Comics Get ready people, JMS and Joe Q are planning ANOTHER Spider-Man event

[Gregatron]

I see what your saying and I respect your opinion. It's just that I still don't see how the marriage is neccesarily a "bad" thing for Spider-man/Peter. There are so many possibilties and storylines that have yet to even be touched on with the marriage. From his very first issue..Spider-man has been in a constant stay of progression and development, almost growing with his readers. Now, granted...I don't want Spider-man to grow into an oldman with limping from roof top to roof top. But his growth from highschool to college to a job, having a few relationships along the way (Gwen, Betty Felicia), finally settling down with MJ. That's always been one of the charms of the character to me.

Joey Q is a complete idiot if he thinks giving MJ the boot will "fix" things. Fans for the most part love her, the marriage and she's easily one of the most popular characters in Marvel. The marriage had nothing to do with Totem nonsense, The Other, Sins Pasts, Spidey sucking up souls, stabing and eating people.

But even then, even with the shift to college and the back-and-forth between girlfriends, he was still Spider-Man. He still adhered to the core concept (although it was somewhat diluted when Parker became more popular among his peers in college). This, then, was the illusion of change, mere variations in window dressing.

The death of Gwen, while successfully keeping Spider-Man out of the trap he's since fallen headlong into, did, however, create a "tentpole" moment in his history. It limited his universality. After all, violently losing one's true love isn't a run-of-the-mill, "fun" problem like in the old days, now is it? This event created a sense of time, of history. It created a milestone (one which would be endlessly referred to and/or raped in the coming decades) and a chronological reference point for the anal-retentive lunatic fanboy fringe (which is now the majority) to latch onto (so they could begin pounding out absurd "Marvel Time" formulas to dictate how long it would take Peter to age to adulthood).


A successful, happily married Peter Parker is no Peter Parker at all.


Spider-Man spoke very well to his original target audience. Problem is, that audience still expects him to speak to them (and them alone) today, 40-plus years later.


Hey, 400 posts in this thread!


By the by, the quote in your signature--

"I'll always be there for you, MJ. Even if I'm standing on the edge of hell itself, if I know you need me, I'll come for you. I swear it." - Peter Parker FNSM #3


--is a rather good example of what's up these days. It's the kind of "realistic", faux-cathartic, faux-poetic nonsense that Stan Lee's Peter Parker would never, ever have said. Merely a mouthed platitude designed to sound "cool" and "realistic" and "deep". It's "junk food", compared to the simple truths delivered in that inimitable, Stan Lee-esque fashion of yore.

 

[MaraJanesSlave]

We all know how bad Stan's memory is. Certainly, though, one reason the change was likely made was to appeal to the college fanbase (the beginning of the problems we have now). But the brakes were still put on at that point.

Conway killed Gwen because:


A. He knew marriage was wrong for Spider-Man, and would severely limit the character. Killing Gwen, however, would reinforce the tragedy/responsibilty aspects at the character's core, as well as making Peter single again.

B. He didn't like Gwen (he felt she was bland compared to Mary Jane), and felt that Mary Jane was destined to be Peter's girlfriend.

C. Shock value.


And just because Peter was the marrying kind didn't mean he should actually get married.


Mulder and Scully had romantic tension, but shouldn't they have ever gotten together? Wouldn't that have been a "realistic" development?

Oh, wait.

I'll agree with the points about Gwen. Although the analogy of Mulder & Scully doesn't really apply because "romantic tension" doesn't mean that those characters actively want to be married or even believe in marriage as Peter obviously does. Marriage doesn't have to be boring. It just need to be written well. I'd say that JQ probably doesn't watch too many soap operas if he thinks that only single people have drama or tension in fictional stories.

Even if Peter is made back into a younger person, as other posters have said, we'll only be waiting for him to get back with MJ again.

~Mara Jane

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Spider-man can't be saved...The character's dead.

I would nearly have to agree,Peter`s been weighed down too much.A total recon would be the only thing that saves him now...

Joe Q please, just die!

...i would nearly agree on that also.

 

[dan1]

The current disrespect for continuity and theme is a heck of a lot worse for Spider-Man comics then Peter being married.

Lest we not forget, Peter can go away as a traveling photographer and MJ can take off and make movies. They do not have to be together every issue or even discussed.

And when they are together it should be fun times that are so good it sucks that they have to leave each other again.

Peter can still get flirted with when he is out and about (It happens ya' know).
He doesn't have to act on it.

But let's not forget the issues at hand (Norman the Joker, Totem, Sins Past, Other, Wimpy Peter, no supporting cast) can actually be remedied pretty quickly.

Yes, it would be remedied in the same manner that the Clone Saga was, but maybe Marvel would finally learn their lesson after that fix.

Laugh later. We would have to see them fix all this JMS JoeQ crap before we judge their next move.

Anyway, I am a pessimist and with JMS getting a contract extension, Spider-Man comics may never have perfect continuity again. I just know that MJ and Peter not being man and wife anymore isn't going to fix what was over 30 years of near perfect continuity.

 

[dan1]

Rating: RATED T+ CIVIL WAR # 1
The Story: THE LANDSCAPE OF THE MARVEL U IS CHANGING AND IT’S TIME TO DECIDE: WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?

...........................I'm on the side that thinks continuity, respect to the history and the Comic book (not movie) fans is MOST important. Being on that side has put me opposite JMS and Joe Quesada.

Let the war continue.

 

[Gregatron]

I'll agree with the points about Gwen. Although the analogy of Mulder & Scully doesn't really apply because "romantic tension" doesn't mean that those characters actively want to be married or even believe in marriage as Peter obviously does. Marriage doesn't have to be boring. It just need to be written well. I'd say that JQ probably doesn't watch too many soap operas if he thinks that only single people have drama or tension in fictional stories.

Even if Peter is made back into a younger person, as other posters have said, we'll only be waiting for him to get back with MJ again.

~Mara Jane

Spider-Man was created to be the ultimate teenage escapism fantasy, not "The Amazing Adventures of Peter and Mary Jane". Or maybe that should be, "The Adventures of Mary Jane and The Amazing Iron Wolverine-Man".

 

[Gregatron]

The current disrespect for continuity and theme is a heck of a lot worse for Spider-Man comics then Peter being married.

Lest we not forget, Peter can go away as a traveling photographer and MJ can take off and make movies. They do not have to be together every issue or even discussed.

And when they are together it should be fun times that are so good it sucks that they have to leave each other again.

Peter can still get flirted with when he is out and about (It happens ya' know).
He doesn't have to act on it.

But let's not forget the issues at hand (Norman the Joker, Totem, Sins Past, Other, Wimpy Peter, no supporting cast) can actually be remedied pretty quickly.

Yes, it would be remedied in the same manner that the Clone Saga was, but maybe Marvel would finally learn their lesson after that fix.

Laugh later. We would have to see them fix all this JMS JoeQ crap before we judge their next move.

Anyway, I am a pessimist and with JMS getting a contract extension, Spider-Man comics may never have perfect continuity again. I just know that MJ and Peter not being man and wife anymore isn't going to fix what was over 30 years of near perfect continuity.

As I have said before, the first few years of the marriage were during a time when the writers (guys like Conway, Michelinie, etc.) still (mostly) respected the characters' history and themes, and there were still good Spider-Man stories being produced.

But the lack of wisdom in the decision to marry them began to show up rather quickly, most notably with the Clone Saga and the Relaunch.

 

[Gregatron]

Words of wisdom from another board:




"continuity" should be about characterization, not minutia of storylines. Captain America, to name one, should be the same guy in every book he appears in. When the creative team changes on his own title, it should do so with no impact upon the character of Captain America whatsoever. Having Cap guest star in the book you're writing, or taking over Cap's home title, should not be seen as an invitation to "leave your mark" on the character. Nor should it be seen as an invitation to make editorial comments about someone elses's storyline.
Alas, professionalism is pretty much dead in comics. It's just a bunch of prima donnas -- from the highest editorial postions on down the food chain -- pissing all over everything to make it "theirs" and forgetting that they don't matter. Not one whit. Only the characters matter.

 

[roach]

Words of wisdom from another board:




"continuity" should be about characterization, not minutia of storylines. Captain America, to name one, should be the same guy in every book he appears in. When the creative team changes on his own title, it should do so with no impact upon the character of Captain America whatsoever. Having Cap guest star in the book you're writing, or taking over Cap's home title, should not be seen as an invitation to "leave your mark" on the character. Nor should it be seen as an invitation to make editorial comments about someone elses's storyline.
Alas, professionalism is pretty much dead in comics. It's just a bunch of prima donnas -- from the highest editorial postions on down the food chain -- pissing all over everything to make it "theirs" and forgetting that they don't matter. Not one whit. Only the characters matter.

I agree

 

[Gregatron]

I agree

And yet you support the notion of having 25 different versions of Spider-Man. You can't have it both ways...

 

[Herr Logan]

Words of wisdom from another board:




"continuity" should be about characterization, not minutia of storylines. Captain America, to name one, should be the same guy in every book he appears in. When the creative team changes on his own title, it should do so with no impact upon the character of Captain America whatsoever. Having Cap guest star in the book you're writing, or taking over Cap's home title, should not be seen as an invitation to "leave your mark" on the character. Nor should it be seen as an invitation to make editorial comments about someone elses's storyline.
Alas, professionalism is pretty much dead in comics. It's just a bunch of prima donnas -- from the highest editorial postions on down the food chain -- pissing all over everything to make it "theirs" and forgetting that they don't matter. Not one whit. Only the characters matter.

Hallelujah!

Can I get a "yeah, that's right"?

 

[Herr Logan]

You are a gem in the rough, sir.

I appreciate you constructive criticism.

My pleasure.

The only thing more satisfying than dishing out constructive criticism is dishing out destructive criticism (not to be confused with "unconstructive" criticism, which is just feckin' annoying), but I doubt I'll ever have to use that on you.

I simply feel that the notion of a married Spider-Man defies one of the core elements of the character (the "teenager-against-the-world who escapes from his problems as Spider-Man" concept that was so all-ages appealing).

The notion of "growth and change" was not a core element of the character at his inception, and therefore holds far less weight in such an argument.

Well, I know I'm not qualified to definitively confirm or deny those assertions. I think that the former statement is speculative and the latter is highly questionable.

Again, change for change's sake is idiotic, especially when it's used in a superficial and careless attempt to create sensationlistic appeal to the lowest common denominator. However, it's pretty clear that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko were maintaining a character who was mostly consistent but who was in fact growing and changing. I see that as a good thing simply because they did it well, not based on any generalized notion that "he has to change, or else it gets stale."

As much as it is anxiety-producing and risky, I am in favor of a certain level of change over the course of time with these characters. That opens more opportunities. However, as I said before, I believe that having Spider-Man get married limits the range of new opportunities, even as it opens up a semi-specified range of its own. There are subjects to explore with marriage, but I ain't that interested, to be honest. If I was going to be a cop or Mary Jane was a super-type herself, then I might foolishly look to their marriage as a fantasy ideal for my own (I'm engaged and cohabiting currently), but that's not the case. I'm not incredibly interested in love plots in general, except when they are written well and more than balanced by more stimulating material (sci-fi action, crime drama, etc.).

I think it takes a lot of skill to properly write a character over several years and have him/her "grow" (I'm talking more in terms of maturity and experience, rather than physiological changes) and yet remain the same character throughout. Stan Lee and his plotters (Ditko, Romita) did that very well. Chris Claremont did the same for several of the X-Men, especially Wolverine and... no, I was going to say Storm, but that's too complicated an issue to get into right now.... Yeah, so Wolverine and maybe some others. Having a character able to muse over their own development (as a fighter, as a thinker, various relationship roles, etc.) can make for great storytelling, and Stan Lee had Spider-Man do that in small doses here and there back in the day, so I'm not talking about whole plotlines devoted to retrospective/introspective monologues or some such nonsense. But even when Spider-Man grew, he still had a lot of growing to do, which was appealing to me. Even in college, he still had a hot temper (even moreso, possibly) and couldn't keep his life obligations straight. He was the same character, but a little more grown up. I'm in favor of that. But yeah, that may be as far as I want it to go.

Since I don't have the energy to dwell on it too much lately, the first impression I get of my own preference is that if I had to make the retcon, Spider-Man would still be in college, even if he'd been published consistently since 1962 (or '61, depending on whether the gap between and ASM #1). Hey, some people take a long time to get through college! But that doesn't work for a lot of people, and I understand why. Again, most of this stuff is very subjective, so I use absolute statements sparingly (relatively), but when I do make an affirmative statement about a character or story and someone dares to disagree... well, ask anyone here what happens then.

As for the rest of the masses and their unconstructive criticism...bring it on.

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout! Let the blood flow like cherry cola!