Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "What is taters?"

Username: 
Password:    
Remember Me
  • Create Account
  • IJ Login
  • OpenID Login
Search by : 
  • View
    • Create Account
    • IJ Login
    • OpenID Login
  • Journal
    • Post
    • Edit Entries
    • Customize Journal
    • Comment Settings
    • Recent Comments
    • Manage Tags
  • Account
    • Manage Account
    • Viewing Options
    • Manage Profile
    • Manage Notifications
    • Manage Pictures
    • Manage Schools
    • Account Status
  • Friends
    • Edit Friends
    • Edit Custom Groups
    • Friends Filter
    • Nudge Friends
    • Invite
    • Create RSS Feed
  • Asylums
    • Post
    • Asylum Invitations
    • Manage Asylums
    • Create Asylum
  • Site
    • Support
    • Upgrade Account
    • FAQs
    • Search By Location
    • Search By Interest
    • Search Randomly

box_in_the_box ([info]box_in_the_box) wrote in [info]scans_daily,
@ 2009-09-16 12:46:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:char: michelle gonzales, char: spider-man/peter parker, creator: fred van lente, publisher: marvel comics, title: amazing spider-man

NuSpidey spoilers: The moment of truth has arrived ...
... And, OH, how I am going to SAVOR this moment. :)

So, here we are, Wednesday at last, and Amazing Spider-Man #605 is finally on the stands.

Amazing Spider-Man writer Fred Van Lente told us that Amazing Spider-Man #605 "makes it clear that Michelle and Chameleon did nothing more than make out in the kitchen scene" in Amazing Spider-Man #603, in which "[t]here was no sex" between the two characters.

Spider-Man editor Steve Wacker told us that, in Amazing Spider-Man #605, "we'll come to find out the truth" about whether the Chameleon and Michelle had sex in Amazing Spider-Man #603, and he added that "Michelle isn't as 'easy' as some readers seem to think."

With all that being said, what ACTUALLY APPEARED on the printed pages of Amazing Spider-Man #605 this week?

The following two pages are pages 30 and 31 of the story in this issue (not counting the five pages of ads before these two pages).

In the pages leading up to these two pages, Peter Parker and Harry Osborn are attending a fashion show hosted by Mary Jane Watson, with two of Peter's cousins in tow, when Peter receives a phone message saying, "Peter Parker, your girlfriend Michelle wants you to call her immediately."

This state of affairs has been going on long enough that, before he even answers his phone, one of Peter's cousins asks him if it's "that girl Michelle, who keeps texting you and calling you and emailing you and IM'ing you all the time?"

Peter tells his cousin, "Michelle is just the pitbull who sleeps down the hall from me," and follows it up by saying, "She is not -- nor will she ever be -- my girlfriend."

A few pages later, when Peter returns from the fashion show to the apartment that he shares with Michelle, this is the scene that ensues:




And THAT'S IT, folks. That was the BEGINNING and the END of ANY further on-panel discussion of THAT topic.

Michelle said that she had "swapped spit" with the Chameleon back in Amazing Spider-Man #603, and Peter said that she had been "making out" with the Chameleon in that same issue. By the same token, Michelle said that what she and Peter did in Amazing Spider-Man #601 was "hook up," even though Marvel assistant editor Tom Brennan said of Peter and Michelle's liaison in that issue that "what you think happened is pretty much what happened."

THIS was what Van Lente said "makes it clear" that "[t]here was no sex" between the Chameleon and Michelle? THIS was what Wacker said would reveal "the truth" about whether the Chameleon had sex with Michelle?

Considering that the scene between Peter and Michelle, which Marvel DOES want us to see as proof that those two characters had sex, and the scene between the Chameleon and Michelle, which Marvel DOESN'T want us to see as proof that those two characters had sex, were BOTH described in EQUALLY G-rated terms in the SAME SCENE, on the SAME PAGE even, I say that THIS "PROVES" NOTHING.

I predicted that any references to the scene between the Chameleon and Michelle would NOT rule out the possibility that they'd had sex, but would instead simply offer PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY, and guess what? I WAS RIGHT.

But, hey, maybe I'm being too harsh ... after all, whether or not we accept that sex (and therefore RAPE) even took place, Van Lente STILL said that the Chameleon did "a horrible, evil, reprehensible thing" to Michelle, so let's take Marvel at its word, and judge the appropriateness of this scene by THAT standard, by seeing how much it matches up to the other predictions that I made:

  • Did Peter NOT tell Michelle the truth right away? YES!


  • Did Peter NOT tell Michelle the truth out of any vestige of concern or respect for her? YES!


  • Did Peter ONLY tell Michelle the truth out of a selfish, frustrated desire to get her off of his back as his "girlfriend?" YES!


  • Did Peter tell Michelle the truth in such an implausible-sounding fashion that she refused to believe him, even though it would have been very easy for him to tell her the truth in a way that was both believable and didn't blow his secret identity as Spider-Man? YES!


  • In spite of Van Lente saying that the Chameleon did "a horrible, evil, reprehensible thing" to Michelle, did Peter show any signs of feeling angry or guilty or otherwise upset over the fact that one of his arch-enemies had sexually manipulated a woman that Peter himself is close to? NO!


  • Did this issue portray Michelle's VIOLATION (which Van Lente should certainly agree that this STILL qualifies as, if he's going to go so far as to deem it "a horrible, evil, reprehensible thing") in anything OTHER than an intentionally humorous light? NO!


  • Was I wrong about ANY of my predictions for this issue? YES, actually:

    • Peter being tempted to commit incest with his female cousins was admittedly a long-shot, but then again, a) they've already acknowledged his attraction to them in previous issues, and b) this is the same company that publishes the one-handed fanfic of Mark Millar and Jeph Loeb, so I don't think ANYTHING can be declared off the table at this point.


    • On the other hand, I thought there was a reasonably good chance that they would go with the easy out of making Peter and Harry roommates again, and emphasizing how YOUNG they both are, by putting them under the same roof as their surrogate parents, plus a trio of hot babes.


    • What REALLY surprised me, though, was that, even after his behavior drove Michelle into violent rages TWICE in this same story arc, in both instances because she felt like Peter had grievously disrespected her after shared moments of sexual intimacy, SHE'S STILL LETTING HIM STAY AT HER PLACE (because, let's not forget, it is HER place, since SHE'S the one who pays the rent). I mean, WHY??? Between this and her post-Chameleon clingy control-freak behavior, it actually makes Michelle's character look WORSE, because she comes across as either bipolar or else totally lacking in self-respect. But then again, all that she needed to get over her mad the FIRST time was for (the Chameleon disguised as) Peter to KISS her, so once again, the diagnosis goes back to being that THE BITCH JUST NEEDS SOME HOT DICKINGS AMIRITE???
So, in conclusion, let me just say ...



I WIN I WIN I WIN I DON'T LOSE I WIN


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]cleome45
2009-09-16 07:59 pm UTC (link)
She's supposed to be a successful lawyer? Successful anything? Does not compute.

Her character makes no sense at all. It's like they're using some form of emotional Random Shuffle.

Do the people that peddle this stuff actually know any flesh-and-blood women?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]majingojira, 2009-09-16 08:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lynxara, 2009-09-16 10:35 pm UTC

[info]bluefall
2009-09-16 08:09 pm UTC (link)
The fail is really just... epic.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cmdr_zoom, 2009-09-17 02:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]magus_69, 2009-09-17 04:50 am UTC

[info]heat16
2009-09-16 08:18 pm UTC (link)
It's a god thing Marvel got rid of Mary-Jane, so Peter could hook up with such interesting characters like this Michelle...

God shit me.

(Reply to this)


[info]jaybee3
2009-09-16 08:20 pm UTC (link)
This so full of fail I can't comment on it. You pretty much said everything.

Except two things:
1) Along with toddlers (see Richards, Valeria) it seems Marvel's artists can't seem to draw Latino women. This is the third scan of Michelle we've seen this week and in each one she looks like a completely different woman (compare to consistently drawn characterizations of MJ, Gwen, Harry, Peter or even Aunt May). That tell me all I need to know of what Editorial (whose job it is to keep the books consistent with one another) think of the character.

2) I hate the fact that MJ is even in this book. Marvel knows that even if there is no "marriage" there is no earthly reason why MJ and Peter can't be together as BF/GF, other than because Queseda says so. She's only around now (it seems to me) into tempting readers into believing that the writers MAY get them back together (in some form) when they have intention of doing so.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]digital_femme, 2009-09-16 08:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_mondegreen, 2009-09-16 10:00 pm UTC

[info]yaseen101
2009-09-16 08:27 pm UTC (link)
In a way this actually makes me happy, that Marvel is finally getting crap from all over for their fucked up decisions. About time.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2009-09-16 08:27 pm UTC (link)
And to think NONE of this would have happened if they had only remembered that Peter Parker does not drink alcohol. Not EVER. Because he knows how irresponsible it would be for him to get even a little drunk, given his spider-strength and all. Something he would have known not to do ever since his Uncle Ben died. He just can't take the chance of what could happen as a result. People could die from it.

(Reply to this)


[info]thandrak
2009-09-16 08:30 pm UTC (link)
Who is this woman, and why is she named Michelle? Is she fraternal triplets or something?

(Reply to this)


[info]hybrid2
2009-09-16 08:32 pm UTC (link)
Was'nt she black?

(Reply to this)


[info]gargoylekitty
2009-09-16 08:32 pm UTC (link)
Ugh.

(Reply to this)


[info]stig
2009-09-16 08:47 pm UTC (link)
Michelle, honey...have you ever felt that you're just dating men because you're supposed to?

I kid, I kid. I am really and truly appalled with the state of this character and franchise - I have a sneaking suspicion that Tim Buckley has been given permission to ghostwrite the entire series on thecondition that none of the characters ever decide to worship video games. The "She Is Kind Of Hot" comment is just insult to injury.

And there's also that nagging question...if she is that good-looking...and all Dmitri did was make out with her...why not just give her a chance? She seems prettty nice when she's not angry about having been tricked into sex...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]greenmask, 2009-09-16 09:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-09-17 12:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenmask, 2009-09-17 07:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 07:43 pm UTC

[info]khamelea
2009-09-16 08:50 pm UTC (link)
As I said before I don't think that The Chameleon (no relation) and Michelle having sex or not affects very little of the huge coating of wrong that is this storyline, as I perceive it; but I think that the OP is wrong on the question of G-Rated terms. I think it's pretty clear from these pages that "hook up" is supposed to stand in for "casual sex" and "swapping spit" and "making out" for... well, "making out." Maybe my grasp of english has slipped even further, but there is a distinction there.

However the rest is really ucksome, and pretty much in line with what came before.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]toasty_fresh, 2009-09-16 09:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]arysteia.livejournal.com, 2009-09-16 09:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-16 10:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-16 11:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-16 11:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-16 11:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-16 11:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]groosealoose, 2009-09-16 11:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-16 11:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-16 11:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-16 11:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]groosealoose, 2009-09-16 11:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-16 11:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]groosealoose, 2009-09-16 11:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-16 11:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]groosealoose, 2009-09-16 11:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-16 11:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]groosealoose, 2009-09-16 11:43 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-16 11:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-17 12:01 am UTC
look at me I am tobi lukefisher - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-17 12:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 12:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-17 12:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 12:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-17 12:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 12:27 am UTC
You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]schmevil, 2009-09-17 08:43 pm UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]xdoop, 2009-09-18 12:38 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 08:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daso, 2009-09-17 08:19 pm UTC
You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]schmevil, 2009-09-17 08:41 pm UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]groosealoose, 2009-09-17 08:59 pm UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]schmevil, 2009-09-18 02:25 am UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]schmevil, 2009-09-18 02:26 am UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]shanealt, 2009-09-17 10:44 pm UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]kijikun, 2009-09-17 10:58 pm UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]shanealt, 2009-09-18 12:10 am UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]kijikun, 2009-09-18 12:13 am UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]shanealt, 2009-09-18 12:18 am UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]kijikun, 2009-09-18 12:23 am UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]shanealt, 2009-09-18 12:26 am UTC
Re: You have now been banned from Scans Daily. - [info]va1tyr, 2009-09-18 12:18 pm UTC
Mod Note - [info]sandoz_iscariot, 2009-09-17 12:32 am UTC
Mod Reply - [info]sandoz_iscariot, 2009-09-17 12:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]icon_uk, 2009-09-16 11:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]va1tyr, 2009-09-17 11:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]icon_uk, 2009-09-17 12:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]va1tyr, 2009-09-17 01:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bj_l, 2009-09-17 12:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 12:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bj_l, 2009-09-17 12:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 12:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bj_l, 2009-09-17 12:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 12:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bj_l, 2009-09-17 12:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bj_l, 2009-09-17 12:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 12:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-09-17 01:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]toasty_fresh, 2009-09-17 12:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bj_l, 2009-09-17 12:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]toasty_fresh, 2009-09-17 12:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-09-17 02:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 02:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-09-17 02:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]groosealoose, 2009-09-16 11:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-09-17 02:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-09-17 05:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]groosealoose, 2009-09-17 08:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-09-17 08:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]groosealoose, 2009-09-17 09:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-09-17 09:15 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2009-09-16 08:55 pm UTC (link)
Box-in-the-Box said: "What REALLY surprised me, though, was that, even after his behavior drove Michelle into violent rages TWICE in this same story arc, in both instances because she felt like Peter had grievously disrespected her after shared moments of sexual intimacy, SHE'S STILL LETTING HIM STAY AT HER PLACE (because, let's not forget, it is HER place, since SHE'S the one who pays the rent). I mean, WHY??? Between this and her post-Chameleon clingy control-freak behavior, it actually makes Michelle's character look WORSE, because she comes across as either bipolar or else totally lacking in self-respect. But then again, all that she needed to get over her mad the FIRST time was for (the Chameleon disguised as) Peter to KISS her, so once again, the diagnosis goes back to being that THE BITCH JUST NEEDS SOME HOT DICKINGS AMIRITE???"

THIS. I mean, I thought last week she came across as over-the-top, immature, and insane but letting the guy who she's had TWO embarrassing sexually related moments occur (THREE if you count her running into him naked the first time they met) is just beyond me. And Steve Wacker honestly wants us to think she's "an intelligent match for Peter"?!

BTW, K-Box, what was your reaction to the flashback which hinted at how Peter and MJ possibly broke-up?

--stillanerd

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-16 10:35 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2009-09-16 08:59 pm UTC (link)
Scans_Daily.

Gets shit done.

(Reply to this)


[info]skalja
2009-09-16 09:07 pm UTC (link)
I see they've added "woman-on-man violence = comedy!" to the mix of horrendous, insultingly stereotypical tropes.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]salad_barbarian, 2009-09-17 12:30 am UTC

[info]greenmask
2009-09-16 09:15 pm UTC (link)
On top of all the other crappy "characterisation", she's someone who sinks to the kitchen floor to just kiss.

Now that's weird. It's neither comfy nor trope- sexy nor satisfying. I mean.. afterwards, what? You part lips and.. get up awkwardly off of the floor with a crick in your back and aching elbows and bang your head on the table and then make a sammich?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-09-16 09:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenmask, 2009-09-16 10:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenmask, 2009-09-16 11:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ashtoreth, 2009-09-17 04:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]schmevil, 2009-09-17 08:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_mondegreen, 2009-09-16 10:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-09-17 02:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 02:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-09-17 02:17 am UTC

[info]greenmask
2009-09-16 09:21 pm UTC (link)
And where did he get cousins anyway?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-16 09:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenmask, 2009-09-16 09:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-09-16 09:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-16 11:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ashtoreth, 2009-09-17 04:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]refraction.livejournal.com, 2009-09-17 06:47 am UTC

[info]toasty_fresh
2009-09-16 09:28 pm UTC (link)
WAT

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-17 12:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]scottyquick, 2009-09-17 03:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]toasty_fresh, 2009-09-17 03:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]scottyquick, 2009-09-17 04:03 am UTC
Wow....
(Anonymous)
2009-09-16 09:54 pm UTC (link)
...what a loser.

(Reply to this)

Special Award
[info]jeyl
2009-09-16 09:57 pm UTC (link)
Hehehahaha. Swapped spit...lol. Oh my god. Who talks like that? This is without a doubt the lamest attempt to cover up a topic after figuring out they were stepping into dumb territory. It didn't work.

To everyone who worked on this and treated us like we don't know jack, Freelance or Marvel, I present you with this award.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h0rSTRrQeQ

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Special Award - [info]greenmask, 2009-09-16 10:28 pm UTC
Mod note - [info]skalja, 2009-09-17 11:00 am UTC
Re: Mod note - [info]jeyl, 2009-09-17 04:26 pm UTC
Re: Mod note - [info]skalja, 2009-09-17 06:51 pm UTC

[info]cyberghostface
2009-09-16 10:17 pm UTC (link)
Wouldn't the Chameleon terrorist attack be on the news? It was a fairly public event. And Christ, in a universe where just recently aliens were impersonating numerous people for extended periods of time, is it so hard to believe that someone could impersonate someone else?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]greenmask, 2009-09-16 10:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-17 12:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ashtoreth, 2009-09-17 04:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]idreading, 2009-09-17 03:04 am UTC

[info]ametatsu
2009-09-16 10:36 pm UTC (link)
I think I'm going to go back to hiding out in the back of the secondhand bookshop, where there is no recent Spiderman yet.

(Reply to this)


[info]nagaoka
2009-09-16 10:38 pm UTC (link)
This is just....uuughh... Okay, so wait. They're saying they just made out on the floor and that was it. So that means they then stripped and threw their clothes around the bedroom to....go to sleep? Actual sleep? Then when Michelle woke and Peter was like "omg did we..." Michelle got angry because "YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT WE KISSED IN THE KITCHEN I HATE YOU!" Am I missing something here?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]newnumber6, 2009-09-16 11:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-16 11:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nagaoka, 2009-09-16 11:19 pm UTC

[info]aaron_bourque
2009-09-16 10:49 pm UTC (link)
She is pretty hot though.

What. What the goddamn it.

This is fucking not Peter fucking Parker. Oh, man. The only way. THE ONLY GODDAMN WAY this can be marginally salvaged? Is to drop the Brand New Day bullshit, say that Mephisto took more than Pete's marriage, he took his fucking maturity, and half his damn brains, and that Brand New Day's status quo was all an "It's A Wonderful Life" scenario to show how broken Pete is without his maturity and brains and WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFE.

Shit crackers.

Or to completely ignore it. Like I'm fucking doing now.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]psychosesman, 2009-09-17 12:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ashtoreth, 2009-09-17 04:41 am UTC

[info]xdoop
2009-09-16 11:02 pm UTC (link)
Animated Gifs

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]roguefankc, 2009-09-16 11:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-09-17 12:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]xdoop, 2009-09-17 12:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-09-17 01:10 am UTC
Does this appeal to anyone?
[info]roguefankc
2009-09-16 11:03 pm UTC (link)
I'm just curious, but after this issue...

Are there really people who like where Peter Parker is heading character-wise?

Are there really fans buying this comic?

If so, I guess I can take a tiny bit of solace that at the very least, Marvel is making some money off this plot/storyline.

Just a tiny bit.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Does this appeal to anyone? - [info]ashtoreth, 2009-09-17 04:46 am UTC
Re: Does this appeal to anyone? - [info]mugiwara, 2009-09-17 01:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 03:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mugiwara, 2009-09-17 05:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-17 05:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mugiwara, 2009-09-17 10:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-09-18 01:22 am UTC


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>


Home | Site Map | Manage Account | TOS | Privacy | Support | FAQs