AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #659
“Fantastic Voyage, Part 1 of 2”
Story: Dan Slott
Dialogue: Fred Van Lente
Penciler: Stefano Caselli
Inker: Stefano Caselli
Colorist: Marte Gracia
“Bug Time”
Writer: Dan Slott
Penciler: Barry Kitson
Inker: Barry Kitson
Colorist: Edgar Delgado
“Can’t Get the Service, Part Two”
Writer: Rob Williams
Penciler: Lee Garbett
Inker: Alejandro Sicat
Colorist: Fabio D’Auria
Cover Art: Stefano Caselli and Lorenzo de Felici
Be warned – there are SPOILERS ahead!
Dan Slott’s solo run on The Amazing Spider-Man continues … with another issue not actually written only by Slott.
The Plot
The Future Foundation travel to the center of the dimensional anomalies of the previous installment. Carlie Cooper does something impulsive to spite Peter. Hijinx ensue.
The Good
As per usual, the art of Stefano Caselli is a real treat. He has a genuine ability to draw faces and body language that convey the emotion of the characters succinctly. Combine that with his ability to draw kinetic action and simple, easy-to-follow panel layouts, and he’s rapidly becoming one of my favorite artists in comics. My only complaint – and it’s a minor one – is that he draws Sue with white eyes whenever she uses her powers. (Is this a thing now? Since when?)
The Bad
Unfortunately, the writing is nowhere NEAR the level of the artwork.
For starters, since when did this book turn from The Amazing Spider-Man to The Future Foundation and Their Annoying Brats, Featuring Spider-Man? He’s now a supporting character in his own goddamn title, and he’s only there to provide “humor” (I use the term lightly). Seriously, you can take Spidey out of the issue completely and hardly miss a beat. I would point out that this book has become a knockoff of Marvel Team-Up if Michael Bailey hadn’t already beat me to it. (Damn you, you handsome bastard.)
The story itself is gibberish. They travel to an island at the epicenter of some dimensional anomalies, engage in about 15 pages of pirate-related nonsense – about a month before Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides opens, which makes the conspiracy theorist in me wonder … Ben even makes a specific reference to Jack Sparrow, for shit’s sake – and then it’s revealed that the Sinister Six are behind it all. The cliffhanger involves the Six trying to look menacing while Mysterio is wearing a 1930s diving suit and Doctor Diaperpus is probably peeing himself. (What a brilliant master plan! Why hasn’t a supervillain ever thought to lure the heroes into a cave and beat them up? Brilliant, I say!) Needless to say, it’s as disposable as the toilet paper that I will inevitably use this issue as a substitute for. Van Lente’s script is clichéd and poorly written. Spider-Man actually uses “ZOMG!” as dialogue at one point, every pirate joke imaginable is brought up and then driven into the ground, and everybody is wavering about in characterization so far from the established norm that they’re practically interchangeable. This is probably the most annoying non-Deadpool comic book that I have ever read in my life, and I’ve read Get Kraven. The general incompetence of the writing of this issue was so shocking to my system that I actually had to read a few pages of Maximum Clonage: Omega to cleanse the palette.
The less said about the backups, the better. The first one is a two-page teaser to tell us that the Jackal is back and experimenting on the populace with superbugs, most of which we already knew or directly inferred from Marvel’s own teaser images. The second one is the continuation of the crappy Ghost Rider team-up (again with the goddamn Marvel Team Up nonsense … this one even has “Marvel Team-Up” AT THE TOP OF THE SPLASH PAGE) from last issue. Don’t waste your time.
The Ugly
To quote Harry Osborn from Spider-Man 3: you knew this was coming, Pete.
This is so preposterously stupid that I can’t even formulate the words to describe it properly. Thankfully, K-Box already did it for me, so I’ll just go ahead and tell you what he said.
WHY is this scene so very bad?
The following facts are widespread public knowledge among the civilian populace of the 616 Marvel Universe:
- Norman Osborn is the Green Goblin.
- Norman Osborn tried to take over America.
- The Green Goblin is Spider-Man’s arch-enemy.
- The Green Goblin killed Gwen Stacy.
- Green Goblin tattoos have become synonymous with support for not only Norman Osborn, but also a white nationalist agenda (as explicitly stated by Dan Slott, the same writer who wrote this scene, in a previous issue of the same title in which this scene appears).
The following facts have been established in canon about Carlie Cooper, without any ambiguity:
- Carlie Cooper was Gwen Stacy’s best friend when they were growing up.
- Carlie Cooper was one of Harry Osborn’s best friends when “Brand New Day” started.
- Carlie Cooper considers Spider-Man to be one of her few remaining friends.
From these on-panel facts, the following conclusions can be safely inferred:
- Carlie Cooper knows that Gwen Stacy was Peter Parker’s girlfriend.
- Carlie Cooper knows that Norman Osborn was an abusive father toward Harry Osborn.
So, what this necessarily means is that, out of a desire to “get back at” her boyfriend, Carlie Cooper decided to get a tattoo symbolizing the man whom she knows:
- Killed her boyfriend’s former girlfriend.
- Killed her own childhood best friend.
- Was an abusive father to another one of her best friends.
- Has repeatedly tried to kill the superhero whom she considers one of her few remaining friends.
- Tried to take over America.
- Has become a symbol, in turn, of a white nationalist agenda.
Not that any of this matters, of course, because inevitably we’ll find out that she wasn’t drunk at all, and that somehow this revelation is an improvement.
The Bottom Line
This issue is like taking a double-barreled shotgun blast of stupid right to the face. 0 out of 5 webheads.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Amazon Music
iHeartRadio
Podbean
Amazon Alexa
Player.fm
Listen Notes
Stitcher
@George Berryman–Thank you! Anyway, here is what Slott was saying about me directly over on that other forum. Nothing on the level of go f*** yourself, just variations on how much my predictions on Spider-Man really suck and that no one should take me seriously because of them:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13037891&postcount=60
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13038504&postcount=106
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13038622&postcount=113
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13038828&postcount=118
And here’s the conversation I had with K-Box where the “punch in the face” comment comes up:
http://box-in-the-box.livejournal.com/504485.html?thread=6647461#t6647461
Hope this clears up a few things.
@Enigma_2099
No, you see, I directed my first comment at KBox’s page and comments, not Gerard. I even specifically addressed KBox in that post. My only point was I don’t understand how anyone (at KBox’s review page, not here) could let themselves get so worked up about a comic, that’s all. I never said you were one of those people, though after re-reading my last comment I can see how perhaps somebody could infer that from what I typed, sorry about that, that wasn’t what I was getting at. I was just trying to explain my point is all.
@Wheatcakes
Uhh, no offense, but what in the hell are you talking about? I never threatened to punch anyone in the face…
Did I miss something?
But why should he have to answer that question? The issue you raised isn’t whether or not he agrees deep down with the everything on the page to which he linked, but whether or not he put CRAWL SPACE’s stamp on that site enough to warrant moderation.
Fair point under normal circumstances…
So lets ask Gerard. Does he endorse anything else on that review page…?
Wonder if we’ll get a straight answer. Thanks for suggesting.
SW
Steve, I know what’s in the linked-to blog and who wrote it. As an articles editor for a journal, I’m conscious of what it means when an author cites to a source when there is reason to discount the weight of that source’s authority. In this circumstance, however, it really just looks like Gerard was borrowing someone’s phrasing and did not intend to endorse anything other than the directly quoted material.
“GB, That’s a pretty weasly response given your rabid response to things people from Marvel have said at other sites. I think you secretly know this.”
I have absolutely no frame of reference for whatever Slott supposedly said to stillanerd at CBR, Stephen. For all I know Slott threw out another “go eff yourself.” But that’s what that comment is referring to – the way someone’s apparently behaving to someone else at yet another website – not the comic.
“There’s plenty of needlessly nasty stuff there. It’s not too hard to find. Disappointing that you want to defend it in all but name.”
And yet when it pops up here we actually hand out warnings for it. I’ve already said the comment (again – said at another site!) was “over the top” above. I’m not signing off on it. Let’s do be honest here – I think that’s more than even you offered when one of your own employees told someone to go eff himself. And Hell, the comments I disavowed didn’t even come from the site I’m associated with!
“The silence from the bigwigs here aside from George continues to puzzle me. I had thought more of this site than this. Naive I suppose.”
Baiting Brad or Kevin’s not going to do you much good here Steve. I don’t even know if they’ve seen this discussion or know it’s going on yet.
Chris it’s the same guy who wrote the reviews saying plenty of vile stuff…and he’s said the same for many months. It’s part of a piece and the writer of the above review knows exactly what he’s doing by linking to it.
The silence from the bigwigs here aside from George continues to puzzle me. I had thought more of this site than this. Naive I suppose.
SW
GB, That’s a pretty weasly response given your rabid response to things people from Marvel have said at other sites. I think you secretly know this.
There’s plenty of needlessly nasty stuff there. It’s not too hard to find. Disappointing that you want to defend it in all but name.
Some interesting reviews from other web sites. Despite the hatred towards the issue here, others quite liked it.
http://weeklycomicbookreview.com/2011/04/28/amazing-spider-man-659-review/
http://comics.ign.com/articles/116/1164611p1.html
http://comicimpact.com/2011/04/review-the-amazing-spider-man-659/
http://www.comicvine.com/the-amazing-spider-man-fantastic-voyage-part-1-of-2-bug-time-marvel-team-up-cant-get-the-service-part-two/37-269011/
http://www.spidermanreviews.com/2011/04/amazing-spider-man-659.html
http://www.multiversitycomics.com/2011/04/review-amazing-spider-man-659.html
I’m curious to hear how the podcast crew will review the issue.
@Wheatcakes
The “punched in the face” thing from the other site (again I’ll say… the other site) is over the top, yes. Yet that one quote had nothing to do with the comic or story and was regarding the way someone was acting to someone else at CBR (again, a completely different site.) I get that you’re pissed about it (at, again, the thing said on someone else’s site about stuff happening on a third site) but if you’re going to talk about it here at least do so accurately.
In this circumstance it seems clear to me, as a reader, that Gerard simply meant to cite a source for the quote he used and did not signal an adoption of the entire page to which he linked.
@spiderman252: I could remove it … but I won’t. 😈
@Enigma_2099, post #61
I don’t understand why you’re seem bent out of shape here, all I was saying is I don’t have a problem with someone not liking a comic, I just don’t understand why people get so viscerally angry about it. It’s just a comic book, you know? There were times back in the 80s when I totally didn’t like an issue of ASM, but I never got so angry as to swear and wish harm on the writer, that’s ridiculous! And I never said I had a problem with Gerard’s reviews, I have never have. I enjoy reading them as I find them entertaining. But NEVER has Gerard wished harm upon a writer, even in jest. But punching Slott in the face? Really? Can you honestly say you think that’s OK simply because you don’t like how ASM has been written over the years? I’ll say it again, just stop buying. When/if sales drop so low, I gaurentee that MJ and Peter will be back together. (Note: my gaurantees are worth pretty much nothing).
For the record, it’s a secret joy of mine when Kevin dislikes a book so much that he begins his reviews with “What….the f@ck?” 🙂
I gotta agree with Wacker – the stuff included in the comments on that link are pretty bad.
It should be removed.
Mods?
@84 – that video made me laugh!
http://thedailywh.at/2011/04/29/psa-of-the-day-6/
Ami I wrong for actually finding this civil debate between the two of you interesting?
That’s not what false equivalency means.
SW
If by ‘false equivalency’ you mean ‘right on target’ then okay. Heh.
I don’t want to speak for any of the admins or for Brad but I’m pretty sure they’re fine with you commenting on it. The site isn’t affiliated with us; it’s something quoted.
“I hope they don’t go after you over there for speaking up.”
I don’t think they will. I’m not the one who calls them ‘pearl clutchers.’ 😉
False equivalency aside, I’m glad you agree about the other site.
Very cool of you….though its unclear why its okay to comment what I say on other sites and out of line for me to comment about what people here say on other sites you actually link to.
I’m sure you have your reasons.
Again though we agree on the general distastefulness of the comments on that other site.(I hope they don’t go after you over there for speaking up).
sW
Does Marvel agree 100% with anything printed on any site it ever links to? Does any site for that matter?
When you wrote papers in college did you agree 100% with whatever sources you were using aside from the bits you used to prove/disprove points?
When bloggers link to something somewhere are they saying they agree with 100% of whatever is posted at a site or blog they link to? Bloggers routinely link to things they absolutely don’t agree with.
I sometimes read K-Box’s live journal (usually when he posts something to our forums) and sometimes stillanerd’s, who actually does say positive things about what he likes with ASM – not just there but here, too. I don’t always agree 100% with either of them but I do respect them.
Gerard quoted a section he found relevant and cited the source. I can’t find anything false or vitriolic in what he quoted. Didn’t know about the ‘white nationalist’ angle before now; seems weird to me that someone like Vin Gonzales would be part of a white nationalist movement. Heh.
I’ve read through the comments from that other thread. Some are definitely over the top. Some, if that site were Crawl Space, would be moderated. But that site’s not Crawl Space; it’s someone’s Live Journal and comments made by dozens of people with varying view points. I mean it’s not like we’re Marvel and we’re paying them to write for us and then we try to distance ourselves or dodge when something inappropriate gets said. They’re not affiliated with us other than something posted there was linked here.
So no, I don’t agree with every bit of rhetoric that gets bandied around out there on the Interwebs. I don’t like whats been done to my favorite character but I don’t go around saying someone should kick you in the junk for it and wouldn’t agree if someone else said that. Especially not when there’s so, so many legitimate points of criticism to be made, rightfully so, about what’s happening with the books right now.
Then again, the venom & vitriol’s a two-way street. It’s not like Marvel readers (current or former) aren’t getting called names, being talked down to passive-agressively by a senior editor or being told to go eff themselves by Marvel; they are. 🙂
However, George, It’s linked to in the main review…and it features some pretty vile sentiments from the same writer…who seems to be a pretty respected (though consistently incorrect) source here.
I know you aren’t responsible for what other people write on other sites, but that’s not really the point. The link to that mess is in your “official” review and I’m curious how the bigwigs here feel about the sentiments there considering how angry they get about things I type here that don’t even approach that kind of vitriol and visciousness.
I’m honestly asking. I don’t understand the silence on the subject.
SW
@60 – Wheatcakes, K-Box didn’t write this review. Gerard did.
Folks, steve has the right to his opinion, let’s stop antagonizing him. Pllay nice in the sandbox
I think that review was the last clod of dirt on Slott’s run. ASM RIP.
@71″The whole world is scheming against Crawlspace, Fred!!! Rage, Rage!!!”
I don’t hate crawlspace. I give credit for those who did read this, post some page image and their review of it. 🙂 That takes time. Just this was wow a really bad comic in storyline, but great in art.
@#72
Ughhh… folks, a little advice. if you call it a night but leave a chat window open, and find out later that you didn’t post an immediate response before you fell asleep, don’t bother. Cause you don’t know how many posts were made before you refresh your browser.
… which was WHAT exactly?
And who’s picking fights?
The whole world is scheming against Crawlspace, Fred!!! Rage, Rage!!!
Anyway, you were funny. Good night to you too.
Hopefully, the tenor can change a bit after today’s nonsense above. Brad’s a decent guy. I’d imagine he’d appreciate it.
SW
“Heh. I don’t think you’re angry enough yet.”
In other words Steve, you can’t back up you baseless accusations. No surprise here, i expected that from you.
“I’ll just stand by what I say.”
What other choice do you have? Baseless accusations is your signature:)
Have a good night Steve.
Heh. I don’t think you’re angry enough yet.
I’ll just stand by what I say.
SW
“You’re sort of making my point here’
What point are you making here Steve? You’re the only one bringing up what was linked and trying to pin it on this site. Notice that no one here took the stance that was in that blog and notice that it was only brought up by you. If you went to that blog, you would have notice that there is also a warning about its content before you entered. If you got offended by it, even with its warning, then whose at fault here? This site, which did not even addresses what was in it or you, trying to pin what was written to this site?
A question is not an accusation.
You’re sort of making my point here.
SW
“I can understand why the two of you would want to change the subject”
What subject did we try to change Steve? You mean the baseless accusations you throw at this site because you can’t stand the fact that we have open and honest opinions that we discuss in a respectful way? The fact that you are trying to blame this site over what someone wrote on their personal blog proves in spades that you have an personal agenda to bash this site.
“and try and start fights.”
So we are the ones who are trying to start fights with you now? This coming from a person who attacked Gerard after he gave a positive review to one of your books.
You are laying that victim act kind of thick don’t you say Steve?
“Is it safe to say you’d both agree with the sentiments linked to above?’
Did i say i agreed with what was linked? Another baseless accusation Steve? What a shock.
I can understand why the two of you would want to change the subject and try and start fights.
Is it safe to say you’d both agree with the sentiments linked to above?
SW
“There’s some pretty vile stuff being said at least tangentially connected to this message board and linked to often. ”
Steve, if you are trying to pin what others say on their own blogs to this web site, it shows how desperate you are in trying to bash this site.
You think I’m only talking about THIS book? You want an example? Okay… SHED.
In other news, someone quoted you over at Bleeding Cool…
“Stephen Wacker Got some angry letters today from people mad at Marvel about what we did to Superman.”
This actually made me laugh, and I want to apologize for their lack of knowledge of the character…
Where did I defend the book?
There’s some pretty vile stuff being said at least tangentially connected to this message board and linked to often. Considering how blisteringly upset and rageful some of you get when Brevoort says something benign like “Spidey should be young”, it’s a pretty blatant double standard. I’d imagine It’s got to be a wee bit embarrassing to your big kahuna.
Again, we’re making comics, fellas, not throwing them at you.
SW
@Daniel
What’d I tell you?
@#60
And is it so different from those getting so defensive to the point of obsession for something like a comic book? I mean The freaking editor or whatever the hell he is has nothing better to do than come here and defend the book. You guys say that if we dislike the book this much, stop buying it. Maybe if you dislike these reviews, you should stop reading them.
As for the last part… you mean FOR ONCE? Well, let’s just kick back and see how long THIS lasts… AND NO BAITING HIM.
Mr. Wacker is right in this instance. K-Box, I’m sorry, I know this is a free country and all that and you have a right to your opinion, but I truly don’t understand how somebody can get so worked up to the point of hatred for something like a comic book, as that’s the impression I get from your review. If ASM offends you as much as you claim (and I’m not saying I disagree with your reasons), then simply stop buying it. That’s what I did and I personally have had no inkling to even consider spending another dollar on ASM with the direction it’s taken over the past two years.
And kudos to Mr Wacker for sharing his concern about K-Box’s review without resorting to name calling, sarcasm, or trolling. See, when you take the high road, it gets noticed! 🙂
I agree with 32, except for the liking the beastie boys thing. and Im not going to say the reviw wasnt valid. I dont agree with it, but it was a well written and thought out review
I think the art is the only thing redeemable. Thanks for taking the time to review this. 🙂
I haven’t picked up my comics this week so I haven’t read this issue yet. But by reading the review and looking at the rating, I have to respectfully disagree with you Gerard. I can’t say much until I’ve read the issue myself tomorrow so until then I’ll reserve my comments.
Paranoid fiction Steve? Are you really going with that?
Once again…Care to explain the supposedly dangerous stuff?
Fred, youre speaking paranoid fiction. I’ve actually given one of the mods here career advice in the past and have said many nice things. You’re believing in ghosts.
SW
“Regardless of whether or not you like the comic, some of you are venturing into self parody with your anger..”
Wow, this coming from a person who attacks Gerard and this site regularly because of reviews and opinions you don’t like?
Care to explain the supposedly dangerous stuff?
Having just read the review linked to above…do the mods here really stand by this stuff? There’s some shamefully dangerous talk there that I presume the guy who posted the review agrees with.
Maybe tone it down a bit? Were just making comics here, fellas.
SW
Regardless of whether or not you like the comic, some of you are venturing into self parody with your anger.
Sw
OK…my respect for Carlie (yes, I did respect her for being a member of law enforcement and having some semblance of brains) just dropped to zero. Here’s hoping that A: Slott realizes what an epic fail this is and pairs Peter and MJ up again, or B: within the next year or so, Hickman takes full reign of ASM.
Since neither of those options are likely to happen, I’ll just drop ASM. Gerard, you are a braver soul than I.