kainedamo
Superhero
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2001
- Messages
- 9,713
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
The following comments are excerpted from the "Quesada Speaks!" forum on the Marvel message boards, and were posted by Joe Q. himself on May 28, in response to various posters' questions. Joe's replies to the posters' comments are in all capital letters, as follows:
__________
In your last answers, you compared Spider-Man to Charlie Brown, stating that Charlie Brown didn't age and it didn't hurt the character any. Yes and no. Charlie Brown didn't age, stayed the same, and became a very stale comic. Sure, it stayed in the funny pages because it's safe and people recognized the character but the merchandising and publishing of the character wasn't revived until the death of the creator which created a 'Death of Superman' like buzz for a couple of weeks and then the comic returned to fixture land. While Spider-Man may not be as much of a hallmark as Charlie Brown, he certainly has been marketed better.
YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING? DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG CHARLIE BROWN WAS POPULAR!? HES INFINITELY MORE POPULAR THAN SPIDEY COULD EVER BE. HE WILL ALSO LIVE ON FOREVER. ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT ONLY ONE MAN EVER DID CHUCK.
I do think there is a place for a mature Spider-Man for mature readers. The point that I made once before, is that with marriage a different kind of story could be told with the same characters. It could be interesting in new ways and still stay true to the ideal of Spidey.
SO HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF I JUST MADE SPIDEY 80 AND TOLD ONLY SPIDER-GIRL STORIES?
When I was a kid, it was the references to the past that got me hooked on Spidey's character. I just had to figure out how certain events happened to get to where the book is now and I had a blast tracking down back issues. Perhaps not all kids are as character or drama driven as I was but I certainly think that kids can be stimulated by evolving characters, especially when those characters are evolving in directions that we would like to see our own lives evolve, and with a character like Peter Parker that most can relate to, it is even more important.
EVOLVING A CHARACTER IS DIFFERENT THAN AGING HIM.
The problem, if Mary Jane and Peter divorce, is that it means that Peter can never reach this type of relationship. Basically every relationship is ultimately doomed and that makes it difficult to care about his relationships. While JMS reminds us that a character doesn't need romantic tension to be interesting, the stories he is telling would be just as good if Mary Jane was around but doing her thing. Also, no matter how you might want to sneak it in there, having Peter
divorced ages him even more than the marriage does. Now in Marvel Universe Guide his marital status would have to be divorced. This just doesn't bode well for this character.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, IF WE NEVER MENTION THE DIVORCE AGAIN, TO A NEW READER WHATS THE DIFFERENCE? I MEAN WE JUST NEVER ASK THE QUESTION, WHATS TO STOP PETER FROM GETTING INVOLVED AGAIN?
You have Ultimate Spider-Man. He's younger and the kids love him. JMS's Spidey, while Mary Jane absent, is still an older Peter Parker. So now, thanks to you and Brain Bendis, everyone can have their Spidey. But if both books are marketed to the same audience, eventually one will outshine the other.
WE WILL EVENTUALLY SEE WHAT HAPPENS. RIGHT NOW FANS LOVE BOTH.
By the way, Spider-Girl rocks because it is the evolution of classic Spidey for older readers. I just thought you might be interested to know that.
HMM, I THOUGHT IT WAS THE STORIES OF MAY DAY THAT PEOPLE LIKED.
To put it in fewer words, why is it that you Marvel editors have such an aversion to aging your characters?
SO AT WHAT AGE DO WE STOP?
A character can only be an innovation once--then he has to develop. Even in view of all the advances in the artwork and writing of
modern comics, I find the old 60's Spider-man comics to be fresher and more cleverly written than much of anything you can get today, the exception being Spider-girl. Please consider retracting that comment about Peter Parker aging. Consider this fair warning: for so long as he remains stuck in neutral gear, you've lost a reader, because I'm never
buying his comics again.
SORRY YOU FEEL THAT WAY BUT I HAVE TO GUARD THIS CHARACTER FOR THE LEGION OF FANS WHO I FEEL WILL ENJOY HIM IN THE FUTURE. BY THE WAY HOW DO YOU FELL ABOUT THE FACT THAT SUPERMAN ISNT MARRIED TO AN 80 YEAR OLD WOMAN AND THAT BATMAN IS SO SPRITE AND YOUNG. THOSE GUYS ARE OLDER THAN THE ENTIRE MARVEL U.
__________
Joe Q. replies here to another poster, who even goes so far as to bring up a possible return of Baby May:
__________
Peter, MJ, and baby will be together, ONE way or another, and why is it a bad thing to have the character of Peter Parker aged a little bit? So new readers can't relate to them so what?
YOURE KIDDING RIGHT?
They do their own thing anyway so it doesn't matter. Long time readers want to see some closure for characters and this is a definite ending for the current era and could open a whole new idea of writing! Can you imagine Peter having to buy diapers? That would be awkward so whatever the current plan is with JMS, go with it but the end result should be when MJ returns, the baby should be the reason the three are united, once and for all, and the classic going into the sunset should happen!
IF PETER WOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGING DIAPERS WHEN I FIRST PICKED UP SPIDEY AS A KID, I WOULDNT HAVE EVER PICKED IT UP AGAIN AND PROBABLY NEVER GOTTEN INTO COMICS.
__________
Here, the issue of Aunt May's return is raised, and Joe suggests the sort of "final solution" that, quite simply, scares me, even when it's suggested in jest:
__________
When exactly is change a bad thing?
IT DEPENDS, SOME PEOPLE JUST FEAR CHANGE WHETHER ITS GOOD OR BAD.
Is it only when the EDITORS don't like it?
IT GOES WAY BEYOND THAT.
I'm talking about changing Spidey's origin compared to bringing Aunt May back. Aunt May's time is waaaaay up, yet most of you folks in the biz think she just HAS to be in the book to make it work, while most of us on Marvel's own board plus every Spider-Fan I talk to thinks bringing her back was a mistake.
THE MISTAKE WAS IN KILLING HER
It seems a little hypocritical to put down those who don't like Byrne's meddling, yet you are afraid to have Aunt May dead at the same time.
I WASNT PUTTING ANYONE DOWN. AS A MATTER OF FACT I SAID THAT THE MAJORITY OF OUR CREATORS PREFER THE OLD ORIGIN. WHAT I WAS MAKING REFERENCE TO AND MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN A BIT CLEARER IS THE TYPE OF LETTERS I GOT WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE. YOU KNOW THE IMPOLITE, CURSING KIND THAT REALLY MAKE YOU WONDER IF THERE ISNT MORE BEHIND THE MOTIVATION. IN MY MIND THERES A WAY TO ADDRESS A PROBLEM AND AN INCORRECT WAY TO ADDRESS IT. I DO HOWEVER SEE YOUR POINT AND MY ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS A BIT UNCLEAR AND FOR THAT I APOLOGIZE.
NOW WITH RESPECT TO AUNT MAY, I WASNT IN THE CHAIR WHEN THE DECISION TO BRING HER BACK WAS MADE, BUT IN ALL HONESTY, I WOULD HAVE BROUGHT HER BACK. I MAY NOT HAVE DONE IT IN THE SAME WAY, BUT BACK SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN. SOMETIMES I WISH THAT WE COULD JUST DO A "DALLAS" WITH SPIDEY AND HAVE PETER JUST COME OUT OF THE SHOWER AND ITS ALL BEEN A HORRIBLE DREAM.
__________
And the following were Mr. Quesada's replies to my own post on this matter:
__________
Hey there, Mr. Quesada!
First off, congratulations on helping to really improve the state of Marvel over the past few months.
I may not agree with all of the changes that have been made, but it's refreshing to see that Marvel is at least being bold enough to try something different, and for that, you have earned my respect.
THANKS, THERES NO WAY TO PLEASE EVERYONE WITH EVERY DECISION.
Which brings me to my point.
You have said (forgive me, and please do correct me, if I paraphrase you incorrectly) that you feel Peter Parker, our own friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, should be allowed to grow, but that you feel he has been aged a bit too much over the past few years, and as such, you want to undo some of that aging.
Am I getting it right so far?
NO, THERE REALLY IS NO WAY TO UNDO THE AGING. NOT UNLESS WE DO A CRISIS. WHAT WE CAN DO IS CHANGE THE WORLD AROUND HIM AND NOT BRING UP THE THINGS THAT MAKE HIM SEEM LIKE A DAD TO OUR YOUNGER READERS.
Now, I can actually agree with such an intention, since I also feel that, while Peter Parker needs to evolve as a character, beyond the stagnation of the past several years, he should remain relatively young.
HOWEVER ...
If, by "de-aging" his character, you mean that Peter will wind up divorced from Mary Jane, I start to have a few problems with this - not just because I love Mary Jane's character, and I believe that Peter deserves to have a beautiful young wife to come home to, after all the other problems he's had in his life, but also because I think keeping Peter married actually serves YOUR best interests, as well.
IM NOT GOING TO SAY WHAT WERE DOING. YOULL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE.
Unless you reboot Spider-Man's continuity from scratch, ala' the Ultimate line, then the only way to undo Peter's marriage would be to either A) have him get divorced, or B) have Mary Jane die, and this ime, reveal that she actually DID die.
IF SHE DOES DIE IT WILL BE PERMANENT, TRUST ME.
Now, since you want to capitalize on the movie, I doubt you'll be killing off Mary Jane anytime soon, but I wonder whether or not you plan to have Peter and Mary Jane get divorced.
Without asking you for spoilers, let me ask you this question:
Have you considered that, if Peter and Mary Jane get divorced, it will actually do MORE to "age" him than simply leaving him married would?
WE HAVE CONSIDERED THIS OF COURSE. NOW IMAGINE THEY GET DIVORCED AND YOU NEVER MENTION IT AGAIN. THEN IMAGINE IF SOMEDAY SHE COMES BACK INTO HIS LIFE AND THEY START TO DATE AND WE NEVER EVER MENTION THE DIVORCE. YEARS LATER THEY ARE STILL DATING, WE HAVE NEW READERS AND WE NEVER EVER MENTION DIVORCE.
DO YOU SEE THE POSSIBILITIES.
I'm not asking you to tell me what you or JMS or Paul Jenkins have in mind, and I'm not asking you for spoilers.
All I want to know is, whether or not you have considered this.
ITS OUR JOB TO LOOK AT EVERY OPTION.
Please let me know, sir.
In closing, I'd like to point out that being married doesn't mean that a superhero cn't be involved in a fun, sexy, and YOUNG romance - just look at those wonderfully entertaining newlyweds, Lois Lane and Clark Kent, being written by Jeph Loeb, the scribe behind Marvel's own Fantastic Four (one of my favorite Marvel titles).
Thanks for your time, and I hope you manage to spare some time to answer this knotty question.
SUPERMAN IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CHARACTER. KIDS LOOK AT SUPES, WHETEHR HES MARRIED OR NOT AS A FATHER FIGURE.
__________
Oh, and just for George "SaveSpidey" Berryman, I've included Quesada's comments on the possible dropping of "Stan Lee Presents", as follows:
__________
Why are you doing away with the "Stan Lee Presents..." on comics?
WHO SAID WE WERE DOING AWAY WITH IT? SOMETIMES WE FORGET TO PUT IT ON THE BOOKS, ITS HAPPENED BEFORE.
__________
And, reiterating this reply:
__________
I heard a rumor that you were dropping the "Stan Lee Presents" from the books,is that true?
NOT TRUE.
__________
So, there stands the state of Spidey.
Anyone else get the feeling that Joe pretty much laid it all out on the line, as far as what he plans to do with the Spider-marriage?
I guess I'm wondering how he expects all of us "old readers" to react to Marvel essentially saying, "The past decade-plus of Spider-Man's history never happened, INCLUDING all of the Jenkins stories that we collected in TPB where Peter is recovering from Mary Jane's apparent death, even though those are supposedly 'jumping-on points' for new readers, so get over it!"
Maybe JMS will ultimately pull Joe's punk card, by forcing Joe to go along with it if JMS does eventually decide to restore the Spider-marriage (after all the noise Marvel has made about appeasing the wishes of their creators, imagine the bad press that would ensue if JMS walked away from AMS in a snit, and took all the rave reviews he'd received with him), but I can't help but think that Joe Q.'s comments bode ill for the fate of Spidey.
Your thoughts?
__________
In your last answers, you compared Spider-Man to Charlie Brown, stating that Charlie Brown didn't age and it didn't hurt the character any. Yes and no. Charlie Brown didn't age, stayed the same, and became a very stale comic. Sure, it stayed in the funny pages because it's safe and people recognized the character but the merchandising and publishing of the character wasn't revived until the death of the creator which created a 'Death of Superman' like buzz for a couple of weeks and then the comic returned to fixture land. While Spider-Man may not be as much of a hallmark as Charlie Brown, he certainly has been marketed better.
YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING? DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG CHARLIE BROWN WAS POPULAR!? HES INFINITELY MORE POPULAR THAN SPIDEY COULD EVER BE. HE WILL ALSO LIVE ON FOREVER. ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT ONLY ONE MAN EVER DID CHUCK.
I do think there is a place for a mature Spider-Man for mature readers. The point that I made once before, is that with marriage a different kind of story could be told with the same characters. It could be interesting in new ways and still stay true to the ideal of Spidey.
SO HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF I JUST MADE SPIDEY 80 AND TOLD ONLY SPIDER-GIRL STORIES?
When I was a kid, it was the references to the past that got me hooked on Spidey's character. I just had to figure out how certain events happened to get to where the book is now and I had a blast tracking down back issues. Perhaps not all kids are as character or drama driven as I was but I certainly think that kids can be stimulated by evolving characters, especially when those characters are evolving in directions that we would like to see our own lives evolve, and with a character like Peter Parker that most can relate to, it is even more important.
EVOLVING A CHARACTER IS DIFFERENT THAN AGING HIM.
The problem, if Mary Jane and Peter divorce, is that it means that Peter can never reach this type of relationship. Basically every relationship is ultimately doomed and that makes it difficult to care about his relationships. While JMS reminds us that a character doesn't need romantic tension to be interesting, the stories he is telling would be just as good if Mary Jane was around but doing her thing. Also, no matter how you might want to sneak it in there, having Peter
divorced ages him even more than the marriage does. Now in Marvel Universe Guide his marital status would have to be divorced. This just doesn't bode well for this character.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, IF WE NEVER MENTION THE DIVORCE AGAIN, TO A NEW READER WHATS THE DIFFERENCE? I MEAN WE JUST NEVER ASK THE QUESTION, WHATS TO STOP PETER FROM GETTING INVOLVED AGAIN?
You have Ultimate Spider-Man. He's younger and the kids love him. JMS's Spidey, while Mary Jane absent, is still an older Peter Parker. So now, thanks to you and Brain Bendis, everyone can have their Spidey. But if both books are marketed to the same audience, eventually one will outshine the other.
WE WILL EVENTUALLY SEE WHAT HAPPENS. RIGHT NOW FANS LOVE BOTH.
By the way, Spider-Girl rocks because it is the evolution of classic Spidey for older readers. I just thought you might be interested to know that.
HMM, I THOUGHT IT WAS THE STORIES OF MAY DAY THAT PEOPLE LIKED.
To put it in fewer words, why is it that you Marvel editors have such an aversion to aging your characters?
SO AT WHAT AGE DO WE STOP?
A character can only be an innovation once--then he has to develop. Even in view of all the advances in the artwork and writing of
modern comics, I find the old 60's Spider-man comics to be fresher and more cleverly written than much of anything you can get today, the exception being Spider-girl. Please consider retracting that comment about Peter Parker aging. Consider this fair warning: for so long as he remains stuck in neutral gear, you've lost a reader, because I'm never
buying his comics again.
SORRY YOU FEEL THAT WAY BUT I HAVE TO GUARD THIS CHARACTER FOR THE LEGION OF FANS WHO I FEEL WILL ENJOY HIM IN THE FUTURE. BY THE WAY HOW DO YOU FELL ABOUT THE FACT THAT SUPERMAN ISNT MARRIED TO AN 80 YEAR OLD WOMAN AND THAT BATMAN IS SO SPRITE AND YOUNG. THOSE GUYS ARE OLDER THAN THE ENTIRE MARVEL U.
__________
Joe Q. replies here to another poster, who even goes so far as to bring up a possible return of Baby May:
__________
Peter, MJ, and baby will be together, ONE way or another, and why is it a bad thing to have the character of Peter Parker aged a little bit? So new readers can't relate to them so what?
YOURE KIDDING RIGHT?
They do their own thing anyway so it doesn't matter. Long time readers want to see some closure for characters and this is a definite ending for the current era and could open a whole new idea of writing! Can you imagine Peter having to buy diapers? That would be awkward so whatever the current plan is with JMS, go with it but the end result should be when MJ returns, the baby should be the reason the three are united, once and for all, and the classic going into the sunset should happen!
IF PETER WOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGING DIAPERS WHEN I FIRST PICKED UP SPIDEY AS A KID, I WOULDNT HAVE EVER PICKED IT UP AGAIN AND PROBABLY NEVER GOTTEN INTO COMICS.
__________
Here, the issue of Aunt May's return is raised, and Joe suggests the sort of "final solution" that, quite simply, scares me, even when it's suggested in jest:
__________
When exactly is change a bad thing?
IT DEPENDS, SOME PEOPLE JUST FEAR CHANGE WHETHER ITS GOOD OR BAD.
Is it only when the EDITORS don't like it?
IT GOES WAY BEYOND THAT.
I'm talking about changing Spidey's origin compared to bringing Aunt May back. Aunt May's time is waaaaay up, yet most of you folks in the biz think she just HAS to be in the book to make it work, while most of us on Marvel's own board plus every Spider-Fan I talk to thinks bringing her back was a mistake.
THE MISTAKE WAS IN KILLING HER
It seems a little hypocritical to put down those who don't like Byrne's meddling, yet you are afraid to have Aunt May dead at the same time.
I WASNT PUTTING ANYONE DOWN. AS A MATTER OF FACT I SAID THAT THE MAJORITY OF OUR CREATORS PREFER THE OLD ORIGIN. WHAT I WAS MAKING REFERENCE TO AND MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN A BIT CLEARER IS THE TYPE OF LETTERS I GOT WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE. YOU KNOW THE IMPOLITE, CURSING KIND THAT REALLY MAKE YOU WONDER IF THERE ISNT MORE BEHIND THE MOTIVATION. IN MY MIND THERES A WAY TO ADDRESS A PROBLEM AND AN INCORRECT WAY TO ADDRESS IT. I DO HOWEVER SEE YOUR POINT AND MY ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS A BIT UNCLEAR AND FOR THAT I APOLOGIZE.
NOW WITH RESPECT TO AUNT MAY, I WASNT IN THE CHAIR WHEN THE DECISION TO BRING HER BACK WAS MADE, BUT IN ALL HONESTY, I WOULD HAVE BROUGHT HER BACK. I MAY NOT HAVE DONE IT IN THE SAME WAY, BUT BACK SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN. SOMETIMES I WISH THAT WE COULD JUST DO A "DALLAS" WITH SPIDEY AND HAVE PETER JUST COME OUT OF THE SHOWER AND ITS ALL BEEN A HORRIBLE DREAM.
__________
And the following were Mr. Quesada's replies to my own post on this matter:
__________
Hey there, Mr. Quesada!
First off, congratulations on helping to really improve the state of Marvel over the past few months.
I may not agree with all of the changes that have been made, but it's refreshing to see that Marvel is at least being bold enough to try something different, and for that, you have earned my respect.
THANKS, THERES NO WAY TO PLEASE EVERYONE WITH EVERY DECISION.
Which brings me to my point.
You have said (forgive me, and please do correct me, if I paraphrase you incorrectly) that you feel Peter Parker, our own friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, should be allowed to grow, but that you feel he has been aged a bit too much over the past few years, and as such, you want to undo some of that aging.
Am I getting it right so far?
NO, THERE REALLY IS NO WAY TO UNDO THE AGING. NOT UNLESS WE DO A CRISIS. WHAT WE CAN DO IS CHANGE THE WORLD AROUND HIM AND NOT BRING UP THE THINGS THAT MAKE HIM SEEM LIKE A DAD TO OUR YOUNGER READERS.
Now, I can actually agree with such an intention, since I also feel that, while Peter Parker needs to evolve as a character, beyond the stagnation of the past several years, he should remain relatively young.
HOWEVER ...
If, by "de-aging" his character, you mean that Peter will wind up divorced from Mary Jane, I start to have a few problems with this - not just because I love Mary Jane's character, and I believe that Peter deserves to have a beautiful young wife to come home to, after all the other problems he's had in his life, but also because I think keeping Peter married actually serves YOUR best interests, as well.
IM NOT GOING TO SAY WHAT WERE DOING. YOULL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE.
Unless you reboot Spider-Man's continuity from scratch, ala' the Ultimate line, then the only way to undo Peter's marriage would be to either A) have him get divorced, or B) have Mary Jane die, and this ime, reveal that she actually DID die.
IF SHE DOES DIE IT WILL BE PERMANENT, TRUST ME.
Now, since you want to capitalize on the movie, I doubt you'll be killing off Mary Jane anytime soon, but I wonder whether or not you plan to have Peter and Mary Jane get divorced.
Without asking you for spoilers, let me ask you this question:
Have you considered that, if Peter and Mary Jane get divorced, it will actually do MORE to "age" him than simply leaving him married would?
WE HAVE CONSIDERED THIS OF COURSE. NOW IMAGINE THEY GET DIVORCED AND YOU NEVER MENTION IT AGAIN. THEN IMAGINE IF SOMEDAY SHE COMES BACK INTO HIS LIFE AND THEY START TO DATE AND WE NEVER EVER MENTION THE DIVORCE. YEARS LATER THEY ARE STILL DATING, WE HAVE NEW READERS AND WE NEVER EVER MENTION DIVORCE.
DO YOU SEE THE POSSIBILITIES.
I'm not asking you to tell me what you or JMS or Paul Jenkins have in mind, and I'm not asking you for spoilers.
All I want to know is, whether or not you have considered this.
ITS OUR JOB TO LOOK AT EVERY OPTION.
Please let me know, sir.
In closing, I'd like to point out that being married doesn't mean that a superhero cn't be involved in a fun, sexy, and YOUNG romance - just look at those wonderfully entertaining newlyweds, Lois Lane and Clark Kent, being written by Jeph Loeb, the scribe behind Marvel's own Fantastic Four (one of my favorite Marvel titles).
Thanks for your time, and I hope you manage to spare some time to answer this knotty question.
SUPERMAN IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CHARACTER. KIDS LOOK AT SUPES, WHETEHR HES MARRIED OR NOT AS A FATHER FIGURE.
__________
Oh, and just for George "SaveSpidey" Berryman, I've included Quesada's comments on the possible dropping of "Stan Lee Presents", as follows:
__________
Why are you doing away with the "Stan Lee Presents..." on comics?
WHO SAID WE WERE DOING AWAY WITH IT? SOMETIMES WE FORGET TO PUT IT ON THE BOOKS, ITS HAPPENED BEFORE.
__________
And, reiterating this reply:
__________
I heard a rumor that you were dropping the "Stan Lee Presents" from the books,is that true?
NOT TRUE.
__________
So, there stands the state of Spidey.
Anyone else get the feeling that Joe pretty much laid it all out on the line, as far as what he plans to do with the Spider-marriage?
I guess I'm wondering how he expects all of us "old readers" to react to Marvel essentially saying, "The past decade-plus of Spider-Man's history never happened, INCLUDING all of the Jenkins stories that we collected in TPB where Peter is recovering from Mary Jane's apparent death, even though those are supposedly 'jumping-on points' for new readers, so get over it!"
Maybe JMS will ultimately pull Joe's punk card, by forcing Joe to go along with it if JMS does eventually decide to restore the Spider-marriage (after all the noise Marvel has made about appeasing the wishes of their creators, imagine the bad press that would ensue if JMS walked away from AMS in a snit, and took all the rave reviews he'd received with him), but I can't help but think that Joe Q.'s comments bode ill for the fate of Spidey.
Your thoughts?
