([identity profile] wrote in [community profile] scans_daily2009-08-14 12:59 pm

Amazing Spider-man 603,

Wow, Is Marvel trying hard to make us not miss or like Mj because this is the most ugliest Mj I ever scene. I hope this is a zombie variant because it sure does look like one. I guess this too suffer from inconsistent art, well Michelle looks like Eliza Maza here.
Type your cut contents here.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 05:08 pm (UTC)(link)
That is a REALLY ugly cover.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 07:29 pm (UTC)(link)
And a really nasty scene, too. (

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 05:10 pm (UTC)(link)
That's not MJ, that's Alfred E. Neuman in drag.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 05:22 pm (UTC)(link)

That was my first thought too!

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 07:24 pm (UTC)(link)

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 19:33 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 05:20 pm (UTC)(link)

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 05:25 pm (UTC)(link)
It could, you know, just be a bad cover. I mean thecover of MJ in issue 602 was really stunning, every character can look bad with a bad artist.

And before anyone flips on Pete making out with his roommate, that's not Pete, that's Chameleon.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 05:31 pm (UTC)(link)
You're no fun, Max. Let the blind hate flow.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-08-14 19:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-15 04:32 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 05:30 pm (UTC)(link)
Pretty ugly cover, but the conspiracy nuts really start to get on my nerves here.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 07:32 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm actually entirely indifferent to the cover, but the scene that follows is deeply ugly (

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 05:37 pm (UTC)(link)
The "make up your mind" bit was funny (but then, VL can always be counted on for good lines).

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 07:34 pm (UTC)(link)
The problem is, it's funny precisely because it illustrates what's wrong with this status quo - we're told all the time that Peter has this big brain, but especially in the current status quo, he's not allowed to USE it, because that would ruin the Silver Age nostalgics' desire to see him working at the exact same unskilled entry-level job that he held as a teenager.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 05:41 pm (UTC)(link)
Ann Coulter?

Sorry if this sounds snarky but...

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 05:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Is there any point posting the full preview here? When it was already up at Newsarama?..I mean if you just wanted to bitch about the depiction of MJ on the front, why not just post the cover?

And that way maybe if anything interesting actually happens in the rest of the issue you could post some later pages from it when it comes out...
kingrockwell: he's a sexy (Peter Parker)

[personal profile] kingrockwell 2009-08-14 05:54 pm (UTC)(link)
That cover's just embarrassing, and not made any better by the dress appearing to be shear.
I do think it's a little funny that Chameleon's only been in Pete's life for a few hours, knows everything about it except for the Spidey bit, and agrees with us outright about how fucking pathetic it is.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 05:56 pm (UTC)(link)
Dear God.. Chameleon knows Peter's real power. The women love him!


[identity profile] 2009-08-14 06:49 pm (UTC)(link)
1972 called, it wants it's dress back.

"Oh...Peter...This is bad. ...This is soooo baaad..."

You know, I couldn't agree more.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 07:02 pm (UTC)(link)
It's the Chamleon, not Peter.

And how is this bad at all? It's a villain infiltrating Pete's life, something other comic writers have played with and people here seemed to adore, but I guess since it's BND everything blows ass.

I bet if some writer went to post BND Spidey and wrote a story, a great, compelling amazing, story, that if it appeared in Pre-OMD spidey everyone would fawn over, and it appeared in Post-BND instead, people here would still piss all over it and find flaws in the entire thing simple because UGH BND SUUXOORS.

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 19:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 23:08 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 07:09 pm (UTC)(link)
And once again, Michelle is reduced to the level of a plot-device cipher.

REALLY, Waid? REALLY? Peter says some incredibly insensitive things to her, and she's so spitting-nails angry that she's kicking him out, and all he has to do is SMOOCH on her, and she's ready GIVE HER PUSSY UP TO HIM ON THE KITCHEN FLOOR?


The misogyny inherent in this portrayal makes me want to take a SHOWER.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 07:11 pm (UTC)(link)

And honestly, this happens IN COMICS a WHOLE lot. I'VE seen this trope OF the STOP ARGUMENT kiss a lot IN movies AND comics IT'S SORT of a big thing.

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 19:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 19:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-15 04:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-15 05:24 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-15 05:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 23:11 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 23:16 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 19:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 19:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 20:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-08-14 19:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-08-14 20:12 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-08-15 22:05 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 20:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 20:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 20:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-08-14 20:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 20:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 20:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] kingrockwell - 2009-08-15 03:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-15 05:09 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-15 05:30 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-15 07:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-15 08:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-15 16:51 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 07:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Ugh. That dress. Somewhere a motel room is missing a curtain...

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 10:20 pm (UTC)(link)
That is an insult to No-tell motels everywhere.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 08:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Leaving off how godawful MJ's face looks on that cover (that would be way too long a rant), my major bitch about it is how that dress couldn't possibly look less like fabric draped over a body if the colorist tried. The vague and ineffectual attempt at making the pattern follow the folds of the sleeves just makes the central figure look flatter, and it's driving me up the damn wall. It doesn't even manage a 60's block print look, because there's just enough difference in the sleeves to be clear that wasn't what they were going for. Ugh.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 08:48 pm (UTC)(link)
GodDAMNIT. And I had JUST got over my stomach nausea....

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 08:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Ok, they're going for a 60's/70's retro look with that outfit. Speaking as someone who's not really old enough to remember the era, how likely would it have ben to find a dress like that on a rack somewhere?

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 09:00 pm (UTC)(link)
Also too young to have lived it, but I collect dresses from the time period, and the pattern itself isn't that strange (I should take a picture of the one I have that's almost the same shade of green, with a pink and white circle and dot pattern on it). It doesn't keep the dress from being rendered like shit, though.

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 23:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-15 02:13 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 08:58 pm (UTC)(link)
"Other people, well... they're just part of the background."

Onscreen, live fridging. Awesome.

And that's without even counting the shut-up-woman kiss, and the fact that he's impersonating the person she'd agree to have sex with, so it's rape.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 09:29 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, the irony of this being in an actual discussion of a refrigerator makes me facepalm so hard.

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 09:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah, rape. That's exactly the kind of fresh, bold new material that the Spider-Man books needed!

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 09:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Uh...what's the point in padlocking the fridge?

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 09:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Prevents dead girlfriends.

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-14 21:35 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] 2009-08-14 11:43 pm (UTC)(link)
And so when Peter comes back and (of course!) doesn't understand why Michelle is acting differently towards him, he manages to infuriate her once again and ends up getting kicked out for real.

"Hilarity" ensues!

[identity profile] 2009-08-15 12:46 am (UTC)(link)
"Hilarity" ensues!

Marvel Comics, making rape funny since 2009!

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2009-08-15 02:12 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] 2009-08-15 02:25 am (UTC)(link)
The first time I ever saw anything with Chameleon in it was his first appearance in the 90s Spider-Man animated show, where he comicly messed up Peter's attempts to woo MJ; nice to see the tradition of making a mess of Peter's love life continues.