CBR Poll... Spider-Man married or single?

[KingMob]

Shocking.

 

[KingMob]

Shocking.

 

[Kitsune]

In your face Quesada!t:

You your nose with a rubber hose, Quesada!

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

I took note of one of the comments there, how one guy hated MJ but has been warming up to her recently. That goes into what I've constantly said about this whole thing: if you get the right writers on the book, MJ and the marriage could have been as interesting and viable as any other story element you could name. But, you had a slew of writers who couldn't care less about Peter and just wanted to write Spidey, so the Peter years suffered.

As uneconomical as it is these days, I liked back in the 80s how they had one title devoted to the heroics (Amazing) and one devoted to Peter (Spectacular). At least you had a little of both monthly, regardless of the creative team.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I don't think Slott's writing matters at all in regard to the Marriage debate. His stories could have/would have been just as good if Peter were married. That's the whole problem... the marriage has nothing to do with quality of books, it's the writer that makes it good regardless.

Agreed.

I'm not surprised by the results... most people that read or have read Spider-Man grew up with a married one, so the votes will go that way...

However, it'd be interesting to see how many people voted "married" that have read little to no stories post-OMD... if you take those peopel out of the equation...

And you should also ask how many people voted "single" who have read little to no stories post-OMD, to be fair and honest, if you seek to eliminate the "married" voters from the equation.

 

[SpideyInATree]

I don't think Slott's writing matters at all in regard to the Marriage debate. His stories could have/would have been just as good if Peter were married. That's the whole problem... the marriage has nothing to do with quality of books, it's the writer that makes it good regardless.

And the writing done between 1987 to OMD doesn't matter either. If they weren't married those same stories could have been told too. So, really all it boils down to is good writing and not whether the main character is married or not.

Because I hated the Mary Jane character ever since I started reading Spider-Man back in 1992/1993. Didn't really start liking her until recently, during Slott's run. So...it is all about writing. Not whether they are married or not.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

In your face Quesada!t:

That's a much smaller difference in the percentages than I was expecting--closer to the results from the 2009 poll the writer mentions. By that measure, it seems like the post-"OMD" stories are doing something right, since they seem to be changing a lot of people's minds. So... in all of us marriage fans' faces, I guess.

 

[JewishHobbit]

And the writing done between 1987 to OMD doesn't matter either. If they weren't married those same stories could have been told too. So, really all it boils down to is good writing and not whether the main character is married or not.

Because I hated the Mary Jane character ever since I started reading Spider-Man back in 1992/1993. Didn't really start liking her until recently, during Slott's run. So...it is all about writing. Not whether they are married or not.

Yeah, that's kinda what I was saying. Good writing or bad writing makes the single or married Spidey work. That said, you must also take into account story progression. If Spidey never got married and the 90's comics were similar but without them being married they'd have been just as great. But they WERE married and when you eliminate 20 years of progression to revert back to a previous status quo... something goes missing. That's always been my qualm. Character regression is what's turned me off of Spider-Man... not his being un-married. If they'd have killed her off or had a legitimate and believable divorce I'd still be on the book and loving it.

 

[SpideyInATree]

I doubt if they had killed her or they divorced a lot of the fans would still feel the same way. I think breaking up Peter and Mary Jane put a lot of sour into a lot of peoples mouth's so no matter how it was done it still would have had the same outcome with certain fans.

I looked at One More Day as Spider-Man's really crappy version of Crisis on Infinite Earths. It was basically a soft reboot. You don't have to like it but, honestly, right now...since the beginning of Dan Slott's Big Time run...you, and a lot of the other haters of Spider-Man because of OMD, are REALLY hurting themselves by ripping themselves off by really awesome Spider-Man stories.

 

[Themanofbat]

And you should also ask how many people voted "single" who have read little to no stories post-OMD, to be fair and honest, if you seek to eliminate the "married" voters from the equation.

Sure... I'd take that anytime...

Then you could eliminate the thousands of "married" voters who have barely read Spider-Man since OMD versus the 10 or 20 "single" voters that have barely read Spider-Man since OMD...

You have a lot of posters on this very board that admit to either never reading Spider-Man since OMD or have barely read it... TheCorpulent1 & random havoc being two of the former and JewHobbit being the latter... and that's off the top of my head...

An WHY oh WHY would someone vote that they prefer "single" anthen STOP reading Spider-Man since BND began... that just doesn't make any sense...

However, like I said initially... I'll take those eliminated voters anytime...

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I looked at One More Day as Spider-Man's really crappy version of Crisis on Infinite Earths. It was basically a soft reboot. You don't have to like it but, honestly, right now...since the beginning of Dan Slott's Big Time run...you, and a lot of the other haters of Spider-Man because of OMD, are REALLY hurting themselves by ripping themselves off by really awesome Spider-Man stories.

Well said. Was it sad to see the marriage go? Absoloutely, but Since BND (yes, as far back as that), ASM has been a "winning" streak, if you ask me. It's been so much fun the past few years and the stories are just fantastic overall. I look foward to what 2012 has in store for Spidey with

Spoiler

the return of Doc Ock.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Spoiler

Didn't he already return as a decrepit near-corpse in a cocoon with his arms doing all the work?

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Spoiler

Didn't he already return as a decrepit near-corpse in a cocoon with his arms doing all the work?

Spoiler

Well, Ock's been building towards something big since his return in ASM issue 600. It's going to come full circle in 2012.

 

[runawayboulder]

Spoiler

Didn't he already return as a decrepit near-corpse in a cocoon with his arms doing all the work?

Spoiler

Well, Ock's been building towards something big since his return in ASM issue 600. It's going to come full circle in 2012.

Spoiler

The Sinister Six are coming back, well they actually came back in FF....not sure why we need spoilers but whatever.

 

[JewishHobbit]

I doubt if they had killed her or they divorced a lot of the fans would still feel the same way. I think breaking up Peter and Mary Jane put a lot of sour into a lot of peoples mouth's so no matter how it was done it still would have had the same outcome with certain fans.

Certain fans, yes, but not as many and I don't think the anger would last as long.

You don't have to like it but, honestly, right now...since the beginning of Dan Slott's Big Time run...you, and a lot of the other haters of Spider-Man because of OMD, are REALLY hurting themselves by ripping themselves off by really awesome Spider-Man stories.

I picked the book back up at Big Time and bought it consistently for about 12 issues (through the FF plot). It was alright. Not as good as people play it up to be, honestly, but good enough to make me like it for six months or so. However, as I said before, it still reads as a regressed book and I just couldn't get into it for that reason.

Plus, going against the grain, I don't feel that Dan has a great grip on the character. He still writes him as if he were in the 80's comics and not how he's progressed since then. If you like that feel then Slott's run should be stellar for you but I don't.

 

[kguillou]

I think it really boiled down to, what era of spiderman you grew up in. Obviously Qeusada, Slott and all them grew up in the 'single' era of Spider-man and probably pined for that. People like me who grew up during the 80's/90's, obviously probably prefered the married spidey. To me, Peter and Mary Jane have been as synomous with each other as Clark Kent and Lois Lane.

Honestly, in my opinion i'm long over the whole marriage thing, my only major gripe with current spider-man comics is the way Peter is portrayed as a manchild. I can't stand that. Say what you will about JMS' run, but i loved how he wrote peter as a grown man with experience. If i wanna read about Ultimate Spider-man, i'll read ultimate spiderman, but this current 616 Spiderman just acts way too juvenile for my tastes.

 

[Themanofbat]

I'm so &^%$#E&^$E^&%ing tired about these "man-child" comments... most of which came from stories in 2008, BND's first year.... I don't really believe you really see that in ASM anymore... now in Bendis' Avengers' books, that's a different story... in fact, I'd like for anyone to show me "5 man child" references in the last 2 years... should be simple enough if that's how Peter is now portrayed...

Show me... I dare you.

And if I'm wrong, I will eat whatever crow comes my way.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Sure... I'd take that anytime...

Then you could eliminate the thousands of "married" voters who have barely read Spider-Man since OMD versus the 10 or 20 "single" voters that have barely read Spider-Man since OMD...

You have a lot of posters on this very board that admit to either never reading Spider-Man since OMD or have barely read it... TheCorpulent1 & random havoc being two of the former and JewHobbit being the latter... and that's off the top of my head...

An WHY oh WHY would someone vote that they prefer "single" anthen STOP reading Spider-Man since BND began... that just doesn't make any sense...

However, like I said initially... I'll take those eliminated voters anytime...

They might have stopped reading if they didn't like the stories, just like the people who quit during the Clone Saga or any other big event.

Furthermore, the poll is asking if people prefer Spider-Man married or single, not whether they prefer the Pre-OMD comics to the post-OMD comics, so it really doesn't matter.

 

[JewishHobbit]

I'm so &^%$#E&^$E^&%ing tired about these "man-child" comments... most of which came from stories in 2008, BND's first year.... I don't really believe you really see that in ASM anymore... now in Bendis' Avengers' books, that's a different story... in fact, I'd like for anyone to show me "5 man child" references in the last 2 years... should be simple enough if that's how Peter is now portrayed...

Show me... I dare you.

And if I'm wrong, I will eat whatever crow comes my way.

I barely remember what I've read of Big Time but a few off the top of my head:

1) Fart jokes
2) Inability to trust and commit himself to Carlie (which is why she left him)
3) Broke and looking to bum a place to stay (yes, this was remodied but don't act like it's the last time it'll happen... Spectre of Spider-Man and all that )
4) A naive belief that he can enforce the "no one dies" rule after Martha died (come on, that's childish)

Well, that's all I can think of but that's pretty good being that it was only 6 months worth and all from memory. Anyone else got one from the other year and a half I didn't read?

 

[Themanofbat]

I barely remember what I've read of Big Time but a few off the top of my head:

1) Fart jokes
2) Inability to trust and commit himself to Carlie (which is why she left him)
3) Broke and looking to bum a place to stay (yes, this was remodied but don't act like it's the last time it'll happen... Spectre of Spider-Man and all that )
4) A naive belief that he can enforce the "no one dies" rule after Martha died (come on, that's childish)

Well, that's all I can think of but that's pretty good being that it was only 6 months worth and all from memory. Anyone else got one from the other year and a half I didn't read?

1) Fart jokes as Spider-Man or Peter Parker? Big difference.
2) C'mon... you expect Peter to just "give away" his identity whenever he gets "serious" with a woman? If anything, Peter's past is plenty of reasons to keep his identity secret... and as far as unwilling to commit to a relationship, remember, he's coming off a long 5 years with one woman, so maybe he's nervous about jumping back on the horse (no pun intended)... and how is that acting like a man-child? If having anxieties or being neurotic is somehow aking to being a man-child, then I've got news for ya Bub... we'reAeLL man-children.
3) I did say in the last 2 years, so I guess Peter was broke last year.. .though I have no recollection of him looking for a place to stay...
4)What you may think of as "childish", it's part of Peter being angry that somebody he knew and cared for died because he's Spider-Man... yes, perhaps the promise is one that he can never possibly keep, but why is it childish to make such a promise when he's GRIEVING?!?!?!?

I'll give you the "broke" one... though in this economy, that would make MANY of us Man-Children....

Next...

 

[JewishHobbit]

1) Fart jokes as Spider-Man or Peter Parker? Big difference.

Didn't you say that it's understandable if you consider Peter a man-child if you're reading Bendis' Spider-Man? In Avengers that's all he is. Bendis NEVER focuses on Peter. So if that works, then so does this.

2) C'mon... you expect Peter to just "give away" his identity whenever he gets "serious" with a woman? If anything, Peter's past is plenty of reasons to keep his identity secret...

Then he's being unresponsible in bringing her into the dangers of his life without preparing her... which is also childish.

and as far as unwilling to commit to a relationship, remember, he's coming off a long 5 years with one woman, so maybe he's nervous about jumping back on the horse (no pun intended)... and how is that acting like a man-child? If having anxieties or being neurotic is somehow aking to being a man-child, then I've got news for ya Bub... we'reAeLL man-children.

Honestly, being unable to commit to a relationship IS childish. If you are holding onto issues that keep you from moving forward, as adults should be able to do, then yes, I find that akin to being a man-child. If he isn't ready to commit then don't lead Carlie on and don't lie to her... both of which are also childish.

Now compare that to 5 or 10 years ago when he was 100% open and honest with MJ, completely committed to her, and trusted her with every fiber of his being. You see the step backwards here?

3) I did say in the last 2 years, so I guess Peter was broke last year.. .though I have no recollection of him looking for a place to stay...

Peter - "Can I crash with you, Flash?"
Flash - "Dude, I'm banging Betty?"
Peter - "What's that mean?"

Peter - "Hey MJ, can I live with you?"
MJ - "You mean, like husband and wife?"
Peter - "Hey honey I'm home"
MJ - "Yeah right, like that could ever work. Haha, snort."
Peter - "Yeah, pretty stupid of me."


Not ringing any bells?

4)What you may think of as "childish", it's part of Peter being angry that somebody he knew and cared for died because he's Spider-Man... yes, perhaps the promise is one that he can never possibly keep, but why is it childish to make such a promise when he's GRIEVING?!?!?!?

It doesn't matter that he's grieving. You gave no stipulations only that it had to be within the past two years. That was a very naive and childish thing for him to say and he's been through enough heartbreak to know better by now.

And technically, the Broke thing and the needing to live with someone else thing should really be separate. So By my count, I have 5.... go get yourself some crow.

 

[dkamphaus43]

I barely remember what I've read of Big Time but a few off the top of my head:

1) Fart jokes
2) Inability to trust and commit himself to Carlie (which is why she left him)
3) Broke and looking to bum a place to stay (yes, this was remodied but don't act like it's the last time it'll happen... Spectre of Spider-Man and all that )
4) A naive belief that he can enforce the "no one dies" rule after Martha died (come on, that's childish)

Well, that's all I can think of but that's pretty good being that it was only 6 months worth and all from memory. Anyone else got one from the other year and a half I didn't read?

To be fair though, I think that really had more to do with the fact that Peter was never really into the relationship in the first place and only got together with her because he felt obligated to for some reason, and spider-island has more or less confirmed that.

But yeah, it's no excuse really, it was still irresponsible.

 

[kguillou]

I'm so &^%$#E&^$E^&%ing tired about these "man-child" comments... most of which came from stories in 2008, BND's first year.... I don't really believe you really see that in ASM anymore... now in Bendis' Avengers' books, that's a different story... in fact, I'd like for anyone to show me "5 man child" references in the last 2 years... should be simple enough if that's how Peter is now portrayed...

Show me... I dare you.

And if I'm wrong, I will eat whatever crow comes my way.

Now I'll be fair TMOB, i think part of my problem is that I may not be used to this younger version of peter parker. I think when BND started, one of the mandates was that Peter needed to look and sound younger and therefore the writers and artists followed suit. But the thing is, i come from the era of J.M. Dematteis and his interpretation of Spiderman which was a more mature interpretation i think. And JMS had a similar style to Dematteis' so, I think i was just too used to this kind of spider-man.

But sometimes i do feel like the writers sometimes try too hard to make Spiderman into Deadpool, this slapsticky character who never shuts up. I never really saw Spiderman like that. Like on Avengers, its such a damn shame Bendis writes him the way he does. There was a time when everyone respected Spider-man because he was the undefeated champion of the marvel U. He's fought and beaten everyone including the likes of Captain America. Nowadays, he's just that annoying guy on the team who never shuts up.

But again, to be fair, thats just my personal taste i guess.

 

[dkamphaus43]

Then he's being unresponsible in bringing her into the dangers of his life without preparing her... which is also childish.

As I've said before, Peter should either be a guy who, after a certain period of experimenting with relationships, decides to take the leap of confiding in and marrying the right girl (which is what happened before Quesada f$%ked it up), or, decides that he can't be both Spider-Man and have a serious relationship with a girl and decides to swear off relationships. But it should be one or the other. Having him go from one failed relationship to another for the rest of his life makes him look like a loser who never learns from his past experiences and can't get his life together. That's definately not the kind of guy I want to relate to.

In fact, if he's not gonna get back with MJ again, then I'd actually be perfectly fine with no more romantic entanglements for the character. But considering that for some idiotic reason, Marvel seems to think that constantly trying and failing in relationship after relationship is one of the things that makes the character unique, I guess that's just wishful thinking on my part.

 

[dkamphaus43]

But the thing is, i come from the era of J.M. Dematteis and his interpretation of Spiderman which was a more mature interpretation i think. And JMS had a similar style to Dematteis' so, I think i was just too used to this kind of spider-man.

Don't forget about Roger Stern and Tom DeFalco. They were probably the 2 best spidey scribes of the 80's, and they also wrote the character with a more mature portrayal.