Comics Roger Stern Interview...

[carnageehw]

Who wants to see MJ date Peter or tease him as a potential girlfriend when she is already his wife, but for satan???

I'm a huge believer that if Marvel doesn't want MJ and Pete married, she shouldn't even be in the book.

1)Every reader KNOWS they were married. A comic story saying it didn't happen doesn't take away the fact that we read stories in which they were married. Having MJ around just reenforces the past, and the marriage.

2)If the argument is that writers couldn't write the marriage well, how are they going to be able to write an ex-relationship well? Something most people can't even work out in thier real lives properly....and they're gonna try to write interesting good stories around that premise?

3)A couple that is engaged doesn't become platonic friends. You can be friends with a simple ex. You can be friendLY with an ex fiancee. You cannot be good, platonic friends with an ex-fiance. Impossible. I dare someone to prove me otherwise.

4)Dating after breaking off an engagement is the STUPIDEST thing someone can do. It makes absolutley zero sense, and is high school drama at best.

 

[Themanofbat]

Of course, Marvel's supposedly thinking "long-term", and many people will wander back to Spidey if they don't find another book to fill the gap (READ INVINCIBLE!!).

When Marvel says "long-term", they simply do not mean that the readers that left will come back... they're thinking at a time when many of those readers are being spoon-fed pablum in an old age home... and the kids/adults of that future era who will be buying the books/reading Spider-Man is who tehy're targetting.... long-term viability of the character.

They felt that the marriage was a means to an end, and they do not want that in their characters, especially the flagship one.

 

[shinlyle]

When Marvel says "long-term", they simply do not mean that the readers that left will come back... they're thinking at a time when many of those readers are being spoon-fed pablum in an old age home... and the kids/adults of that future era who will be buying the books/reading Spider-Man is who tehy're targetting.... long-term viability of the character.

They felt that the marriage was a means to an end, and they do not want that in their characters, especially the flagship one.

It still doesn't make much sense when they have Ultimate Spider-Man and Marvel Adventures Spider-Man out there for the folk who want an unmarried Peter Parker...and they weren't selling as well as ASM was with a married Spidey before BND.

I understand it's their flagship character in their flagship book and they want him to the ideal that they invision, but they are taking quite the hefty gample by alienating part of the fanbase in an attempt to get there...especially the way they did it.

As for the potential to attract "future readers", the jury is still out on that one. Right now, Spidey is a watered down version of the late 70's early 80's Spidey, and there is now a ceiling placed on what you can do with him. That will hold for a bit until his first serious relationship...then people will inevitably wonder why he hasn't talked of marriage, or why it seems that his relationaships all seem to implode, no matter who the girl happens to be. You can only say "Spider-Man destroys Peter's relationships" so many times before you start to wonder why, of all the women Peter meets, none of them are capable of dealing with it.

It's just kind of redundant.

Before the marriage, it was all up in the air. Peter may get married someday, Peter may not, but we all read it knowing there was potential. Now, they've gone back and said that the marriage NEVER happened (despite me having about 300-400 issues of assorted comics that say otherwise), and that would actually work if they could make us all forget it.

They can't, and now we're all left with this knowledge that Peter made it to the next level of a relationship, only to have it taken away from him because it was a mistake, and now that it has been stated that Spidey will never be married, we're supposed to ignore the ceiling and look to the sky? Easier said than done.

Honestly, I'll put it like this:

If the marriage had never happened (IN OUR WORLD,NOT PETER's), then this would be redundant, and we would have the stories that (supposedly) everyone wants. Of course, Marvel thinks it's the same thing to say it never happened, and we're supposed to run with it. For those of you who can swallow that pill, good for you.

Me, I just can't help but shake the nagging sensation that Marvel threw away something rare and beautiful when they got rid of the marriage...something that was abused and never truly utilized.

 

[carnageehw]

When Marvel says "long-term", they simply do not mean that the readers that left will come back... they're thinking at a time when many of those readers are being spoon-fed pablum in an old age home... and the kids/adults of that future era who will be buying the books/reading Spider-Man is who tehy're targetting.... long-term viability of the character.

It's kinda funny if you think about it: He's (potentially) sacrificing business NOW, when he is alive and working for the company, so theat they get business later, when he is dead and can gain no benefit of success 40 years from now.

 

[Miken Ayers]

When Marvel says "long-term", they simply do not mean that the readers that left will come back... they're thinking at a time when many of those readers are being spoon-fed pablum in an old age home... and the kids/adults of that future era who will be buying the books/reading Spider-Man is who tehy're targetting.... long-term viability of the character.

They felt that the marriage was a means to an end, and they do not want that in their characters, especially the flagship one.

Yes, but there's hardly any new people reading comics. They won't get enough turnover on a topselling book by alienating the people already reading it. The only example you can provide is Spidermanhero12, so you prove my point by just showing him.

For the book to get back to the sales they wanted would probably take 10-20 years, and before that point we'll have a new regime that's got an IQ higher than 80 to say, "Hey let's fix this BND garbage and try to patch things up with all the fans we fought for 10 years to get back after the Clone Saga."

 

[iloveclones]

I'm a huge believer that if Marvel doesn't want MJ and Pete married, she shouldn't even be in the book.

1)Every reader KNOWS they were married. A comic story saying it didn't happen doesn't take away the fact that we read stories in which they were married. Having MJ around just reenforces the past, and the marriage.

2)If the argument is that writers couldn't write the marriage well, how are they going to be able to write an ex-relationship well? Something most people can't even work out in thier real lives properly....and they're gonna try to write interesting good stories around that premise?

3)A couple that is engaged doesn't become platonic friends. You can be friends with a simple ex. You can be friendLY with an ex fiancee. You cannot be good, platonic friends with an ex-fiance. Impossible. I dare someone to prove me otherwise.

4)Dating after breaking off an engagement is the STUPIDEST thing someone can do. It makes absolutley zero sense, and is high school drama at best.

I agree with most of those things in the real world (although I think you're being a tad rigid.) But what you want in the fictional world and what you want in the real world are often two different things. Think about it, would you really want the uber-drama of Ross and Rachel constantly bumping up against your life(Actually, the handling of Ross showed a way of dealing with an "adult" issue, divorce, in a very funny way. No reason why Pete/MJ couldn't have been handled similarly without devil-dealing). Or would you ever really want to be friends with George Costanza? Or all the bar-flys hanging out at Cheers? But their loser-ish-ness makes for great entertainment, and lovable characters. But seriously, you would hate them in real life. That's why I always scratch my head when people say that Pete deserves happiness. Why would I want that? Three issues of that, and I would seriously be looking for an oven with a broken pilot light......

 

[moraldeficiency]

Not everything has to be bleak to be interesting, in fact I'd say the funniest episode of seinfield I ever saw (didn't really find it to be that great, watch it's always sunny instead for actual comedy) was the one where george did the opposite and everything worked great for him and no one could believe it. Point is, even losers should have a good day or it gets depressing and frustrating to witness. If Pete is always getting laid low with life he ends up like he was in reign. Interesting idea? Yes, but too dark and depressing. That was kinda MJ's point, a little light at the end of the tunnel so you understood why Pete didn't just eat a bullet. Also I'd go as far to say that (before OMD) Pete wasn't a loser, he just had issues beyond his control that made him appear that way. That's a different dynamic entirely than the actual loser appearing in ASM.

 

[carnageehw]

I agree with most of those things in the real world (although I think you're being a tad rigid.) But what you want in the fictional world and what you want in the real world are often two different things. Think about it, would you really want the uber-drama of Ross and Rachel constantly bumping up against your life(Actually, the handling of Ross showed a way of dealing with an "adult" issue, divorce, in a very funny way. No reason why Pete/MJ couldn't have been handled similarly without devil-dealing). Or would you ever really want to be friends with George Costanza? Or all the bar-flys hanging out at Cheers? But their loser-ish-ness makes for great entertainment, and lovable characters. But seriously, you would hate them in real life. That's why I always scratch my head when people say that Pete deserves happiness. Why would I want that? Three issues of that, and I would seriously be looking for an oven with a broken pilot light......

I hear your point, but my biggest pet peeve in people I know or watch (on tv, not some creepy staker thing) is stupid relationship decisions.

If it's a guy I know constantly breaking up with his girlfriend and getting back together with her, or a girl finding out her bf cheated on her, yet she took him back, and cried about how he did it AGAIN....I can at least slap or talk some sense into them. In fiction, the only thing I can do is not watch.

It bugs me, a lot. I dunno.

 

[farmernudie]

SHIN: Heh....I just did a little quick math, and, if you figure I haven't bought any ASM since the last part off "One More Day", that's nearly 36 issue, plus an annual and whatever mini-series I probably would have bought. Just not buying ASM alone has saved me $114.62. Now, if there are 9 more people on this board who have quit buying ASM for the full year, then they've lost over a thousand dollars right there.

COUNT ME IN ON THAT MONEY SAVINGS CLUB!!

Thanks for doing that Math Shin...!! Very interesting.

I am a long-time-customer, and though I am sad to have my hero who I've always loved and PAID FOR gladly....it is nice to see my savings!!

As a married man, who grew up with Spidey, I'll never BUY into (literally) this current loser who gave his wife to the devil and lives in a world CREATED BY HIM AND THE DEVIL. They've honestly taken spidey to a very new low, that i didn't see possible really...to take someone i've loved and admired and RELATED to...and make him total loser, capital L.

And all those interviews of Joe tap dancing and insulting people (and some other creative guys who are oddly slamming us) makes it more appallling how little they think of their long time loyal paying customers really.

 

[Themanofbat]

And all those interviews of Joe tap dancing and insulting people (and some other creative guys who are oddly slamming us) makes it more appallling how little they think of their long time loyal paying customers really.

Maybe some of those long time loyal paying customers (some of us are still buying) have a hard time understanding why such a decision had to be made in order to preserve the longevity of their beloved hero, and are merely being selfish because they can't get their own way.

The unfortunate reality is that a married Spider-Man is a means to an end... you 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.

And yet again, these are merely my two cents...

 

[farmernudie]

TMOB: ...you have to cut something off somewhere...

Yipes!!!

Well...they certainly did THAT with this reboot and what Pete did....

 

[Miken Ayers]

Maybe some of those long time loyal paying customers (some of us are still buying) have a hard time understanding why such a decision had to be made in order to preserve the longevity of their beloved hero, and are merely being selfish because they can't get their own way.

The unfortunate reality is that a married Spider-Man is a means to an end... you 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.

And yet again, these are merely my two cents...

I always love the selfish argument. You buy and read something, because YOU enjoy it everyone else's enjoyment should be irrelevant. Not saying there's anything wrong with people with the same tastes discussing it, but I'd hardly call it selfish to stop putting money in something you don't enjoy.

 

[bryanss3]

I'd rather have peter become more responsible outside of being spidey like having a family and a child to worry about and protect you know become an adult instead of being some guy who has a new job every other issue. and knows what he's done.

AMS 569 NWTD part 2 first page "Ah, right. He doesn't remember anymore. He has no idea I'm Spidey. Nobody does."

"Everything we did is still up and running. I'm safe"

hopefully with all they've done they eventually end this reality warp that spidey has created, but doesn't effect the rest of the marvel universe.

 

[kguillou]

Dammit TMOB you made a good point and i hate to admit, but you did. As much as i, personally wanted to see Peter married and have kids, i guess i realized that in the long term this would mean that Peter would eventually havta become an old man and pass on the mantle to his daughter (or son). As much as I would love to see that, i understand that Marvel doesn't want to risk aging their flagship character. But...on the other hand if you think about it, what does that mean for Lois and Clark Kent? Does that mean that Superman will eventually havta have his own One More Day? Cause him and Lois hav been together for years and years and they have no kids or anything. Will they be stuck in the "charlie brown and lucy" loop? If not, if Superman can do it why not Spider-man?

 

[Themanofbat]

I always love the selfish argument. You buy and read something, because YOU enjoy it everyone else's enjoyment should be irrelevant. Not saying there's anything wrong with people with the same tastes discussing it, but I'd hardly call it selfish to stop putting money in something you don't enjoy.

I admit to saying "selfish" as being a tad harsh, but with some people, they come across as being that.

Having said that, I completely agree that people will have varying tastes in comics, and that's cool... if someone can get as much enjoyment from a Sonic the HedgeHog comic as I get from an issue of Rex Mundi, then that's cool.

I grew up in a time when comic book nerds were seen as that... geeky comic book nerds who should have been ashamed to buy comics (this really became awkward during those teenage "gosh, I wish I could date a chick that wouldn't laugh at me for liking Spider-Man" years... )

I realize (and understand to a certain point) why some people have boycotted ASM... personally, if they hadn't made any attempts to tie this new direction within the confines of continuity, I might have been there as well... but at the end of the day, I've been digging the new direction, and unfortunately for some long-time Spidey readers... they aren't.

I find that quite sad... in my opinion, and certainly not laughable.

But I can respect and admire their stance... and I can appreciate a good debate without turning it into some stupid name-calling affair, and I like a well-thought out post as opposed to a lame and prosaic "BND sucks" type of posts... I'd like to think that many of us here over the years have become some weird dysfunctional Internet Family/Friends, and I hope we can continue to have cool Spidey related conversations as often as possible... maybe with a little less controversy (that tends to bring out people's nasty sides... )

Cheers...

 

[Styleshift]

I admit to saying "selfish" as being a tad harsh, but with some people, they come across as being that.

Having said that, I completely agree that people will have varying tastes in comics, and that's cool... if someone can get as much enjoyment from a Sonic the HedgeHog comic as I get from an issue of Rex Mundi, then that's cool.

I grew up in a time when comic book nerds were seen as that... geeky comic book nerds who should have been ashamed to buy comics (this really became awkward during those teenage "gosh, I wish I could date a chick that wouldn't laugh at me for liking Spider-Man" years... )

I realize (and understand to a certain point) why some people have boycotted ASM... personally, if they hadn't made any attempts to tie this new direction within the confines of continuity, I might have been there as well... but at the end of the day, I've been digging the new direction, and unfortunately for some long-time Spidey readers... they aren't.

I find that quite sad... in my opinion, and certainly not laughable.

But I can respect and admire their stance... and I can appreciate a good debate without turning it into some stupid name-calling affair, and I like a well-thought out post as opposed to a lame and prosaic "BND sucks" type of posts... I'd like to think that many of us here over the years have become some weird dysfunctional Internet Family/Friends, and I hope we can continue to have cool Spidey related conversations as often as possible... maybe with a little less controversy (that tends to bring out people's nasty sides... )

Cheers...

Yeah name calling and insults (that are crude and aren't meant to be funny) are pretty redundant on these boards. It's cool and interesting to see where debates go, (and you do learn things from such debates.)

But At the end of the day its just entertainment.

I respect your views on the book. Your not just mindlessly defending it. You have good reasons for wanting to read it....

Sometimes I really do hate going to my LCS and picking up an issue of ASM, than putting it back down. I've never done that before....

 

[farmernudie]

I don't mind go round and round with you TMOB!!



We ARE kinda like family here.

I don't like the name calling either...or spidey-sucks stuff. Mindless. BUt their opinion i guess..tho too bad those people can't EXPOUND!

 

[Spider-Gnome]

Yes, she's a "spoiler" when Stan Lee wrote her, but as a rival to Gwen to compete for Peter's affections. When Conway wrote her, she was the person who tried to be a good friend to Peter after the loss of Gwen who grew more and more in love with him. Deflaco, after taking over from Stern, wrote pretty much the same way. Lein Wein, of course, wrote her as Peter's happy go-lucky girlfriend. Even when Marv Wolfman broke them up, it's still apparent that MJ has fellings for Peter. Of course, there's all those years when the two were married to each other. And even in Dan Slott's Paper Doll arc, it's clear she still loves Peter even though she's dating some other *****ebag. In short, whether she was dating Peter, married to him, or was "just a friend" she always in love with Peter.

Exactly. That is the era I started reading Amazing - the Death of Gwen Stacy era. So, I am one of those who grew up with single Peter. But, I was always rooting for Pete & MJ as they developed. I was mad when she turned down his proposal the first time, and I was just a kid!

 

[Hobgoblin]

I loved Hobgoblin Lives, but I still prefer JM DeMatties as the premiere Spider-Man writer. He wrote some great psychology based stories, especially involving the emotional drain on MJ caused by being married to Spider-Man.

 

[Themanofbat]

Dammit TMOB you made a good point and i hate to admit, but you did. As much as i, personally wanted to see Peter married and have kids, i guess i realized that in the long term this would mean that Peter would eventually havta become an old man and pass on the mantle to his daughter (or son). As much as I would love to see that, i understand that Marvel doesn't want to risk aging their flagship character. But...on the other hand if you think about it, what does that mean for Lois and Clark Kent? Does that mean that Superman will eventually havta have his own One More Day? Cause him and Lois hav been together for years and years and they have no kids or anything. Will they be stuck in the "charlie brown and lucy" loop? If not, if Superman can do it why not Spider-man?

DC has it's own OMD/reboot almost every 10 years... and they're going through one now... so I have no idea how continuity fits in DC anymore...

The DC books I get (aside from the Vertigo titles) are B/C list characters that don't have that much history to change...

 

[Styleshift]

Dammit TMOB you made a good point and i hate to admit, but you did. As much as i, personally wanted to see Peter married and have kids, i guess i realized that in the long term this would mean that Peter would eventually havta become an old man and pass on the mantle to his daughter (or son). As much as I would love to see that, i understand that Marvel doesn't want to risk aging their flagship character. But...on the other hand if you think about it, what does that mean for Lois and Clark Kent? Does that mean that Superman will eventually havta have his own One More Day? Cause him and Lois hav been together for years and years and they have no kids or anything. Will they be stuck in the "charlie brown and lucy" loop? If not, if Superman can do it why not Spider-man?

Not sure if this holds up...
but at one point I remember reading something that Roger Stern wrote that explained their body chemistry are too different for them to reproduce.

In any case I think they don't touch the Superman/Lois Lane thing because shes Always been Superman's girl in the comics. It's near impossible to debate that. Clark wasn't attracted to Lana in the comics as he is in Smallville.

...and they've never had a period where Supes dated as Spidey has. Breaking them up would be pretty much pointless.

 

[Themanofbat]

...but at one point I remember reading something that Roger Stern wrote that explained their body chemistry are too different for them to reproduce.

Not to mention that one good session in the sack and Clark will blow out Lois' overies... (litterally)...

 

[carnageehw]

well, how was he going to grow as a married couple... eventually, you'd have to being kids into the mix,p

I understand your point, but you'd never HAVE to introduce kids. Married couples don't always have kids.

Another point is that you can also make advances beyond a Charlie Brown loop from the marriage such as death or divorce.

Part of the interest in any love story (like peter single, and dating) is that you don't know where it will go. Will Peter fall in love? Will this girl betray him? Is Peter liking this other girl? Will he tell her about being Spiderman?
Basically, all that interesting stuff diasapears with a "no marriage" edict, untill new powers that be come in. Basically, if you know the ending of the story, reading it isn't as fun.

Say they did a death of Mary Jane (a real one this time). You can now have Peter strugging with any sort of dating situation, and it becomes interesting. He's lost the two biggest loves of his life because he was Spiderman. How on earth can he ever date again? THAT makes for an interesting (and loooong) storyline.

So, I don't think marriage is a loop, and even if they wanted a single spidey at some point, the marriage leads room to progress from a married spiderman to a single spiderman with a natural story that doesn't put "He'll never be married" into readers heads.

 

[moraldeficiency]

It's curious where this arguement is now, and here's the real question: Can Peter Parker exist eternally exactely where he is and still work? So far so good but long term, I mean really long term, wouldn't you eventually need to have someone or something new? I love original characters but personally I feel the fear of change and reinventing the man or woman behind the mask to be a necessary component to keeping a comic company going. It's my opinion (and always has been) that sometime in the distant future, Spider-Man would need to hand over the mask to the next generation. I do not believe that any character can exist eternally fixed in age and still work, it has worked up to this point and I believe it will definately work for quite a while but I cannot see there never being a breaking point.

 

[Styleshift]

Not to mention that one good session in the sack and Clark will blow out Lois' overies... (litterally)...

hahahaha!