issues, and many superfluous scenes are inserted. The plot is quite convoluted. We've got a populist politician, Richard Raleigh, gaining support throughout NYC. At the same time, the Smasher (formerly known as Man Monster, or something along those lines) is tearing apart NYC. In the original, there's no 'Disruptor' and the audiences is given much more info. Even so, the big surprise isn't really all that surprising. I must say, though, that after re-reading this - I was struck by the similarities to Batman's decision re. Harvey Dent/Two-Face's identity at the conclusion of the Dark Knight. Overall, it's a big bore - and shame on Marvel for regurgitating such a lame story just a few years later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I always felt this poor run of 3 comics during a particularly rich vein of form stood out like the proverbial sore thumb - thanks for highlighting the reason why these issues didn't shine.
Cheers
Duncan
It took me a while to figure out the backstory here Duncan, as I'd never read that magazine, but one I knew this history - it all made perfect sense. A sore thunb, indeed.
Post a Comment