Gwenpool #2 - Discussion thread (spoilers allowed)
Added 2017-03-12 17:32:51 +0000 UTCFeel free to express your thoughts regarding GWENPOOL #2 in the comments below.
Comments
I'm gonna be honest, wasn't expecting much from this; the previous Gwenpool and Deadpool tales didn't quite do it for me, the mix of humor, porn, and story not quite jelling. But this was good!
Shendude
2017-03-14 15:26:07 +0000 UTCI saw this as more of a funny book than a sexy one, and that's not bad at all. I liked the art and writing. I liked the way it mixed mainstream Spider-Man universes with more obscure ones. I'm not really a fan of Gwen as a character usually but Gwenpool is an exception as I find her to be refreshing and humorous.
ukyo_rulz
2017-03-13 07:44:35 +0000 UTCYou know what? By the time I was giving my last readthrough of the comic before closing the file, I felt the same thing: It's much more funny than sexy. I guess I just went full Aragones in this one. But I think it suits the character. Gwen Poole is not really a deep persona. She's mostly a vehicle for her artists and writers to play with the condition of comics as they are. And by that definition, I personally think I did right to it. I don't think I could've made a decent plot-driven comic for her. But she's perfect for these revolving-door of fast-cutting skits. =)
Tracy Scops
2017-03-12 23:19:21 +0000 UTCReview - Gwenpool 2. Overall - I enjoyed it as a humorous romp, less so as a piece of pornography. The artwork is great. Ragnar did a fantastic job, and I hope he was easy enough to work with that maybe his style can be applied to other comics in the future. Even the early bits looked sexy, despite the lack of sexual details. The plot is entertaining, pure 4th wall breaking in classic Gwenpool fashion. The sex scenes and whatnot are all entertaining, but the fast cuts from one to the next don't allow for much plot in each universe, and therefore not much actual plot in the comic itself, other than "Gwen wants to get laid, and she does." The highlight for me is the last page. The Gwenpool/EmmaGwen/DallasGwen threesome is hot. The idea of Gwenpool/dozens-of-other-variant-cover-Gwens is also great. I would probably enjoy that comic, too. Hell, I would probably enjoy it even if it was just a pinup book. So it was funny, but light on plot, and most of the sex was generic and short-lived, not overtly pornographic.
Kyle R
2017-03-12 23:06:49 +0000 UTC1) Here's the scene from the XXX parody, by Axel Braun: <a href="http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=119036851" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=119036851</a> 2) People usually get dapper when they go to a theatre play. ;) 3) I don't know who would be stranger as Parker: Cruise or DiCaprio. But The-Not-So-Old-Man-Stan would be one helluva JJJ. 4) That was a movie that didn't made the cut even in my "didn't make the cut" section. How sad is that, really?
Tracy Scops
2017-03-12 22:00:56 +0000 UTCThis is the one I've been waiting for for a while, ever since you teased the cover page a few months back. For me, this comic was more on the humor side of things, but with that said, it definitely met my expectations. What I loved most about this issue was how, through Gwen, you were able to make plenty of jabs not only at other media, but at yourself as well. The per-page universe-hopping was great, but the big ending with the Gwen threesome (Thrwensome?) was one of those things that I never knew I wanted to see. I enjoyed Ragnar's art as well; while it did seem as though Gwen had a completely different face every so often, it wasn't too distracting, and there was plenty enough scenery per page to make up for it. Now, if you don't mind, let me just gush for a moment: -Loved how the Raimi Spider-Man scene (Which, by the way, I appreciated the super-specific "Jumanji Antoinette" bit), dove into the XXX parody. I never saw that one; did they do the upside-down BJ bit there? There was this separate parody, "Spider-Babe," that did do that, but it was a softcore flick, so you didn't see anything. -Just curious, why was Gwen suddenly suited up in her Gwenpool gear on page 9? -Man, if only Canon were able to make that movie. Tom Cruise and Bob Hoskins were definitely odd but I was sold on a mid-1980's Stan Lee as Jameson (Partially related, I heard somewhere that Hoskins was Chris Claremont's ideal pick for Wolverine back in the day, back when Logan was noticeably short-statured and had little sex appeal, with all due respect to the late Hoskins, of course). -Not that it matters, but the one piece of Spidey media that "didn't make the cut" that you listed at the end was the infamous sequels Sony had in mind for the "Amazing" series, which would have had a Sinister Six spin-off movie, Aunt May as a secret agent and Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane.
Jack Charlotte
2017-03-12 21:43:53 +0000 UTC
