Talk:Spider-Man: The Other

Condensation

I think the four issues in each act should be condensed into one summary, as opposed to "In issue 1, this happened. In issue, 2, this happened. Ect ect" --DrBat 12:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Other

I think there should be a character reference of 'The Other' the pirate spiders that now operate Peter's old skin, or maybe a new page.

Good idea, but perhaps we should put that off until the Other comes back onto the scene? As of right now we know little about it. All that's really known is that it's everything that Spider-Man isn't, and so that really isn't enough information to require an entire section. Not yet, atleast. --Venomaru 21:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Misinterpretation

Sigh. Why is my "Misinterpretation" section being edited to say that Spider-Man's powers are mystical in origin? They are NOT mystical in origin, he was bitten by a RADIOACTIVE SPIDER. It's true Peter, like everyone in the Marvel universe, is connected to a higher power(s), but his powers don't come from a magical spell, or a potion, or anything mystical like that. They come from a spider that was imbued with radiation, and that punctured Peter's skin allowing irradiated spider venom to mix with his blood.

While I happen to love the JMS-era Spider-Man stories...the point of them was not to suggest that his origin was somehow different than it was. The entire topic is one of a philosophical nature, stemming from a question asked by Ezekiel. Is there a great weaver? Perhaps. Is SPIDER-man connected to said deity? Probably, but all things spider-related are. Did this spider-god give him his powers? NO, IT DID NOT! Radiation is what gave him his unique abilities. So, to summarize: Did a mystical situation give him his abilities? No. Did a "higher power" set those events in motion? It's very possible, seeing as most events in the Marvel Universe are connected to higher powers are some point (EXAMPLE: The original Avengers were formed because of Loki). Bottom line: The higher powers business is still only one philosophical possibility presented by Ezekiel.

I've read the JMS era Amazing Spider-Man issues multiple times (It's one of my favorite Spidey eras), as well as "The Other" storyline (Which by the way, is even better as a whole, as opposed to single issues month-by-month)...and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Spider-Man's powers ARE. NOT. MYSTICAL. Marvel and it's respective writers, have gone on record time and time again say that this is in no way a retcon of his scientific origin. --Venomaru 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• About that, some sarcastic morons keep trying to vandalise this page. Jack Cain 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Tsk, what a shame, the whole reason I started that section was because people kept misinterpreting the intent of the story, many without even reading it. It was seriously damaging the spidey fandom, many were writing it off before even reading it because of the misinformation circling the internet. Well, anyway, if those sarcastic morons do it again... we can just continue restoring it to it's proper form. I have no problem with helpful edits, such as typos being corrected, or slimming down a bloated topic (I have a tendency to ramble), but changing the entire purpose of the section is just plain wrong. --Venomaru 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Red flag

Red flag time - someone's trying to stir up trouble for here elsewhere: http://www.comicboards.com/smb/view.php?trd=060309205027 - SoM 22:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because the Misinterpretation section is, by definition, POV and should be removed. Jgp 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And I think fans were angry with the idea that Spider-Man was 'destined' to be bitten as part of a larger plan, as opposed to it being an accident. I do agree, though; it should be removed, or at least modified.--DrBat 23:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Im going to say Modify, like, can we get more solid, official information regarding the topic? Jack Cain 01:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not POV. It's solid fact. In the section I covered that Peter gaining his powers MAY have been governed by a larger force (I have no problem with the idea), what the person who keeps modifying it is saying is that it WAS governed by such a force, and that Spider-Man's powers are magical. But they are not, radiation is not a magical force. So yes, I covered the possibility that his powers may be connected to something bigger than him, but they did not originate from a magical source. --Venomaru 01:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A story can have multiple interpretations. Stating that one interpretation is wrong is POV by definition (note: since I've replied to your paragraphs individually, I have copied over your signature). Jgp 02:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm extremely tired of people bashing Spider-Man in the modern era due to them thinking the writers retconned his origin into being mystical. JMS has gone on record MANY times as saying that his origin IS NOT MYSTICAL. The question Ezekiel posed in JMS's Ezekiel saga was along the lines of "What if the spider knew it was dying and passed it's abilities on to a worthy person", and NOT "What if spider-man is some sort of magical being". --Venomaru 01:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you are tired of fans having a certain opinion on the stories should have no bearing on the contents of articles on Wikipedia. Also, if "the spider knew it was dying and passed [its] abilities on to a worthy person", that is magic. You've just contradicted yourself. Furthermore, writers have deliberately lied in the past in order to trick readers into thinking a story will end differently. I'm not saying that JMS is lying, but we have no way of proving that his explanation is true either. If it's not in the issues themselves, it's not canon. Jgp 02:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, he asked the question WHAT IF the spider did that. It was a philosophical question, not FACT. I have no problem with it either way, but spider-mans powers are still scientific and whoever keeps re-writing the section is saying that his powers are 100% magical. --Venomaru 02:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I posted this on that comicboard forum:

"It was I who created the topic, because of the facts. JMS has gone on record to say that Spidey's powers are not mystical, and that these stories he's been writing are an extension of the character, not a retcon of the origin. In the section I cover the fact that Peter becoming Spider-man may have been governed by a higher power, but his powers are NOT mystical. The powers MAY be linked to a higher power (In the same way that all spiders are linked the Anansi), but his origin still comes from being infected by a spider's radioactive venom.

I'm tired of people bashing Spider-Man because they don't have all the facts. They take one look at the premise of the other and say "Spider-Man's been retconned to being mystical!?" and they write him off. How can anyone believe that his powers come from magic? It was RADIATION, not a magic potion. The very fact that JMS has said they're not messing with the origin, just telling new stories in the present.

For the record I absolutely love the JMS era spidey (It's probably my favorite era). And I'd be willing to reach a compromise, as I didn't mean to cause any conflict."

As I said, I don't mean to cause any conflict, I just want people to get the right idea. Perhaps a "Disputed" section, instead? --Venomaru 02:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed section

What with the recent conflict with my "Misinterpretation" section, I instead suggest a "Disputed" section, one that covers both sides of the argument. Neither of which are fact according to some, and are apparently points of view (I disagree, but in the end, I don't want to fight over it). So, as of right now, I wash my hands of the entire fiasco. I only meant to bring order to the chaos, to stop the blatant hate towards spidey that has been perpetuated by what I consider to be misinformation. As I said though, I'm done, do what you like. My last contribution to this topic will be suggesting the "Disputed" section.

--Venomaru 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What If?

There's gonna be a 'What I' about this Arc later this month. It's shown here. Anyone want to add it?

Done and done. I'll be back to update it in a few days or so. SaliereTheFish 10:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Tracer

The article seems to imply that Tracer escapes, but having read the comics a few times now, I don't see anything of the sort. The last that I recall seeing of him was his body (reduced to a metallic form) laying on the ground. Did I miss something later on? Xiphe 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Strength levels

How much stronger is Spidey now? Could he, like, take on Venom easily now, or what? Bluecatcinema 13:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SMCW.jpg

Image:SMCW.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One More Day repercussions

Due to the 'retcon' that was Spider-Man: One More Day, did the events of Spider-Man: The Other occur? Or were the nixed? --Dr Archeville (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its been stated that its been retconned.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MKSM019cov.jpg

Image:MKSM019cov.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

The fair use of image:MKSM019cov.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:
• Significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase, or its lack would significantly hinder, understanding the topic of the article. Full policy
• Photo galleries: Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo gallery. Full guideline

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

The issue with MKSM019cov.jpg has been addressed.

The fair use of image:ASM526 COV.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:
• Significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase, or its lack would significantly hinder, understanding the topic of the article. Full policy
• Photo galleries: Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo gallery. Full guideline

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

The issue with ASM526 COV.jpg has been addressed.

The fair use of image:ASM527 COV.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:
• Significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase, or its lack would significantly hinder, understanding the topic of the article. Full policy
• Photo galleries: Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo gallery. Full guideline

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

The issue with ASM527 COV.jpg has been addressed.

The fair use of image:FriendlyNSpiderMan4.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:
• Significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase, or its lack would significantly hinder, understanding the topic of the article. Full policy
• Photo galleries: Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo gallery. Full guideline

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

The issue with FriendlyNSpiderMan4.jpg has been addressed.

As a whole, these form a de facto cover gallery and add little other than that to the article. - J Greb (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed - J Greb (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Spider-Man: The Other. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211063549/http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=53776 to http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=53776
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929134610/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=64187 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=64187
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211080641/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?threadid=55288 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?threadid=55288

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)