Thursday, January 12, 2006

Marvel Would Like Your Money Now

The new Spider-Man costume's been unveiled over on Marvel's website, and using all the clever contained within my enormous head, I have circumvented their ingenious "Right Click Doesn't Work" anti-theft policy to bring you exactly what makes comics blogging great: snap judgment editorial work disguised as content.

Get excited, it's a magical new era of Spider-Man that may or may not end in his new costume becoming his greatest nemesis. Or Spider-Man Red/Spider-Man Blue. Either or.


kelvingreen said...

I suspect the Red/Blue comparison might be more apt. It's looking like he's going to have another identity crisis as the bestial and human sides of his personality clash.

They won't do an evil costume thing again because of Venom, but they'll happily borrow some old Wolverine/Hulk plots and misapply them to the character.

I've really gone off Marvel now. I'll pop back in a few years to see if the mess has been cleared up. ;)

Scipio said...

I like it.

But that's because it looks more "DC" probably, so what do I know?

Jon said...

I genuinely don't think it's bad, but it's almost certainly not going to stick, and that's what makes it such a transparent marketing ploy. There're millions more people that will see a Spider-Man movie than read a book about a one-eyed, magic-fuel man-spider Spider-Man, so you just know this is a temporary move desperately trying to manufacture controversy.

It's no different than Superman turn all blue and 'lectric, really. That costume wasn't terrible, but you knew it was going away sooner or later because, Jesus, it's Superman. It's like giving Abe Lincoln a new outfit on the five dollar bill.

kelvingreen said...

Scipio's on to something. With the addition of the golden spider legs, there's an element of New Blue Beetle to New Spidey.

Jon said...

I'm really very surprised I haven't seen more bitching about this, though I guess most of the blogs I frequent are DC-centric.

And, by the way, I was kind of drunk when I wrote the above comment. That's the only explanation I can offer for the mistakes contained therein.