Spider-Oracle Petitions (01-Feb-2003)

Thanks for the kind words, Masayuki! There are no current plans to collect those issue in a TPB. Marvel might change their minds, though, since the Peter/MJ relationship is coming back into the spotlight. And PP:SM # 29 wasn't included in "One Small Break" because it was part of a different story. It was either leave out that one issue, or include it *and* ASM # 29 *and* ASM Annual 2001. Better to just give the story its own TPB if consumers wanted it.

Thanks for writing in David. I wasn't really thinking of pre-Amazing Fantasy #15 days when I answered that question. But, to be fair, I had forgotten about that throw-away reference. Congrats on those sharp eyes!

These are quite different storylines, separated by five years in real-world time. Venom appeared around ASM #299, and Carnage originated around ASM #361.

To activate his web-shooters, Spider-Man needs to give them them a double tap, no matter what kind of web he is using.

Ken Ellis was a character created pretty much just for the Clone Saga. Since it ended, I believe he has been seen only once, in Spider-Man Unlimited #22.

You again, Rahul? You must be in dire need of some Spidey-knowledge. Let's get you cured, here.

1. By some Spidey-fans, yes. Even some here at spiderfan.org.
2. Yes. In PETER PARKER: SPIER-MAN # 44-47. Just reprinted in the RETURN OF THE GOBLIN TPB.
3. You'd think they were twins or something, wouldn't you? But aside from being created by the same people (JMS and JRjr), no.
4. Mine? Well, I've always had a soft spot for the Chameleon. That lovable Commie rat.
5. Yep. I saw it on Symbiote Fear Factor!
6. They're all still with us. Just look at our recent reviews for the last few months to see what most of them have been up to.

You're getting to be a regular here, aren't you Rahul? Well, just sit back and soak up the knowledge.

1. Wolverine can identify people by their scents. To him, each person's scent is as unique as a fingerprint. He had already met Spider-Man several times, like in MARVEL TEAM-UP #117 and ANNUAL #1, so when he happened near Peter Parker in SPIDER-MAN VS. WOLVERINE #1, his senses told him that it was really Spider-Man.
2. Stan Lee of course. All others are merely his followers.
3. A company crossover between Marvel and DC where for a month they merged their characters. This gave us characters like Dark Claw (Wolverine+Batman) and Lobo the Duck (Lobo+Howard the Duck).
4. MJ needed a break after having her baby die in childbirth and being kidnapped for six months. Look for ASM vol. 2 #50, on sale soon, for a chance of them getting back together.

You again?!

1. Well, I guess it meant that he has never been a full-time member of a super-hero team. But he has joined a club or two in his time. I wouldn't say that he was an official member of the Defenders, though. (See DEFENDERS #107-#109 for the story.) The Outlaws were never an official team, at least during their days with Spidey (see WEB #50 and SPEC #168-170).

   Spidey has been an official member of the Avengers, though, for the storyline in AVENGERS #314-318, and finally settled in as a reserve Avenger in AVENGERS #329. One other group you could make a case for is the Fantastic Four (or the "new" Fantastic Four at any rate.) Read all about that in FANTASTIC FOUR #347-349 (reprinted in the FF: Monsters Unleashed TPB) and FANTASTIC FOUR #374.

2. No.

There are currently no plans for ol' Hobby to make a comeback. I think part of the reason is that alot of writers feel that Roger Stern has dibs on the character since he created him. So for the time being, Rodererick Kingsly is still on that island, waiting for the right time to put that costume back on.

A question that several spidey-fans have been asking. Well, the "real world" reason is - the character needs to have the same name as his MU counterpart (though it would be interesting to see "Chemo - Lethal Protector").

As of the current issue, an in-story reason has yet to be given. But I would expect one coming, surely?

1. My views? Too muddled. Too long. Too marketing-driven. You know a story is getting out of hand when you have to retcon your retcons (think Scarlet Spider Unlimited #1 and Spectacular Annual #8). Peter Parker is Spider-Man and should always be Spider-Man.
2. The second thing you said.

No, Burp. (I mean, Belch). Ben's spider-sense, unlike Peter's, could pick up on Venom just fine because he had never been bonded with the symbiote. See Web #118 and #119 and S-M #52 and #53 and the Venom: Along Came A Spider mini-series.

Oh, some mumbo-jumbo about a ceremony, life-essencees, ninjas; it hurts my head just remembering! But you can read our review of the Return of Doctor Octopus story starting with Amazing Spider-Man #426, through to #428.

Look with me into my crystal web, o Rock. There we will find the answers to your burning questions.

1. After the Foreigner storyline, Peter next saw Felicia in ASM # 329. She had just started dating Flash Thompson in an effort to break his heart the way Pete had broken hers. Those crazy kids, eh?
2. The Clone Saga is causing you confusion? That's unexpected. The Gwen clone from the original clone story (ASM #144-150) was next seen in SPEC Annual #8 (about 6 years or so before the Clone Saga). She next appeared, as you say, during the Clone Saga in WEB #125. Finally she played a pivotal role in "Maximum Clonage" And joy of joys, she's *still* out there somewhere, ready to return at any moment. Anyway, there's only been the one clone of Gwen EXCEPT for one that lasted a few pages during the "Smoke and Mirrors" arc of the Clone Saga. Now where's my aspirin?
3. I checked the Encyclopedia, and it actually says FF #8. I had never heard this before, and it contradicts the OFFICIAL HANDBOOK OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, the OFFICIAL MARVEL INDEX TO THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, Overstreet, Wizard, and many other sources that say JJJ's first appearance is ASM #1. Looking into my copy of ESSENTIAL FANTASTIC FOUR, I see that issue #8 is the issue that introduced the Puppet Master and Alicia Masters. But I saw no mention of JJJ or even a character that looked like him. I would have to say it's a simple error in the Encyclopedia.