Amazing Spider-Man #655
Feb. 25th, 2011 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cyberghostface posting in ![[community profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
scans_dailyColor me surprised, as this is the second time in a row that a BND issue was pretty good. I guess my final opinion hinges on how the next issue turns out, but overall, I thought this was a very solid effort in terms of writing and art and definitely one of the better issues of the BND era by far.
Anyway, the issue deals with the aftermath of the fridging of Jonah's wife, Marla. The bulk of it is a dream sequence in which Peter is reminded of all the people who knows who has died during his tenure as Spider-Man. I was actually impressed with the actual continuity here as we see a lot of dead characters from years ago...for example, Nathan Lubensky, Aunt May's former lover is there as well as Charlie, the girl Spidey accidentally killed during the Spider-Man vs Wolverine one-shot. I'd like to post some of these pages, but there's no way I could post just four and get the effect across to you. There's some interesting presentation here, with one two-page spread looking like something out of a M. C. Escher painting.
Basically, it brings up how Spidey doesn't kill people, with his villains chastising him and blaming their victims' deaths on him for not having the courage to kill them.
At the end, Spidey runs into the burglar that killed Uncle Ben. Spider-Man decides to take matters into his own hands, and beats the burglar into a bloody pulp, when...
The issue ends, however, with a hostage situation in which a new villain kills one of his hostages before the police even have time to negotiate. He says that he has he has no regard for human life, and if they don't do everything he says, they're going to have a massacre on their hands (he puts emphasis on the word 'massacre', so I'm guessing that's his name).
So basically, and what's gotten the internet riled up, is that a lot of people are saying that this issue is leading up to Spidey breaking his "no-kill rule" and that he is going to kill this guy next issue. I personally don't think it'll get that far, but if it did, what would you think?
Anyway, the issue deals with the aftermath of the fridging of Jonah's wife, Marla. The bulk of it is a dream sequence in which Peter is reminded of all the people who knows who has died during his tenure as Spider-Man. I was actually impressed with the actual continuity here as we see a lot of dead characters from years ago...for example, Nathan Lubensky, Aunt May's former lover is there as well as Charlie, the girl Spidey accidentally killed during the Spider-Man vs Wolverine one-shot. I'd like to post some of these pages, but there's no way I could post just four and get the effect across to you. There's some interesting presentation here, with one two-page spread looking like something out of a M. C. Escher painting.
Basically, it brings up how Spidey doesn't kill people, with his villains chastising him and blaming their victims' deaths on him for not having the courage to kill them.
At the end, Spidey runs into the burglar that killed Uncle Ben. Spider-Man decides to take matters into his own hands, and beats the burglar into a bloody pulp, when...
The issue ends, however, with a hostage situation in which a new villain kills one of his hostages before the police even have time to negotiate. He says that he has he has no regard for human life, and if they don't do everything he says, they're going to have a massacre on their hands (he puts emphasis on the word 'massacre', so I'm guessing that's his name).
So basically, and what's gotten the internet riled up, is that a lot of people are saying that this issue is leading up to Spidey breaking his "no-kill rule" and that he is going to kill this guy next issue. I personally don't think it'll get that far, but if it did, what would you think?
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 06:38 pm (UTC)I don't really have an issue with the No-Kill rule, i think some time its called for. Not rage killing, not revenge killing, not killing when there is a viable alternative, but killing when there is no other course. now, i can understand one reason for not killing being "The Public would not trust us anymore" but sometimes you know, killing is the only option.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 06:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 06:48 pm (UTC)