Comics Interview at SDCC

[Galactus]

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=77848

I suppose this sounds interesting for clone fans:

Asked if Marvel would ever consider bringing Ben Reilly back, the answer was a simple one: Keep reading Spider-Man

 

[iloveclones]

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=77848

I suppose this sounds interesting for clone fans:

Asked if Marvel would ever consider bringing Ben Reilly back, the answer was a simple one: Keep reading Spider-Man

Niiiiiiiice

Hey, that was a pretty fun interview. I like when Stan said that he was afraid to go to Europe again fo fear they'd kill off Spider-Man.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Sounds like some of Sins Past might be retconned as well...

 

[Captivated]

So they ARE going to recon Sins Past! That's something... I just pray to God that it doesn't evolve into the original BAD idea of making the father Peter.

The only way to make Sins Past better is to have it revealed that Gwen NEVER had ANY kids at all... and therefore never cheated on Peter with Norman, fitting back into continuity.

Actually... I came up with a pretty good story outline that fit that criteria very well (It's in some, "how would you recon Sins Past" thread). I hope they are on the same wave length...

Asked by a somewhat disgruntled fan about Gwen Stacy’s previously unrevealed history from the “Sins’ Past” storyline? “It was all Joe’s idea,” Straczynski said solemnly.

“Sure – blame the dog when you fart,” Quesada laughed. Straczynski went on to explain the storyline came from the idea that Peter Parker might have had a hitherto unknown child via Gwen, and things developed quickly from there.

“We have something in mind which will make it much better in your eyes,” Straczynski said at the end of the recounting of the “Sins Past” storyline.​

 

[SpideyInATree]

Well, a lot of fans here aren't going to be happy with some of Stan's comments.

Saying that he thought the unmasking and Civil War were brilliant ideas.

And that Joe Quesada was one of the best things to happen to Marvel.

Wow.

But the Ben Reilly comment sort of has me a little floored. When Quesada answered "Keep reading Spider-Man" he could easily be telling the truth, considering the Utlimate Clone Saga currently going on in Ultimate Spider-Man. And Ultimate Ben Reilly isn't dead by any means. So, it could be one of those, "tricks" they like to pull every now and again.

Or maybe they're actually thinking about some way to bring back Ben Reilly, the Scarlet Spider, the clone of Peter Parker in the regular Marvel universe. I certainly wouldn't mind it, but if they're going to do that they need to start talking about all the things that come along with Mr. Reilly...like Kaine. And Baby May. And all the stuff they have loved to ignore for almost a decade.

And it's interesting to know that Stan wrote a Fantastic Four The End with Romita Jr. on art. I may just have to get that simply for the creative team, even though I have no interest in the ending of the Fantastic Four. They need to team up and do a Spider-Man The End...now that would be the cat's pajamas.

Though that seemed like a really interesting panel, and it scares me that they are going to be dipping back into Sins Past. They should LEAVE...IT...ALONE...and just ignore it like they do with the Clone Saga. Because you know that it's only going to make things worse if they mess with it.

 

[Dragon]

So they ARE going to recon Sins Past! That's something... I just pray to God that it doesn't evolve into the original BAD idea of making the father Peter.

The only way to make Sins Past better is to have it revealed that Gwen NEVER had ANY kids at all... and therefore never cheated on Peter with Norman, fitting back into continuity.

Actually... I came up with a pretty good story outline that fit that criteria very well (It's in some, "how would you recon Sins Past" thread). I hope they are on the same wave length...

Asked by a somewhat disgruntled fan about Gwen Stacy’s previously unrevealed history from the “Sins’ Past” storyline? “It was all Joe’s idea,” Straczynski said solemnly.

“Sure – blame the dog when you fart,” Quesada laughed. Straczynski went on to explain the storyline came from the idea that Peter Parker might have had a hitherto unknown child via Gwen, and things developed quickly from there.

“We have something in mind which will make it much better in your eyes,” Straczynski said at the end of the recounting of the “Sins Past” storyline.​

What would have been wrong with Peter being the father? That's the best direction they could have gone in if they had to use that concept.

 

[Dragon]

But the Ben Reilly comment sort of has me a little floored. When Quesada answered "Keep reading Spider-Man" he could easily be telling the truth, considering the Utlimate Clone Saga currently going on in Ultimate Spider-Man. And Ultimate Ben Reilly isn't dead by any means. So, it could be one of those, "tricks" they like to pull every now and again.

Remember Quesada said that the FF one-shot would bring the death of a FF member and they weren't coming back. And that was a total lie.

As for Stan gushing over Quesada- he's a company man. He says everything Marvel does is great but often in the side will show his displeasure.

 

[SpideyInATree]

Remember Quesada said that the FF one-shot would bring the death of a FF member and they weren't coming back. And that was a total lie.

As for Stan gushing over Quesada- he's a company man. He says everything Marvel does is great but often in the side will show his displeasure.

Well, Stan Lee doesn't really owe anything to the current people at Marvel comics. I don't really see the point in lying about how he feels about the current state of Spider-Man and the current editor in chief. There is a looming possibility that Lee could respect Quesada for the way he's handled things since being EIC.

 

[Dragon]

Well, Stan Lee doesn't really owe anything to the current people at Marvel comics. I don't really see the point in lying about how he feels about the current state of Spider-Man and the current editor in chief. There is a looming possibility that Lee could respect Quesada for the way he's handled things since being EIC.

Stan still gets paid ALOT of money by Marvel. At least a million dollars a year to mouthpiece for them. Plus a big percentage for the use of his characters. He wouldn't go to such a panel and bad mouth Joe Q.

 

[stillanerd]

What would have been wrong with Peter being the father? That's the best direction they could have gone in if they had to use that concept.

Actually, if they do decide to retcon it to make it so they were Peter's kids all along, it not only makes Spidey (a character marketed to children) a person who fathered children out-of-wedlock, but in light of this issue:

Makes it look as though he was not only a pederast, but about to commit incest to boot. Oh sure, Sarah was the one who actually kissed him in this issue, but even so, does that make things any better, especially if it is retconed that Sarah really is his DAUGHTER instead of Norman Osborn's?

 

[Kool-Aid]

Stan still gets paid ALOT of money by Marvel. At least a million dollars a year to mouthpiece for them. Plus a big percentage for the use of his characters. He wouldn't go to such a panel and bad mouth Joe Q.

I think he genuinely likes it, I mean he could've just said nothing. Plus Stan's a real nice guy, but then again I'm just going by interviews he's done.

 

[stillanerd]

Something else just occurred to me reading article over:

Asked about the decision of unmasking of Spider-Man as recently shown in Civil War, and whether or not that pushed the Spider-Man character beyond the point of what makes him Spider-Man at his core, Quesada said that the decision was not made lightly, and something that weighed heavily into it was the realization by the editorial and writing staffs that the unmasking could easily generate a year and a half to two year’s worth of Spider-Man stories wholly separate from Civil War.

Again, we have Joe Q saying "Spider-Man Unmasked" going to last at least a year and half. Which tells me that they never intended this to be the permanant status quo (thank goodness) but unfortunately they'll have to come up with some convoluted way in order to have Peter Parker regain his secret identity. And the way Peter Parker's identity as Spider-Man was revealed, it's going to lead into a whole series of problems to try and rectify. Besides, it seems quite apparent that the way things are shaping up, it looks like for that "year and a half" Peter is going to be a fugative and have to result to taking another civilain identity to cover up being Spider-Man knowing that everyone now knows Spider-Man is Peter Parker. I'll lay ten to one that he'll adopt the "Ben Reilly" identity if that's the case, which is Marvel's way of saying "Ben Reilly is back...sort of."

 

[Marc]

Asked by a somewhat disgruntled fan about Gwen Stacy’s previously unrevealed history from the “Sins’ Past” storyline? “It was all Joe’s idea,” Straczynski said solemnly.

“Sure – blame the dog when you fart,” Quesada laughed. Straczynski went on to explain the storyline came from the idea that Peter Parker might have had a hitherto unknown child via Gwen, and things developed quickly from there.

“We have something in mind which will make it much better in your eyes,” Straczynski said at the end of the recounting of the “Sins Past” storyline.​

We must all have five second memories. To have forgotten JMS defend to the hilt the idea of GG screwing Gwen, telling fans HE had done his homework, that it all fit and made sense. Saying fans would love this story. Make it much better? Have I not heard this about JMS coming to the title, about the totem ****, about Peter Parker. Sorry, but why would I listen to the word of a man who hasn't got ANY credability left whatsoever.

Did Joe Q put a gun to JMS' head to write the **** he has wrote? This the same guy who has no problem with coming out and criticizing people he disagree's with. Or is JMS too much of a coward to stand upto his master and say no, I suppose this makes sense given how much Peter is now a little b*tch. Cowardice filters to the character.There being a child might have worked BACK then but that didn't happen, wedging one in is stupid regardless of who is the father. Its a stupid concept, end of story... nothing could make it better for me.

As for Stan, I don't think he'd say a bad word about Hitler. Thats just he way he is, I never gained respect for him for what he says in interviews but what he actually did with characters. Didn't he admit in another panel that he doesn't follow comics anymore and doesn't read spidey? So how exactly does he know whats going on?

 

[Dragon]

Actually, if they do decide to retcon it to make it so they were Peter's kids all along, it not only makes Spidey (a character marketed to children) a person who fathered children out-of-wedlock, but in light of this issue:

Makes it look as though he was not only a pederast, but about to commit incest to boot. Oh sure, Sarah was the one who actually kissed him in this issue, but even so, does that make things any better, especially if it is retconed that Sarah really is his DAUGHTER instead of Norman Osborn's?

Peter fathering children out of wedlock means nothing. It happens all the time and it isn't a terrible thing. It's how you treat the children that matters and had Peter known about them, he'd have been a good father to them. How many married parents abuse and kill their children?

As for the pederest, incest or what- that's too much of a reach. He wouldn't have known that sarah was his daughter, nor she knowing he was her father. And he immediately discouraged it. Secondly, that story was so universally panned and/or ignored, that it doesn't even matter. We're talking about Marvel, the guys who completely ignored that gwen never went away long enough to have children, that Peter was only in canada for mere days and within their own storyline, forgot that they themselves stated that Peter and Gwen didn't get together before his trip, yet they show them together in the final issue of the arc.

However Peter fathering the kids makes for much stronger drama.
Drama with Norman- He held Peter's children as hostages TWICE. And possibly killed one, while sentencing the other two to a slow death. since Norman has been brought back, his storylines have been pretty weak. this is the most horrid act he's committed since murdering Gwen.

Drama for Peter- he has children out there that he's never known who don't know him, and at least one wants him dead. He'd have to fight to find a way of curing them.

Drama for Peter & MJ- She lied to him about his own children. She has to deal with him having children that aren't hers.

It deepens and makes his relationship far more adult and meaningful. No more of that "she was his first love" nonsense.

It's real drama that springs from a logical place rather than what we usually get.

I mean, they probably won't even go this way, since Marvel.. You know, sucks. But it's a good idea nonetheless IMO.

 

[stillanerd]

Peter fathering children out of wedlock means nothing. It happens all the time and it isn't a terrible thing. It's how you treat the children that matters and had Peter known about them, he'd have been a good father to them. How many married parents abuse and kill their children?

As for the pederest, incest or what- that's too much of a reach. He wouldn't have known that sarah was his daughter, nor she knowing he was her father. And he immediately discouraged it. Secondly, that story was so universally panned and/or ignored, that it doesn't even matter. We're talking about Marvel, the guys who completely ignored that gwen never went away long enough to have children, that Peter was only in canada for mere days and within their own storyline, forgot that they themselves stated that Peter and Gwen didn't get together before his trip, yet that show them together in the final issue of the arc.

However Peter fathering the kids makes for much stronger drama.
Drama with Norman- (He held Peter children as hostages TWICE. And possibly killed one, while sentencing the other two to a slow death sentence. since Norman has been brougyht back, his storylines have been pretty weak this is the most horrid act he's committed since murdering Gwen.

Drama for Peter- he has children out there that he's never known who don't know him, and at least one wants him dead. He'd have to fight to find a way of curing them.

Drama for Peter & MJ- She lied to him about his own children. She has to deal with him having children that aren't hers.

It deepens and makes his relationship far more adult and meaningful. No more of that "she was his first love" nonsense.

It's real drama that springs from a logical place rather than what we usually get.

I mean, they probably won't even go this way, since Marvel.. You know, sucks. But it's a good idea nonetheless IMO.

Of course makes for great drama, no question. The idea of Norman Osborn raising Peter's children as his own and sicing them on his mortal enemy is an interesting one (which could've easily been done with baby May). It's just that the idea of Peter having out-of-wedlock kids might not sit too well with some folks, which is why Jim Shooter apparently nixed Bill Mantlo's idea that the Black Cat would become pregnant with Spider-Man's child. You're probably right about the sequel to

Spoiler

Sins Past

though, but it would make that whole episode involving Peter and Sarah--even though Peter didn't know and didn't reciprocate--it does make that whole situation creppy, and even moreso if it's retconned that the twins Peter and Gwen's. Especially since, at one time, Sarah DID think Peter was her father.

The second problem though is HOW do you fit it into continuity if

Spoiler

Sins Past

is retconned to have Peter be the father all along? Before, JMS tried to pass it off that Gwen had her tryst sometime after ASM #90 and then was pregnant and gave birth sometime between ASM #116-#120 because he figured ASM #116-#118 was a reprint of an earlier story, even though it made references to Conway's current storylines. But then that got changed when Marvel later adopted Madgoblin's theory that Gwen had her tryst with Norman sometime between ASM #61 and ASM #62 and was pregnant and gave birth to the twins sometime between ASM #94 and ASM #98. And how does Peter explain to MJ that the kids really are his? Was he lying to her that he and Gwen "never...you know...?" Creates a real mess, I'd say.

 

[Captivated]

Actually, if they do decide to retcon it to make it so they were Peter's kids all along, it not only makes Spidey (a character marketed to children) a person who fathered children out-of-wedlock, but in light of this issue:

Makes it look as though he was not only a pederast, but about to commit incest to boot. Oh sure, Sarah was the one who actually kissed him in this issue, but even so, does that make things any better, especially if it is retconed that Sarah really is his DAUGHTER instead of Norman Osborn's?

Oh... for those reasons and others, I can honestly say that making Peter the father would turn my stomach worse than just messing with Gwen.

Of course, what kind of example of responsibility, to all these 9-year olds that JQ is so concerned about, would Peter having children out of wedlock be?

I STRONGLY believe (and there have been MANY posts about the subject) that Peter and Gwen had a relationship that stopped short of knowing each other in the biblical sense... (I know many whose own casual additude towards sex -- more in keeping with today's morals than Stan's day -- think that Peter would do what THEY would do... but I think there are more reasons to arrive at my conclusion.)

Why would Gwen NOT have told him about being pregnant? Right away.

Did Norman find out about them and kidnap them? Extremely creepy that Peter would have children raised by the Goblin.

Creepy that Peter would have grown looking children, period. Talk about aging the character.

That disgusting story in which he glumed around Paris with Sarah -- after rudely blowing off and essentially lying to MJ -- also had him struggling with an attraction to her. THAT was gross enough, even if the girl wasn't 7 going on 17... But to find out that conniving little tart was really his daughter. Double eeeewwww!

Here was my idea of a recon... it made much more sense!
http://superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4878903&postcount=22

 

[Dragon]

Of course makes for great drama, no question. The idea of Norman Osborn raising Peter's children as his own and sicing them on his mortal enemy is an interesting one (which could've easily been done with baby May). It's just that the idea of Peter having out-of-wedlock kids might not sit too well with some folks, which is why Jim Shooter apparently nixed Bill Mantlo's idea that the Black Cat would become pregnant with Spider-Man's child.

Why would anyone make a big deal over children out-of-wedlock if they don't make a big deal about pre-marital sex? And no one had a problem with Peter having sexual relationships with MJ or Black Cat before marriage. As for Shooter's reaction- that was twenty years ago.

You're probably right about the sequel to

Spoiler

Sins Past

though, but it would make that whole episode involving Peter and Sarah--even though Peter didn't know and didn't reciprocate--it does make that whole situation creppy, and even moreso if it's retconned that the twins Peter and Gwen's. Especially since, at one time, Sarah DID think Peter was her father.

It was creepy when it was just Gwen's daughter. The point is, no one can blame PETER for anything. It takes nothing away from his character that a confused, lonely girl kissed him.

The second problem though is HOW do you fit it into continuity if

Spoiler

Sins Past

is retconned to have Peter be the father all along? Before, JMS tried to pass it off that Gwen had her tryst sometime after ASM #90 and then was pregnant and gave birth sometime between ASM #116-#120 because he figured ASM #116-#118 was a reprint of an earlier story, even though it made references to Conway's current storylines. But then that got changed when Marvel later adopted Madgoblin's theory that Gwen had her tryst with Norman sometime between ASM #61 and ASM #62 and was pregnant and gave birth to the twins sometime between ASM #94 and ASM #98. And how does Peter explain to MJ that the kids really are his? Was he lying to her that he and Gwen "never...you know...?" Creates a real mess, I'd say.

Well, you're preaching to the choir as far as the continuity glitches. I'm just saying, it's already been blown- continuity is killed. It was killed when Peter himself accepted the timeline. So at this point you can do two things- either re-retcon it and say the whole thing didn't happen, or eliminate the truly creepy situation we have, in Gwen bedding down Norman, lying to Peter for the entirety of their relationship, carrying Norman's children to term, and expecting Peter to care for them. An accidental pregnancy between two people who love and want to build a future together is a wonderful thing compared to what we have.

 

[stillanerd]

Oh... for those reasons and others, I can honestly say that making Peter the father would turn my stomach worse than just messing with Gwen.

Of course, what kind of example of responsibility, to all these 9-year olds that JQ is so concerned about, would Peter having children out of wedlock be?

Exactly. Sure, these things do happen, but with an icon like Spider-Man, it does send mixed messages about personal responsibility. Maybe somebody like Batman can get away with it (after all, the upcoming Batman comics apparently deal with him finding out Talia gave birth to his child) but even so, a character, with all kinds of merchandising marketed to kids, having kids
out of wedlock? It's not like Spider-Man is part of the Marvel MAX line.

I STRONGLY believe (and there have been MANY posts about the subject) that Peter and Gwen had a relationship that stopped short of knowing each other in the biblical sense... (I know many whose own casual additude towards sex -- more in keeping with today's morals than Stan's day -- think that Peter would do what THEY would do... but I think there are more reasons to arrive at my conclusion.)

Well, I think there was enough ambiguity there in the earlier issues where people could make the conclusion there may have been more than just mere necking going on between Peter and Gwen, but even so, did it really matter? We got the point they were in love without having to see them engage in bedroom gymnastics.

Why would Gwen NOT have told him about being pregnant? Right away.

No kidding.

Did Norman find out about them and kidnap them? Extremely creepy that Peter would have children raised by the Goblin.

Well, that was one possible theory as to what happened to Baby May, so I gather Osborn WOULD in fact steep that low.

Creepy that Peter would have grown looking children, period. Talk about aging the character.

Exactly. And remember all that talk Joe Q made about what a mistake it was for Peter and MJ to have a baby. If it was retconned that Peter was the father to the Stacy Twins all along, he'd be caught in another lie.

That disgusting story in which he glumed around Paris with Sarah -- after rudely blowing off and essentially lying to MJ -- also had him struggling with an attraction to her. THAT was gross enough, even if the girl wasn't 7 going on 17... But to find out that conniving little tart was really his daughter. Double eeeewwww!

Precisely my point.

Here was my idea of a recon... it made much more sense!
http://superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4878903&postcount=22

Got to say, Captivated, that's was very good. Although what would make it even creepier if he took DNA samples from both himself and Gwen and created their "offspring." On second thought, I rather not think about that.

 

[stillanerd]

Why would anyone make a big deal over children out-of-wedlock if they don't make a big deal about pre-marital sex? And no one had a problem with Peter having sexual relationships with MJ or Black Cat before marriage. As for Shooter's reaction- that was twenty years ago.

Fair enough. However, whenever whenever you hear about a man who has had kids out-of-wedlock, the initial reaction is that the guy had behaved irresponsibily when it came to sexual matters. And Peter is supposed to be "Mr. Responsibility" remember? Still, I suppose you could say that it would underscore the lesson that one has to take responsibility for one's actions, which is what Mantlo was also aiming for when he proposed the idea of the Black Cat being pregnant with Spidey's kid. Even so, if the point is to try and get kids to read comics, would this do it? Then again, they still published

Spoiler

Sins Past

, probably with the reasoning "The kids can always read Marvel Adventures or Ultimate Spider-Man."

It was creepy when it was just Gwen's daughter. The point is, no one can blame PETER for anything. It takes nothing away from his character that a confused, lonely girl kissed him.

Oh, I know it was already creepy enough, but why make it moreso? I mean if it WAS retconned that Sarah was Peter's kid, then that would outdo the tonsil hockey between Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia in Empire Strikes Back as the most gross-out kiss in pop culture history. If it hasn't already.

Well, you're preaching to the choir as far as the continuity glitches. I'm just saying, it's already been blown- continuity is killed. It was killed when Peter himself accepted the timeline. So at this point you can do two things- either re-retcon it and say the whole thing didn't happen, or eliminate the truly creepy situation we have, in Gwen bedding down Norman, lying to Peter for the entirety of their relationship, carrying Norman's children to term, and expecting Peter to care for them. An accidental pregnancy between two people who love and want to build a future together is a wonderful thing compared to what we have.

Oh, if I had to choose between the lesser of two evils, I'd definately choose the Peter and Gwen had kids scenario over what we actually got too, especially since it wouldn't have lead to what followed in Spectacular Spider-Man afterwards. Nevertheless, I understand why Joe Q probably nixed the original idea, even though that should have been cause enough to nix

Spoiler

Sins Past

outright.

 

[Dragon]

I STRONGLY believe (and there have been MANY posts about the subject) that Peter and Gwen had a relationship that stopped short of knowing each other in the biblical sense... (I know many whose own casual additude towards sex -- more in keeping with today's morals than Stan's day -- think that Peter would do what THEY would do... but I think there are more reasons to arrive at my conclusion.)

You think all of this wasn't happening in Stan's day? And speaking of Stan- you're talking about a guy who made a superhero cartoon about a stripper, not to mention making a deal with Playboy magazine to make superhero stories of an adult nature. Stan wasn't writing kid stuff. He was censored from presenting things fully back in the 60's. But he certainly hinted at it.

Why would Gwen NOT have told him about being pregnant? Right away.

Because she was afraid that this guy who while she loved him, was pretty flighty and appeared to be somewhat irresponsible. After all, he could disappear for days at a time with no explanation. Also, she might have been afraid of making his life more difficult. He'd likely have to quit or cut back at school to make money to care for a family. there's also how his Aunt might react.

Did Norman find out about them and kidnap them? Extremely creepy that Peter would have children raised by the Goblin.

Was it any less creepy that Gwen's kids- or ANY kids were raised by the Goblin?

Creepy that Peter would have grown looking children, period. Talk about aging the character.

First off, in rewriting Sins Past, the chidlren need not remain as adults. that could merely be their mutated state as happened with Franklin Richards, Valeria Richards and Colussus' sister Illyana. They could be reverted back into children.

And it's no creepier than what we have now with organic webbing, stingers, eye's being ripped out, embracing the spider and so forth.

First,

That disgusting story in which he glumed around Paris with Sarah -- after rudely blowing off and essentially lying to MJ -- also had him struggling with an attraction to her. THAT was gross enough, even if the girl wasn't 7 going on 17... But to find out that conniving little tart was really his daughter. Double eeeewwww!

Here was my idea of a recon... it made much more sense!
http://superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4878903&postcount=22

Well, we all know Sins Remembered was crap. And for more reasons than you mention. Simply it wasn't a well structured or conceived story. But any attraction Peter had toward Sarah was because she was the spitting image of Gwen. How could anyone not be attracted to someone who looks exactly like the person they loved? But again, Peter never acted on his attraction to her, and if it turned out he was her father- exactly. Every father looks at his daughter and thinks she's beautiful.

 

[Dragon]

Fair enough. However, whenever whenever you hear about a man who has had kids out-of-wedlock, the initial reaction is that the guy had behaved irresponsibily when it came to sexual matters. And Peter is supposed to be "Mr. Responsibility" remember?

Peter has made many irresponsible acts in his life. He's Mr. Responsibility because he does his best to make up for them. He always has and always will make mistakes. And- fathering a child isn't an act of irresponisiblity. My own son wasn't a planned pregnancy. But i'bve never regretted his being born. As long as you're willing to care for the child, there's no irresponsibility. and we know Peter would have cared for his children- as well as married Gwen if he knew about them.

Still, I suppose you could say that it would underscore the lesson that one has to take responsibility for one's actions, which is what Mantlo was also aiming for when he proposed the idea of the Black Cat being pregnant with Spidey's kid. Even so, if the point is to try and get kids to read comics, would this do it? Then again, they still published

Spoiler

Sins Past

, probably with the reasoning "The kids can always read Marvel Adventures or Ultimate Spider-Man."

Having a child with BC was wrong because they didn't love each other, and BC would have been a terrible mother. Not the case with Gwen.

Oh, I know it was already creepy enough, but why make it moreso? I mean if it WAS retconned that Sarah was Peter's kid, then that outdo the tonsil hockey between Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia in Empire Strikes Back as the most gross-out kiss in pop culture history.

Yet we can all enjoy Star Wars and think no less of Luke & Leia because they kissed when they didn't know they were siblings.

Oh, if I had to choose between the lesser of two evils, I'd definately choose the Peter and Gwen had kids scenario over what we actually got too, especially since it wouldn't have lead to what followed in Spectacular Spider-Man afterwards. Nevertheless, I understand why Joe Q probably nixed the original idea, even though that should have been cause enough to nix

Spoiler

Sins Past

outright.

Joe Q nixed the idea for the same dumb reasons he wants to end Peter's marriage.

And I wanted to address a point from your previous post- about Peter lying to MJ. MJ would have no place being judgemental since her lie to Peter endangered two innocent children. And why would MJ be upset about Peter having sex with the woman he was going to marry BEFORE HE WAS INVOLVED WITH MJ? MJ refused Peter's proposal because she wanted to date other men. That's far worse.

 

[SpideyInATree]

Stan still gets paid ALOT of money by Marvel. At least a million dollars a year to mouthpiece for them. Plus a big percentage for the use of his characters. He wouldn't go to such a panel and bad mouth Joe Q.

And even if he bad mouthed people at a Comic Book convention that money wouldn't stop coming to him. Regardless of the facts, the great Stan Lee, who practically EVERYONE here has basically wondered, "What does Stan Lee think about all this?"...

And he stepped up and just said he thinks Civil War and the unmasking are brilliant. And that Joe Quesada is the best thing to happen to Marvel. If the posters around here want to think he's talking out of his ass because Marvel is giving him money, that he DESERVES REGARDLESS of what he says about them, then that's fine and dandy.

But the guy said what he said, and I think it's brilliant.

 

[Dragon]

And even if he bad mouthed people at a Comic Book convention that money wouldn't stop coming to him.

Of course it would. He's being paid to represent Marvel in a good light. Not bad mouth the personnel.

Regardless of the facts, the great Stan Lee, who practically EVERYONE here has basically wondered, "What does Stan Lee think about all this?"...

Do you honestly think Stan Lee has even read Civil War? He'd forgotten that he'd written a comic story that JR Jr was drawing!

And he stepped up and just said he thinks Civil War and the unmasking are brilliant. And that Joe Quesada is the best thing to happen to Marvel. If the posters around here want to think he's talking out of his ass because Marvel is giving him money, that he DESERVES REGARDLESS of what he says about them, then that's fine and dandy.

Stan might actually think the CONCEPT of Civil War is brilliant. And as mentioned, he's unmasked Spidey himself. But I'm sure if he saw the execution of it, the way things have been handled, along with all of the other nonsense going on, he'd think it was crap.

 

[SpideyInATree]

Stan might actually think the CONCEPT of Civil War is brilliant. And as mentioned, he's unmasked Spidey himself. But I'm sure if he saw the execution of it, the way things have been handled, along with all of the other nonsense going on, he'd think it was crap.

Like I said, if that's what you want to think, more power to you. But he said what he said.

 

[MyPokerShirt]

Stan might actually think the CONCEPT of Civil War is brilliant. And as mentioned, he's unmasked Spidey himself. But I'm sure if he saw the execution of it, the way things have been handled, along with all of the other nonsense going on, he'd think it was crap.

oh cmawwwn, that's conjecture. Stan said what he said. Shouldn't make anybody think any less of him. The internet is a very hostile place right now, and you can't just assume people like Stan are gonna agree with us (sometimes) fanatical fans.

Im really nervous about the "Keep reading Spider-Man" answer to the ben reilly question. Cos as much as i like ben reilly, i prefer peter parker! Here's hoping the return is in a good way, and they dont just use it as a deus ex machina to undo the unmasking (claiming ben was the one with powers - his long lost twin brother or something...), IF he does return to 616 spider-man.

Although i just read something cool: 'Ben Reilly' Pete's new ID? thatd be so cool.

I previously said, "isnt stan about 90 now?" This interview really is case in point. he cannot remember a damned thang!