Comics Amazing Spider-Man #556

[Doc Destruction]

But it's not about how good or bad the marriage is written (whatever that even means), it's that the marriage is fundamentally detrimental to the character of who Peter Parker/Spider-Man is and supposed to be. And that was always the problem, not the depiction of the marriage.



Yes. We can all thank Doc Destruction for derailing another thread.

That's the largest amount of bullcrap I've ever read. Ever.

And you're welcome. Sorry I didn't roll my eyes into the back of my head and follow the story like a monkey, eating crap with a golden spoon at how AMAZING the bland, lifeless, retro-storytelling REALLY IS.

 

[Doc Destruction]

1st off mate, I'm a huge fan of the marriage, and think it'd be a great idea if they had parallel Spidey stories with Pete/MJ and a baby alongside these stories.

All I was doing was saying I'm starting to see the kind of different Spidey stories they can tell where he's single, as opposed to looking like a *****e and not giving MJ her dues by behaving in the same way when he's married.

And yes, believe it or not I agree that it's all about writers being lazy, or not doing it well, but it's becoming very clear to me very quick how it's much easier for writers here to weave a decent Spider-Man yarn sans the marriage. Grant Morrison said very well, (IMO, recently,) 'sadly as a writer, it's much easier to write an exciting comic with a dead GF in a fridge, rather than a happy marriage.'

I think the same could be said about marriage/long term relationships full stop. You have to work at it, and find ways to keep it fresh and exciting, and over long periods of time it can become very difficult. BELIEVE me, I know.

2ndly mate, don't you ever get tired from annoying people in the BND threads? I think we're all a little too old for this...

You know what? You're right. Sorry for loving a character for 20+ years only to have him destroyed.

Enjoy your crap, kiddies...buh and bye.

 

[iloveclones]

Doc, you are one bitter old man.

How about letting us have our fun? It's not like we're making you read it. Lot's of comics out there for you to enjoy.

 

[wolvie2020]

Doc, you are one bitter old man.

How about letting us have our fun? It's not like we're making you read it. Lot's of comics out there for you to enjoy.

 

[Doc Destruction]

Knock yourselves out

I'll be reading good comics that advance in storyline lol. Enough, now...I'm done

 

[Dangerous]

This issue was sold out yesterday, gonna have to pick it up outta town.

 

[Blader5489]

That's the largest amount of bullcrap I've ever read. Ever.

Whether you like it or not, marriage being fundamentally detrimental to Spider-Man is the reality of the situation - insofar as Marvel sees it, at least.

And you're welcome. Sorry I didn't roll my eyes into the back of my head and follow the story like a monkey, eating crap with a golden spoon at how AMAZING the bland, lifeless, retro-storytelling REALLY IS.

Be careful coming off that high horse. You don't want to fall and break your neck.

I'll be reading good comics that advance in storyline lol.

Like JSA, right? Lulz.

 

[Brand]

Whether you like it or not, marriage being fundamentally detrimental to Spider-Man is the reality of the situation - insofar as Marvel sees it, at least.

Okay, you might think the marriage was "fundamentally detrimental" to the character. JQ obviously feels the same. However, there have been plenty of people at Marvel who supported the marriage, so you can't just make a blanket statement that makes it seem like the entire company was against Peter and MJ. A number of people, myself included, think the marriage was a GOOD thing and didn't need to go.

I think Jim Salicrup said it best:

[The marriage] didn't change Spider-Man at all! It changed Peter Parker a bit, I suppose. But the core characteristics of Parker/Spider-Man remained the same.

While overall, the wedding of Spider-Man and Mary Jane seems to have been embraced by a majority of fans, there are still those who will go on about how this ruined Spider-Man. I probably should shut up about it, but I do feel so very strongly about the "rightness" of MJ and Peter being married, that I really can't pass up an opportunity to finally respond to some of the nay-sayers.

The one objection that bugs me the most is the misguided belief that someone as beautiful as MJ would never marry someone like Peter Parker. This makes no sense to me! What a shallow, cynical thing for people to say. I suspect it's a form of projecting one's own self-loathing onto the Peter Parker character. Peter has been portrayed as an intelligent, sensitive guy since day one of comic-book life, and while he suffers from insecurity just like anyone else, he has dated wonderful, smart, attractive women all along.

For some fans to wear blinders and refuse to see the depths of the Peter/MJ relationship is terribly sad.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the "problems" Peter Parker has had with women over the years, but they've mostly been of the "I'm gonna miss my date with Gwen 'cause I gotta stop the Rhino!" or "I can never reveal I'm Spider-Man to Betty as long as she believes Spider-Man is responsible for the death of her brother!" It's NEVER been, "Oh, I can't get a date because I'm a nerd!" Geez!

There's also the more understandable objection, that having Peter marry a supermodel removes him from the "every guy" character he supposedly has been all these years. Except, again this completely overlooks that Peter has been dating beautiful women, or as beautiful as Ditko could draw 'em, all along! Why would a fan no longer relate to a character who marries a supermodel, yet have no problem with a character who continually dates the smartest, most beautiful women around?

Another objection is that having Peter get married ages the character, making Spider-Man more difficult for young readers to relate to Peter. Okay, I can see that, too. Marvel rather ingeniously solved that problem by creating Ultimate Spider-Man. You want a young, single Peter Parker--read Ultimate Spider-Man or the Essential Spider-Man or watch the first two Spidey motion pictures. You want the original Peter Parker, read The Amazing Spider-Man.

This was from a pre-OMD interview, obviously. I agree with just about all of the points he brings up, especially about Peter's love life. Since leaving high school, Peter certainly hasn't had any trouble finding dates.

 

[Blader5489]

Okay, you might think the marriage was "fundamentally detrimental" to the character. JQ obviously feels the same. However, there have been plenty of people at Marvel who supported the marriage, so you can't just make a blanket statement that makes it seem like the entire company was against Peter and MJ. A number of people, myself included, think the marriage was a GOOD thing and didn't need to go.

Have you seen this? And you can add Jim Shooter to that list, the same guy who pushed for the marriage in the first place!

I think Jim Salicrup said it best:

Who?

 

[Brand]

Have you seen this? And you can add Jim Shooter to that list, the same guy who pushed for the marriage in the first place!

The problem with those answers is that there's no context in which to place them. Also, the list of creators who are "against" the marriage is obviously wrong, or at least in question. Stan Lee writes a married Spider-Man. I posted a quote by Michilinie that contradicted his words there. I'm almost positive that I've seen positive quotes about the marriage from John Romita Jr. & Sr. before, though I have no idea where to look for a quote from them right now.

Those quotes are, for the most part, about whether or not the person would have married Peter & MJ back in the 80s. It says nothing about if the person thinks the marriage works now. Also, there are plenty of people who actually LIKE the marriage (Bendis, Whedon, Lee). I'd say they offset the Sterns & Wolfmans (who just complains about being married to a supermodel . . . something that hasn't been the case for years).

Who?

He's been an editor for a number of books, including Spider-Man.

 

[Blader5489]

The problem with those answers is that there's no context in which to place them.

"I don't think they should have been married" is, I think, a pretty straightforward answer.

Also, the list of creators who are "against" the marriage is obviously wrong, or at least in question. Stan Lee writes a married Spider-Man. I posted a quote by Michilinie that contradicted his words there. I'm almost positive that I've seen positive quotes about the marriage from John Romita Jr. & Sr. before, though I have no idea where to look for a quote from them right now.

The only reason Stan Lee married Peter and MJ was to keep his newspaper strip alive; your quote from Michiline does not contradict his "anti-marriage" response; and unless you can provide quotes from the Romitas about supporting Peter and MJ's marriage, then you can't say that they were all for it.

You can also add Sam Raimi to the list of people who thinks Spider-Man shouldn't be married.

Those quotes are, for the most part, about whether or not the person would have married Peter & MJ back in the 80s. It says nothing about if the person thinks the marriage works now.

I think you're splitting hairs here.

Also, there are plenty of people who actually LIKE the marriage (Bendis, Whedon, Lee). I'd say they offset the Sterns & Wolfmans (who just complains about being married to a supermodel . . . something that hasn't been the case for years).

I'd say they don't, considering Stern and Wolfman are actual Spider-Man writers. Lee doesn't have to worry about keeping ASM alive, and Bendis and Whedon have never written for the book ever. It's easy to say you're in support of something if you're not responsible for it. I'd rather trust the actual Spider-Man writers in knowing what does and doesn't work for the character.

 

[Brand]

"I don't think they should have been married" is, I think, a pretty straightforward answer.



The only reason Stan Lee married Peter and MJ was to keep his newspaper strip alive; your quote from Michiline does not contradict his "anti-marriage" response; and unless you can provide quotes from the Romitas about supporting Peter and MJ's marriage, then you can't say that they were all for it.

You can also add Sam Raimi to the list of people who thinks Spider-Man shouldn't be married.



I think you're splitting hairs here.



I'd say they don't, considering Stern and Wolfman are actual Spider-Man writers. Lee doesn't have to worry about keeping ASM alive, and Bendis and Whedon have never written for the book ever. It's easy to say you're in support of something if you're not responsible for it. I'd rather trust the actual Spider-Man writers in knowing what does and doesn't work for the character.

An example of a quote from that thread is "I wouldn't have had him married to begin with." (JRjr). That says he wouldn't have married them in the 80s and nothing about whether or not the marriage works.

I don't know why Stan had the couple married, but then why has he kept the couple married all these years? That's the most telling thing. Also, Stan always wrote Peter as marriage-minded, so it only makes sense that he had Peter get married to someone (MJ, since Gwen was killed off).

As for my Michelinie quote, let's compare. Here's some of your Michelinie quote regarding the marriage:

I think it diminished the identification factor with the readership. The average Marvel reader was fifteen years old at the time, and few fifteen year olds are married. I thought the marriage was a big mistake, like when they decided it was time for Pete to graduate from college. It changed the basic aspect of the character, but there was nothing I could do about it.

Here's what I posted from Michelinie regarding the marriage:

From Amazing Fantasy #15 on, the key to Peter Parker's personality has been his sense of responsibility. So getting married played into that very nicely, only amped up a few notches. He still had the responsibility for using his powers to make the world a better place, but now he also had to make sure that exercising those abilities didn't put the woman he loved in mortal danger. Plus there was the more subtle, but equally pressing, responsibility for making a marriage successful--something most mere mortals have to work hard at even without the added pressure of fighting Dr. Octopus a couple of times a year!

He goes from, "changed the basic aspect of the character," to saying the marriage played into the key of Peter's personality very nicely. First he says Peter changed fundamentally, then he doesn't. You don't see how that is a contradiction?

Finally, make up your mind on the subject of creators/editors/etc. You want to say that people like Stern or Wolfman should have an opinion over Bendis/Whedon/Lee, yet you include people like Raimi & Shooter on your side. You can't have it both ways. Plus, keep in mind that Bendis writes Spidey over in New Avengers and he's the only one of the bunch writing an ongoing 616 Peter Parker. By your criteria, his opinion should have more weight than all of your detractors combined.

 

[Blader5489]

An example of a quote from that thread is "I wouldn't have had him married to begin with." (JRjr). That says he wouldn't have married them in the 80s and nothing about whether or not the marriage works.

I think it's pretty obvious that if someone regards the marriage as a mistake, then they wouldn't want to keep it around.

I don't know why Stan had the couple married, but then why has he kept the couple married all these years? That's the most telling thing. Also, Stan always wrote Peter as marriage-minded, so it only makes sense that he had Peter get married to someone (MJ, since Gwen was killed off).

Stan married the couple in the newspaper strip so he could keep it afloat. It was a PR stunt, pure and simple--and the only reason it happened in the comics was to cash in on that. Talk about an editorial mandate.

He goes from, "changed the basic aspect of the character," to saying the marriage played into the key of Peter's personality very nicely. First he says Peter changed fundamentally, then he doesn't. You don't see how that is a contradiction?

I must have misread it the first time I saw that. What was the context for the second quote, and when did he say it?

Finally, make up your mind on the subject of creators/editors/etc. You want to say that people like Stern or Wolfman should have an opinion over Bendis/Whedon/Lee, yet you include people like Raimi & Shooter on your side. You can't have it both ways.

Raimi makes (or made) the Spider-Man movies. Shooter was editor-in-chief of Marvel and was the one who decided to follow Stan's approach in getting Peter and MJ married. Of course their opinion matters more than Bendis and Whedon; Raimi makes a Spider-Man for the general public and Shooter had a hand in the comic book marriage, so their comments are very telling. Bendis and Whedon may voice their appreciation for the marriage, but since Bendis doesn't write ASM (Spider-Man being married or single does not affect NA) and Whedon has never written a Spider-Man comic, so their opinions on the subject don't matter--at least not as much as those who actually have a hand in writing, plotting, and/or editing ASM.

 

[Brand]

I think it's pretty obvious that if someone regards the marriage as a mistake, then they wouldn't want to keep it around.

Yes, but that's not what I'm saying. Shooter is a perfect example. Just because someone held one opinion of the marriage in the 80s doesn't mean they hold the same opinion today. That quote by JRjr only says he wouldn't have married Peter and MJ in the 1980s; he doesn't say what his feelings are now. Similarly, Shooter could say that he was for the marriage in 1987. That doesn't mean that he is for it now.

Stan married the couple in the newspaper strip so he could keep it afloat. It was a PR stunt, pure and simple--and the only reason it happened in the comics was to cash in on that. Talk about an editorial mandate.

It may have been, but think about this. Just about everyone can agree that Spider-Man's unmasking was a PR stunt. It lasted about two years. The death of Captain America was a PR stunt set up by Civil War. We'll see how long it lasts.

Even if the wedding was a PR stunt (and I say it was a natural progression in the comics), then there's no reason for it to be around today unless Stan Lee approves of it. If it was a true PR stunt, it would have stuck around for a few years, provided a few stories, then been done away with, most likely in another hyped story. The fact that Stan kept the marriage says that, PR stunt or no, he actually LIKES the marriage.

I must have misread it the first time I saw that. What was the context for the second quote, and when did he say it?

Not sure about the time (of either answer), which is why I said in the original thread that there's no way to know what Michelinie's current take is on the marriage. The question was something along the lines of, "How did the marriage change the character of Spider-Man?" I have a few scans of part of the interview somewhere; a bunch of creators/editors were involved. As I've said before, it's things like this that make it hard to know where these guys really stand on a subject.

Raimi makes (or made) the Spider-Man movies. Shooter was editor-in-chief of Marvel and was the one who decided to follow Stan's approach in getting Peter and MJ married. Of course their opinion matters more than Bendis and Whedon; Raimi makes a Spider-Man for the general public and Shooter had a hand in the comic book marriage, so their comments are very telling. Bendis and Whedon may voice their appreciation for the marriage, but since Bendis doesn't write ASM (Spider-Man being married or single does not affect NA) and Whedon has never written a Spider-Man comic, so their opinions on the subject don't matter--at least not as much as those who actually have a hand in writing, plotting, and/or editing ASM.

Again, if you want to credit Raimi you have to recognize Bendis for NA and USM. Besides that, no one else listed has any ongoing Spidey-related projects going and have nothing to do with Spidey anymore (include them and you include Stan); I believe Stern has a short series and there might be some future Romita art, but that's it. Romita Jr. certainly didn't have trouble working with a married Spidey, either.

Look, there are creative people on both sides of the fence. We don't know exactly where every single person falls so it's impossible to know which side has the numbers, but it's really not important. One of the few things that is relatively clear is that not everyone agrees on these subjects, despite what some would have us believe. Was the marriage perfect? Of course not. But it wasn't the black hole that some would have us believe, either.

 

[Doc Destruction]

Like JSA, right? Lulz.

Are you REALLY going to sit there and blast one of the best books on the market right now?

REALLY?

 

[Blader5489]

Brand, could you upload some of those scans of that interview? I'd be interested in reading that.

As for the rest of your post...agree to disagree? I'm not sure how else to respond to your points before repeating myself.

Are you REALLY going to sit there and blast one of the best books on the market right now?

REALLY?

I like JSA when it's focusing on its own characters and crafting its own stories based on those characters (like some of the earlier issues). But between The Lightning Saga and Thy Kingdom Come, the book has lost a lot of steam. It's still good, just not as good as it could/should be--and certainly not one of the best books on the market right now. It's not even one of the best DC books.

 

[Brand]

Brand, could you upload some of those scans of that interview? I'd be interested in reading that.

As for the rest of your post...agree to disagree? I'm not sure how else to respond to your points before repeating myself.

Of course. It's not like anyone actually WINS any of these Internet arguments.

As for the scans . . . here's what I have. It's not everything, but I was able to dig up the fact that these were from an August '07 issue of "Back Issue" magazine. They spend much of the time talking about Peter's old love interests, but there's still a little about the marriage in there. The final quote from Stan on the last scan is pretty sad and shows that he probably had NO idea what was coming.

The question from the previous page was, "I was wondering how you all think the marriage of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson changed the character of Spider-Man?"

 

[Brand]

 

[Dangerous]

Cool stuff, Larsen's pov is on the money for the most part, 'cept I think PP and MJ getting hitched was the right thing for the characters.

 

[Blader5489]

Thanks Brand. I think I pretty much agree with Wolfman's assessment. But, like Romita Sr., I can also acknowledge that there were some pretty good stories to come out of the marriage (like the Sensational Annual last year).

 

[USMC]

Stan married the couple in the newspaper strip so he could keep it afloat. It was a PR stunt, pure and simple--and the only reason it happened in the comics was to cash in on that. Talk about an editorial mandate.

Then why keep them married for the next 20+ years afterwards?

Raimi makes (or made) the Spider-Man movies. Shooter was editor-in-chief of Marvel and was the one who decided to follow Stan's approach in getting Peter and MJ married. Of course their opinion matters more than Bendis and Whedon; Raimi makes a Spider-Man for the general public and Shooter had a hand in the comic book marriage, so their comments are very telling. Bendis and Whedon may voice their appreciation for the marriage, but since Bendis doesn't write ASM (Spider-Man being married or single does not affect NA) and Whedon has never written a Spider-Man comic, so their opinions on the subject don't matter--at least not as much as those who actually have a hand in writing, plotting, and/or editing ASM.

Raimi directed the movies... he didn't write them.

 

[Orest]

Which issue are you guys talking about? Issue 566 hasnt evem come out yest and they only showed it in advertisements last wednesday in issue 563.

 

[iloveclones]

556. The title of the thread is the giveaway....

 

[carnageehw]

But it's not about how good or bad the marriage is written (whatever that even means), it's that the marriage is fundamentally detrimental to the character of who Peter Parker/Spider-Man is and supposed to be. And that was always the problem, not the depiction of the marriage.

First of all, the idea of marriage being detrimental to anyones character is a load of crap, save for maybe Gene Simmons.

Second, instead of looking at how bad the marraige may have been written in your opinion, you have to look at the stories they are telling now, and ask if they could have been made with or without MJ.

I don't see how any of the Spidey action couldn't. I don't see how any of the JJJ/Bugle stuff could not have been written without MJ. I don't see how the Spider Tracer killer couldn't have been.

So what are tha major issues we are left with?
New roomates: Is this that important to Peter as a character? Could it be interesting? sure. But right now all it is is different

Harry Alive: I will personally hate this forever. If they bring him back soley as a friend, he's replaceable. If they bring him back as GG, it's horrible.

Jackpot: It's not like this is an insanley great story. It's only purpose seems to be the allure of the MJ mystery. If it's revealed it isn't MJ, couldn't they have done the MJ stalker thing with the Marriage? Wouldn't that have actually been better?

Anything else?

 

[Themanofbat]

First of all, the idea of marriage being detrimental to anyones character is a load of crap, save for maybe Gene Simmons.

Second, instead of looking at how bad the marraige may have been written in your opinion, you have to look at the stories they are telling now, and ask if they could have been made with or without MJ.

I don't see how any of the Spidey action couldn't. I don't see how any of the JJJ/Bugle stuff could not have been written without MJ. I don't see how the Spider Tracer killer couldn't have been.

So what are tha major issues we are left with?
New roomates: Is this that important to Peter as a character? Could it be interesting? sure. But right now all it is is different

Harry Alive: I will personally hate this forever. If they bring him back soley as a friend, he's replaceable. If they bring him back as GG, it's horrible.

Jackpot: It's not like this is an insanley great story. It's only purpose seems to be the allure of the MJ mystery. If it's revealed it isn't MJ, couldn't they have done the MJ stalker thing with the Marriage? Wouldn't that have actually been better?

Anything else?

The thing about Spider-Man's character, one that has been there since day one, and one that has many appealing factors to why we all like him, is that he has the weight of the world on his shoulders with no one to help/console/nurture him... Peter Parker IS a born loser, a loveable one, but a born loser nonetheless, and in spite of that and all the overwhelming odds against him, he perseveres through it day in and day out. And while I love MJ's character, once Marvel gave her an "in" to Peter's secret life (when she revealed that she knew he was Spider-Man), it gave him a shoulder to lean on... and while those are nice touches to see in Spider-Man's life once in a while, it shouldn't be a permanent one.

A permanent loving shoulder for Spider-Man to always lean on is akin to bringing back Bruce Wayne's parents... you don't feel as bad for the guy, which is how everybody used to feel for Spider-Man... back in the day.

So while you're looking at all the "specifics" that have been brought to the table thus far in BND (which were ALL stories that could have been told with a married Peter), the grander scheme of things is that Peter once again takes the burdon of the world upon his shoulders, and that's the way it should have always been.

Just my two cents...

Mike