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
“Very good news night. (To anyone hating Spidey 659, keep in mind that soon after Carlie got the tattoo, we got Bin Laden. Coincidence?)”
That’s your way of telling us that they’re going to shoot her next, right… right?
People have routinely called for me to be booted from posting editorials on the front page or even not liking me on the podcast. Can’t remember anyone being warned/fired for just voicing that without things like “jackass” or the like tossed around with it.
I *do* defend our folks here when readers say those things or disparage the site. I don’t fault Marvel folks from doing the same and defending their co-workers if someone asks for their ouster.
Mostly the discussions that sprang up on this site dealt with Quesada and not you.
I agree that’s probably a double standard, though no one has to pay to enjoy our product unlike comics or professional sports.
Very good news night. (To anyone hating Spidey 659, keep in mind that soon after Carlie got the tattoo, we got Bin Laden. Coincidence?)
Anyway, I have no problem with you wanting me fired…though it’s not really a criticism in and of itself (which may be salient to your admin conversations you bring up).
I do think it’s an odd tactic in a place so vigilant about anyone criticizing their moderators or even their reviewers. It’s odd to me that you can ask for me to fired, but if I did the same to you on your message board, I believe I’d be banned (or warned or whatever you guys call it).
Or look at how defensive you get when anyone so much as criticizes the guy who wrote this review. It’s a double standard at least.
SW
JESUS! JUST SAW THE NEWS!!! HOLY CRAP & GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
“That doesn’t bother me. I may think it’s silly and I may think the person ill-informed (like when you call Carlie an “editorial mandated girlfriend”), but that’s nothing new. People thought Stan should have been fired back in the day. None of this was created with Joe Quesada.”
Definitely not saying it started with Quesada & Jemas here. Before Quesada I was routinely calling for Bob Harras to get ousted from the EIC spot. One of those “be careful what you wish for” moments on my part.
“I feel the same way with sports talk. I’ve never been a big sports talk radio guy, but for example, there are plenty of people who have wanted Tony LaRussa fired even after 16 years of success with the Cardinals. Know-it-alls are everywhere for sure, I just don’t personally buy that I’m such a genius that I can do everyone else’s job better.”
I figured you’d have an opinion since I’d remembered you’re a big baseball guy. But surely you’ve never wanted anyone replaced on a sports team?
“Now what trap did I just walk into?”
No trap. I was just looking for your input. We’ve had admin discussions about that in the past and I’ve maintained that saying you want someone fired from this or that is a legitimate criticism so long as it’s just about one’s perception of someone’s job performance or style and not also laced with “and they should also get hit by a bus in the babymaker” or whatever.
I’m really surprised at all the personal attacks over what happens in comic books.
Anyway, as an old guy (39) I sure do hope the “zOmg” and “nom nom nom” go away from comic book dialogue. I’m not form the US tho so I don’t know if people really use internet speak in everyday conversation.
And for what its worth, I’m so happy with the news right now, I’d kiss stillanerd if he were here.
SW
That doesn’t bother me. I may think it’s silly and I may think the person ill-informed (like when you call Carlie an “editorial mandated girlfriend”), but that’s nothing new. People thought Stan should have been fired back in the day. None of this was created with Joe Quesada.
I feel the same way with sports talk. I’ve never been a big sports talk radio guy, but for example, there are plenty of people who have wanted Tony LaRussa fired even after 16 years of success with the Cardinals. Know-it-alls are everywhere for sure, I just don’t personally buy that I’m such a genius that I can do everyone else’s job better.
Now what trap did I just walk into?
SW
Yeah but making inaccurate predictions is completely different than saying bad things about someone. I freely admit that yes, lots of people out there do that. But stillanerd’s definitely not one of them. He’s just not an insult guy.
And I’d like your sincere input about something; I’m not asking this in a “gotcha” kind of way or anything and I am not being combative by asking. I’m just curious what your view on this is and it’s something I’ve actually had discussions with Brad about before.
Let’s say you follow a comics character or the company that publishes said title. If someone doesn’t like the direction the book goes and they call for someone to be moved, replaced, let go, etc. because of it… is that a personal insult in your view? And if you do view it as such then is it also a personal insult when someone calls for, say, a manager to get fired from a baseball team? I mean I’m a Cowboys fan and I thought Wade Phillips was an awful coach and I routinely called for him to be fired.
If comic fans do the same with books/companies they like, is that different?
Thatw as too. catty. Sorry, folks, distracted by news.
Once again, i’m aware Gerard was careful only to quote a certain portion of the article, but by the time it was posted, there were already plenty of responses of the nasty nature I’m talking about….all bry the person being quoted. The issue is the judgment in linking to that page…which I believe Brad even agreed with.
I’m not going to do a bunch of stillanerd research becasue it’s all silly and really it’s down to opinion. I’m aware he’s been incredibly judgmental in the past about things that never happened in the book and then failing to admit error when called on it–all under the guise of being a “storytelling expert” or somesuch. The speculation is fun. The self-righteousness and judgment is silly.
But it’s not that important to me, you can have this one because I’m not going to do a bunch of message board research on something I don’t really care that much about. It’s not as if saying someone “sucks” at comic book speculation is on equal footing with saying someone should be “punched” in the mouth or that they’re “evil”
News is great tonight!
SW
I’m curious… did someone ELSE at Marvel say something tasteless and Wacker come over here to deflect all attention to himself again?
Listening to old podcasts, BTW… good stuff.
You win, George. It’s everyone else.
“George…you’re old.”
I’ll be 39 in July so not that… well yeah okay I’m old.
“What I think is egregious and plays to some people’s worst natures here is Gerard both making stuff up (and getting angry when proven wrong) and referring to and linking to some pretty dark sentiments by the person being quoted.”
He quoted a section that 1.) had no insults and 2.) was factually accurate – and cited it with a link.
“Rochester may have been smarter, but being Jack Benny ain’t a bad way to spend the day.”
Well aside from Mary apparently being bat-sh!t crazy!
“Though Stillanerd as has said worse about Dan over the years”
—–
“Nerd, that kind of hostile, borderline violent talk has been going on there for quite awhile and to my knowledge you’ve never said one thing against it. In fact, it seems you’re there quite often backing up his nigh-hysterical points.”
Either stillanerd “said worse about Dan” — or he didn’t. As I said, and as I stand by, in all the years I’ve seen stillanerd post, here and elsewhere, he’s never been anything but civil and respectful to anyone he’s discussing something with – even when someone’s trying to rip him apart like Tough Guy Slott.
@#159
… so in other words, you’re admitting you just can’t do it. Figures. Maybe he should take out a restraining order against you.
Nerd, that kind of hostile, borderline violent talk has been going on there for quite awhile and to my knowledge you’ve never said one thing against it. In fact, it seems you’re there quite often backing up his nigh-hysterical points.
Considering you were also a constant participant if the specific critique that we’re discussing, it’s not a huge leap to believe that you and Gerard (the guy here that linked to it) must be fine with his comments. Again this is ain’t about normal. run-of-the-mill “the Spidey books are worst than ever” type of comments.
If you truly feel those type of hostile, borderline comments are distasteful, I’m sure there will be ample opportunity in the next week or so for you to speak up.
Enigma: You live in Fantasyland. I think that’s why no one’s heeding your calls. If you need to ignore me, I understand.
SW
@156 Stephen Wacker–Well, Steve, it just seemed like you were suggesting that my merely commenting on that review (although technically it was a critique of a scene in the comic, but that’s getting a little too technical) suggested that I, myself, was essentially saying what was being said in that review, as opposed to my not responding to the particular language used in that review and therefore supporting it indirectly.
Now, could what had been said been phrased a different way? Sure. But the main point being raised there and in Gerard’s review on the Carlie Cooper scene is that, given the significance of the Green Goblin tattoo and what it’s been compared to in previous issues, and given Carlie’s decision to get the tattoo, albeit while drunk, given what the tattoo is of and who and what it represents, it’s comes across as very bad scene in the comic and the question is, given what the Green Goblin tattoo represents and what it’s been compared to, why you guys felt it was such a good idea in the first place? Granted, you guys are doing this for the sake of drama and to make things interesting; but at the same time, it’s not just any old tattoo Carlie is apparently getting for “drunken revenge” and, given what it’s been compared to, whether or not it’s sending a particular message to the readers that you folks at Marvel may not have intended to make.
Steve, I would love to see you actually comment positively one one of Gerard’s positive reviews for a change… hell, when was the last time you commented on ANYONE ELSE’S reviews on this site? They do exist, and I’m inclined to think that if you didn’t constantly show up when he posts negative ones, we wouldn’t be where we are now.
Plus I’m sure Gerard wouldn’t mind at all if you just ignored him. Kinda like you just ignore the other reviewers… food for thought.
Nerd,
Holding someone responsible for everything said by anonymous posters at a website would be ridiculous. Thankfully, I’m not doing that.
I’m not talking about random comments from the bleachers. I was talking about very specific comments from a particular person you were supporting who wrote the review linked to above. Please stop trying to claim otherwise.
SW
Steve–As I said on that “other forum,” I don’t necessarily agree with some of the comments that are sometimes made over at K-Box’s LiveJournal…just I don’t necessarily always agree with the comments made on this or any other forum…and just as I am sure you doesn’t always agree with the comments that are made on forums you visit and frequent. I do understand your position and I sympathize, and I will make a better effort to call “a spade a spade” when it’s deserved, just as I am sure you will abide by the same code of conduct. Also, I do not hate Marvel or it’s employees, even though I may question some the editorial and storytelling decisions you make in your comics, such as the whole “Carlie Cooper possibly getting a tattoo of Green Goblin as form of drunken revenge.”
I agree with Liz.
This is all Ms. Brant’s fault.
George…you’re old.
Brad…again justo to be clear… I have no problem with a negative review. I don’t care who reviews or if they like it. I’m not calling for equal time.
What I think is egregious and plays to some people’s worst natures here is Gerard both making stuff up (and getting angry when proven wrong) and referring to and linking to some pretty dark sentiments by the person being quoted.
Rochester may have been smarter, but being Jack Benny ain’t a bad way to spend the day.
SW
Eternally 39
Steve,
We do have two reviewers on the Amazing Spider-Man title on the Crawlspace. We have Gerard and we have Michael Bailey. Bailey’s review is going up today. So there are multiple voices. However no review ever gets 150+ comments
And I see you did chime in with something positive on the recent Betty Brant article. So for that thank you.
And to George, well played sir. LOL.