Could BND have been done with a Married Spidey?

[random_havoc]

Well if the question is "Would BND be exactly the same with a married Peter," the answer is going to be "Of course not." The situations would be different, the dialogue would be different, the underlying tones would be different, most of us would probably be able to read it without the constant nagging knowledge that Spider-Man just got consensually ear****ed by the Devil to appease a bunch of suits who never grew past 1966. Etc etc.

But if the question is "Could all the things that BND got right and all those attractive elements we like about it have been done with a married Peter," the answer is going to be "yes."

Very well put. Again, my knowledge is limited due to refusing to pay money and thereby support the whole OMD thing, and hence not having read BND. But as a writer I figured most of what you said above would apply.

 

[stillanerd]

I thought that Slott came on after OMD...If that's the case then he didn't have any input in shaping the story of OMD, that was all Quesada. Dan came on Spider-Man because they asked him after OMD was already concrete and because married spider-man or not, he wanted to write The Amazing Spider-Man. I don't think that it's anything more than that.

From an interview Quesada gave on Spider-Man, One More Day, and Brand New Day to Jonah Weiland at CBR on December 31, 2007:

Well, to be completely clear, the idea for "OMD" was actually created by a room full of people. From the very first day I was in the EIC chair, I made no secret of the fact that I felt that a married Peter Parker wasn't the best thing for an ongoing Spider-Man universe. The problem was that we never had a decent methodology to get ourselves out of it. I always said that if we ever found a way to do it, I would pursue the avenues to get us there.



Close to two years ago at one of our creative summits, the seeds of that idea began to blossom. Those ideas were then taken and a two week long e-mail chain began where we started to throw around ideas until we got the story kind of where we wanted it to be. The guys involved in all of this from the beginning were Joe, Bendis, Millar, Loeb, Tom Brevoort, Axel Alonso and myself. It then all carried over to the next summit, at which Ed Brubaker and Dan Slott also had some stuff to add.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=12238


Now if Quesada was actually making reference towards future stories involving Spider-Man in Brand New Day, then I stand corrected.

 

[random_havoc]

Well if the question is "Would BND be exactly the same with a married Peter," the answer is going to be "Of course not." The situations would be different, the dialogue would be different, the underlying tones would be different, most of us would probably be able to read it without the constant nagging knowledge that Spider-Man just got consensually ear****ed by the Devil to appease a bunch of suits who never grew past 1966. Etc etc.

But if the question is "Could all the things that BND got right and all those attractive elements we like about it have been done with a married Peter," the answer is going to be "yes."

I have to agree with this. Well put dude.

 

[random_havoc]

Oh, and one MORE thing:

Again, I haven't read BND but from what I heard one of the original ideas was that Gwen Stacey was going to be brought back as well. I've since heard that Marvel ended up not doing that.

So, kudos, at least, for not committing the atrocity of bringing Gwen back, which would have completely crapped on one of the greatest dramatic moments in comic book history. And shame on whoever it was that seriously considered that as a good idea.

Whenever my non-comic reading friends would mock about how no comic characters ever really stay dead I always used to say, "I got two names for you, Gwen Stacey, and Bucky. They've both stayed dead for decades!"

Well, at least I've still got one name I can use. Thanks again to whoever was wise enough to leave well enough alone.

 

[spiderfan970]

From an interview Quesada gave on Spider-Man, One More Day, and Brand New Day to Jonah Weiland at CBR on December 31, 2007:




http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=12238


Now if Quesada was actually making reference towards future stories involving Spider-Man in Brand New Day, then I stand corrected.

Hm....Yeah it's hard to tell if he means OMD or BND, but if it's OMD then my bad.

 

[SuGarRush]

I just wanted to drop in real quick.

I was a OMD/BND hater. I didn't buy any of the "event" books, but about a month ago, I jumped in and started reading a little bit of Spider-Man.

And it is pretty good. The writing team (I'm looking at you in particular Mr. Slott) has really stepped up to the plate and hit one out of the park, consistently, every week.

My only problem is, I keep asking myself, where is MJ?

It's like the writers had been saving up good stuff for years, but refused to use it until they got rid of MJ, then they said, "Look how awesome Spider-Man is without her!"

But the stuff they've been doing without her, the romances, the new characters, vince, blah blah blah; that's all the stuff I don't like and couldn't care less about.

The classic villains coming back, the interactions with Harry and Norm, the FUNNY Spider-Man one liners, these are the things I enjoy.

The other stuff I'm just suffering through. And the people I talk to about it all say the same thing. The Spider-Man stuff they like, the Peter Parker stuff for them is just something they have to grit their way through to get to the good stuff. And it didn't used to be that way back in the day.

I'm glad all the poo-bahs at Marvel think a Single Spidey is the way to go, but these are the same guys who have forced a mega-event down our throats continually for the last 3 years, the same guys who give Wolverine 12 books a month to appear in, but I can't get the REAL Tony Stark to come back, or get the REAL Avengers back together again?

I appreciate what y'all are doing, I suppose, but I am being forced to buy smaller titles, just to get superheroes fighting villains, heroes acting like GOOD guys, and character line-ups I recognize.

Once Marvel stops relying on gimmicks like Mega-Events or Magical Divorce retconning powers, and starts consistently writing quality stories again in a STEADY Universe, then I'll trust y'all.

 

[Ikaris-Eternal]

i was reading Spider-Man long before the marriage, and when it happened I never thought of it being a "forever" change to the character. Peter Parker has always had a revolving door of new lovers, and that was part of the charm of the character - unlike Superman and the Lois Lane constant.

Was OMD clunky and unnecessarily complicated? yes. Was a married Spidey a bad thing? not really. Does making him single again allow for more possibilities down the road? sure. And most importantly - has BND been fun to read? yes.

You're entitled to read whatever you like, but the unending sniping about the ending of the marriage and all the "I'm never reading Spider-Man until MJ is his wife again" is just extremely...nerdy. It sounds like something Comic Book Guy would say on The Simpsons.

I'm glad they didn't kill MJ. That would have been the easy out. They chose a very complicated, very "comic-booky" solution.

 

[Darthphere]

Just wondering, could BND have been done with Spidey still married to Mary Jane?

I have refused to read anything Spidey since OMD (and will continue to do so until Spidey and MJ are returned to their married, pre-OMD), status but have heard that the new BND stuff is very good, but could just as easily have been done with him still married. Is that true?

P.s. I think of OMD and other such continuity disruptions as insults to me as a reader hence why I won't read spidey anymore. Plus, it was completely unnecessary, out of character for spidey, and lazy writing.

:facepalm

Not this again.

 

[Themanofbat]

Dan, oh, Dan, you are much better than this post. So much better. You also say that a single Spider-Man is best for the franchise, but isn't this franchise about a everyday young man who just happens to be a superhero? Don't everyday young men find the girl of their dreams and get married? What's the point of Peter being an everyday guy as a hero if he can't do this?

Being a Spidey reader since 1975, I've had a good long time as reading both a single and a married Spider-Man... and there have been good stories on both sides of the fence.

Having said that, and it's something that I think people don't get... is that at its core, Peter Parker really can never find "true ever lasting love" because as it was in the past, the Spectre of Spider-Man will always come between Peter Parker and those he loves/cares about... it's a fundamental aspect to Spidey's character... he could not get close to Betty (his first love) because Spider-Man reminded her of her brother's death... he could never get close to Gwen, especially after the death of her father... Mary Jane was almost killed by Harry when he first became the Green Goblin, because she was starting to get close to Peter... his life as a responsible costumed hero/fighter always comes first, even at the expense of Peter's "personal life"... and with the marital dynamic, you can never have that, because no matter what happens to him as Spider-Man, he will have MJ to cozy up to in a soft bed at the end of the day... and while that made for some terrific stories (and some pretty bad ones) over the last 20 years, Marvel felt like getting their franchise character back to where "they" feel works best for him in the long run.

What's the point of Nora or Lily or Carlie? Why should we care if he dates any of them if he can never get TRUELY close with them? Newsflash, (and that sounds so mean, and partially because you are my favorite writer Marvel has right now Dan and most of the reason I kept on reading Spidey as long as I did after OMD/BND.) we really don't care about Lily/Nora/Carlie, because if by some chance he does find love in one of them they could just magically be Mephistoed out of the franchise much like MJ. (who hasn't been seen prominently since your Bobby Carr arc so might as well say she was completely written out of the franchise.)

Some people have been calling the new BND direction as putting Spider-Man in some type of cyclical Charlie Brown loop, where nothing will ever evolve... but the unfortunate reality is that a married Spider-Man is a means to an end... they say that Spider-Man will not grow anymore because he's in the Charlie Brown loop... well, how was he going to grow as a married couple... eventually, you'd have to being kids into the mix, otherwise, you'd have Peter & MJ in the same perpetual Charlie Brown & Lucy loop, because you'd have to bring kids into the picture to show "growth", and then unless you want to keep Peter, MJ & babies into the same perpetual Charlie Brown, Lucy & Co. loop, you have to age the kids, and then so on and so forth... at some point, regardless of where the Charlie Brown loop begins, unless you want to have someone else become Spider-Man, you have to cut something off somewhere... yes, Marvel could have kept them married forever (with no kids), but then there would still be complaints about "no growth", so you'd still have a married Peter and the Charlie Brown loop... so Marvel just decided that IF we are going to have some type of cut-off, they'd rather have him single... and that's what they did.

Does this mean that we won't see "growth" with the new characters and Peter's supporting cast? And Peter himself? Of course not... Dan (and Company) are too good as writers to let stuff like that happen.

Also shouldn't what the fans want be what's BEST for the franchise, and clearly the number of fans who prefer married Peter outnumber those who favor single Peter. And mind you we met at Baltimore Comicon and I recall you said listening to the fans gave you some of your weakest issues of Shulkie, but this is Spider-Man, Marvel's pretty much poster boy and big wig. It's a literally more important to listen to the fans with his franchise than say fans of the She-Hulk series.

If the "fans" dictated what was best for Peter Parker, he'd still be married to MJ... err, no wait... he'd still be dating Gwen, Uhhh, no wait a minute... he'd be dating Betty Brant, his first love.

Comics are always about change... some of them are good, some of them aren't.

The readers can decide for themselves what they like and don't...

Clearly, some people love the new direction, as I do, and others don't.

Cheers...

Mike

 

[storyteller]

Heres my 5 cents

1) I really dont understand the BND naysayers. Outside of Harrys mysterious return and some awkward should they know who spiderman is moments(aka the symbiote and its hosts). The Bnd world fits in nicely. Though thats mostly because ever since omd spiderman has barely stepped foot out of his own comic and has rarely been Peter Parker in those other issues.

2) I think BND could have been done without a wish. An arc that puts peters identity back in the box due to logic could have worked. Hell the supporting cast could have been even stronger. JJJ has rarely been in the series since his heart attack and Robbie has "known" for a while.

3) It sure as hell could have worked with being hitched. They arent going to touch romance with a 10 foot pole as is(just have cheating girlfriends). Whats the difference between that and already being married?

4) But Alas in the next decade we will probably see the wish be undone or what not. Gone the way of spidermans 90's adventures.

5) BND though has been terrible at saying what is/isnt canon in this new world.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

You think they're going to undo the wish from OMD?

 

[fifthfiend]

You're entitled to read whatever you like, but the unending sniping about the ending of the marriage and all the "I'm never reading Spider-Man until MJ is his wife again" is just extremely...nerdy. It sounds like something Comic Book Guy would say on The Simpsons.

I never get tired of a bunch of raging dorkwad comic book nerds posting on an internet forum being told they sound like Comic Book Guy by, you know, another raging dorkward comic book nerd posting on an internet forum.

But no Ikaris I'm sure it's all those other nerds who are like the Comic Book Guy. You know, the kind of nerds who go around caring about Spider-Man's marriage, or I dunno, naming themselves after psuedomythological Jack Kirby characters that maybe a thousand people in the entire world give anything resembling a **** about. Those kind of guys. t:

But not you. You're special.

 

[Themanofbat]

You think they're going to undo the wish from OMD?

I don't think so... the numbers are good, even though the weekly average is lower than what used to be, total monthly averages of Spider-Man comics sold are the best this decade...

And even the people who were "pro-marriage" are starting to understand "why" a single Spider-Man works better... they are not buying the books, they hate that Pete made a deal with Mephisto (of all people), but they're "getting" it... (at least a few of them are on the Spidey comics forums).

And to those that have continuity issues, one of the bigger ones will be handled this month (unless you're screwing with us Dan ), and I believe that the rest will fall into place... it's been hinted in NWTD that Peter made the world forget (with the aid of someone), so we know that's a story that will be told...

And at the end of the day, IF Marvel decides to make Peter & MJ a couple again, it will be as such: a couple... albeit not a married one.

And that is merely my two cents...

 

[Themanofbat]

You know, the kind of nerds who go around caring about Spider-Man's marriage, or I dunno, naming themselves after psuedomythological Jack Kirby characters that maybe a thousand people in the entire world give anything resembling a **** about.

I'm glad my name is a variation of a Bob Kane/Bill Finger creation that everybody likes...

 

[fifthfiend]

Being a Spidey reader since 1975, I've had a good long time as reading both a single and a married Spider-Man... and there have been good stories on both sides of the fence.

Having said that, and it's something that I think people don't get... is that at its core, Peter Parker really can never find "true ever lasting love" because as it was in the past, the Spectre of Spider-Man will always come between Peter Parker and those he loves/cares about... it's a fundamental aspect to Spidey's character...

Oh totally, the same way that "at his core", Superman's story is about Lois and Lana trying to guess his secret identity, and Clark fooling them by blurring himself slightly when people take pictures of him. God knows Superman comics have suffered for not having that "fundamental aspect" to carry them.

(Such a "fundamental aspect" that Spidey's comics did without it for 20 years and were perfectly fine, except for every time some clown decided they needed that nonsense back.)

 

[random_havoc]

.

I'm glad they didn't kill MJ. That would have been the easy out. They chose a very complicated, very "comic-booky" solution.

Did you just actually suggest that having MJ killed would have been the easy option? You don't think that maybe, I dunno, having him make a magical wish with the devil(!) was the easy way out!?!

You think that the writers having to write a grief stricken, potentially murderous Peter that's dealing with the death of his true love would have been the easier option, instead of, POOF! It's all changed and theirs no serious consequences other than **** ing on continuity and writing a total crap story, and ruining any semblance of Peter being a hero (ie, heroes don't make deals with the devil btw).


I'd refute the rest of your post but fifthfiend has already done it for me. Thx, btw, fiend

 

[random_havoc]

P.s. Not that I would have had MJ killed btw. I wouldn't have had them split up at all. I WOULD have let Aunt May die though. THAT would have been ACTUAL story progression.

 

[Themanofbat]

lookit me, lookit me, lookit me... I can post a bunch of stuff and then re-edit my post 6 minutes later so's I can include big words in it so all the big nerds can lookit me and be all impressed by my big words...

All I know is that "fundamentally at your core", you're a nincompoop...

 

[random_havoc]

all i know is that "fundamentally at your core", you're a nincompoop...

lol!!!!

 

[stillanerd]

Being a Spidey reader since 1975, I've had a good long time as reading both a single and a married Spider-Man... and there have been good stories on both sides of the fence.

Having said that, and it's something that I think people don't get... is that at its core, Peter Parker really can never find "true ever lasting love" because as it was in the past, the Spectre of Spider-Man will always come between Peter Parker and those he loves/cares about... it's a fundamental aspect to Spidey's character... he could not get close to Betty (his first love) because Spider-Man reminded her of her brother's death... he could never get close to Gwen, especially after the death of her father... Mary Jane was almost killed by Harry when he first became the Green Goblin, because she was starting to get close to Peter... his life as a responsible costumed hero/fighter always comes first, even at the expense of Peter's "personal life"... and with the marital dynamic, you can never have that, because no matter what happens to him as Spider-Man, he will have MJ to cozy up to in a soft bed at the end of the day... and while that made for some terrific stories (and some pretty bad ones) over the last 20 years, Marvel felt like getting their franchise character back to where "they" feel works best for him in the long run.

TMOB, while what you point out does have merit with regards to Spider-Man and the sense of difficulties in his personal life, there is one thing that you need to add that you neglected to mention. For all the Sisyphean trials Spider-Man goes through, there are things which keep him going. One of course, is his guilt for being indirectly responsible for his Uncle Ben. Another is the desire to live up to his Uncle's words about "with great power there must also come great responsibility."

But the one thing, the most important thing, I believe, is that he also has hope. The hope that, one day, when all is said and done, what he's doing will be worthwhile, that tommorrow will be better than it was yesterday, and that knowing that keeps him smiling and laughing in the face of adversity and whatever evil comes his way.

And to some extent, Mary Jane symbolizes that hope. That she can be the light at the end of the tunnel. That when the memory of his Uncle makes him remember his past, and his Aunt May reminds him of what he must protect and preserve, MJ offers him hope for a brighter future. Unlike Batman, who knows instinctively he will forever be locked into a neverending war on crime and that all chance for a normal life and happiness he sacrificed long ago for the good of others, Spider-Man still has the hope and the optimism that he can still have the happiness that a normal life provides, including marriage and a family of his own. MJ, while she didn't start out that way, has come to symbolize this when they were dating and when they were married.

Some people have been calling the new BND direction as putting Spider-Man in some type of cyclical Charlie Brown loop, where nothing will ever evolve... but the unfortunate reality is that a married Spider-Man is a means to an end... they say that Spider-Man will not grow anymore because he's in the Charlie Brown loop... well, how was he going to grow as a married couple... eventually, you'd have to being kids into the mix, otherwise, you'd have Peter & MJ in the same perpetual Charlie Brown & Lucy loop, because you'd have to bring kids into the picture to show "growth", and then unless you want to keep Peter, MJ & babies into the same perpetual Charlie Brown, Lucy & Co. loop, you have to age the kids, and then so on and so forth... at some point, regardless of where the Charlie Brown loop begins, unless you want to have someone else become Spider-Man, you have to cut something off somewhere... yes, Marvel could have kept them married forever (with no kids), but then there would still be complaints about "no growth", so you'd still have a married Peter and the Charlie Brown loop... so Marvel just decided that IF we are going to have some type of cut-off, they'd rather have him single... and that's what they did.

Does this mean that we won't see "growth" with the new characters and Peter's supporting cast? And Peter himself? Of course not... Dan (and Company) are too good as writers to let stuff like that happen.

The reason why folks are equating it to Spidey being in a "Charlie Brown" loop" or an "Archie loop" is because, for all intends and purposes, Marvel has essentially told us that Peter Parker will not progress beyond being single or grow past his thirties because both make him "older" in the eyes of the "intended target audience" which are young kids. The problem is that, for most fans who have been reading the book, the character of Spider-Man was unique because he grew up, that he didn't stay a teenager or a high school student forever. That he eventually graduated college and did get married. That since the whole idea of the comic was about what it actually meant to be a responsible human being, as most coming of age stories do. As long as the theme of the character remains intact and the character stays consistent, then almost anything should be up for grabs, which is what, I believe, "illusion of change" really means.

Of course, this tends to conflict with the idea that, since Spider-Man is a franchise character with his own template, there is only so far you can take him. The downside to this is that there are certain stories that you cannot do, which resticts the characters growth and development for the sake of maintaining the familiar elements for a wider audience. By it's very nature, it's restictive because it limits what you can and can't do with the character. The upside, though, is that at least there's the potential for future generations to experience the same character that earlier generations read about.

If the "fans" dictated what was best for Peter Parker, he'd still be married to MJ... err, no wait... he'd still be dating Gwen, Uhhh, no wait a minute... he'd be dating Betty Brant, his first love.

But sometimes, the creators can just be as wrong as the readers. After all, both readers and comic book creators are human and imperfect. After all, some would argue that Marvel wouldn't have been in the position they were in had they listened to Steve Ditko and not aged the character past high school, if Marvel was so concerned about making the character "too old for the readers."

 

[random_havoc]

All good points stillanerd.

 

[fifthfiend]

lookit me, lookit me, lookit me... I can post a bunch of stuff and then re-edit my post 6 minutes later so's I can include big words in it so all the big nerds can lookit me and be all impressed by my big words...

Sorry, I'll make sure and remember to dumb things down for you in the future.

All I know is that "fundamentally at your core", you're a nincompoop...

I love how TMOB makes this pretense of being reasonable, but he never really makes it for more than three posts before he remembers oh yeah, I'm a *****e.

 

[Themanofbat]

Sorry, I'll make sure and remember to dumb things down...

I don't think that humanly possible...

I love TMOB...

I know, I know...

I'm a *****e.

Actually, I really never have anything to say to you on that very account, but because you're so "in love" with me, I find myself responding to your "loving posts directed at me"...

 

[random_havoc]

I don't think that humanly possible...





I know, I know...



Actually, I really never have anything to say to you on that very account, but because you're so "in love" with me, I find myself responding to your "loving posts directed at me"...

What are you, six? At least try using some wit when you insult somebody.

 

[moraldeficiency]

As in, you could do the same stories as long as you did them differently.
Aaaaand (Class?) that would make them different stories.

Best explination I've ever heard as to why OMD is a massive retcon. Take away an aspect, get a different result. So I guess that argument is over.