Comics Will Mary Jane eventually fade into obscurity?

[dkamphaus43]

I dunno if there's a personal bias towards MJ, "personal" sounds a bit much in regards to a fictional character, but there's no doubt an effort to make Peter available to date, but to maintain his friendship with MJ.

Maintain his friendship with her? What're you talking about? As I said in a previous post, she genuinely doesn't seem to even like him anymore. And they have to write her that way because it's the only way to justify keeping them apart. I think it's safe to say that the days of them being friends is a thing of the past.

Feel free to agree/disagree, but there's an old school of thought that Spider-Man as a character, the one that first appeared in the 60s and 70s, doesn't work in a long term committed relationship, because the Spectre of Spider-Man will always interfere

Sorry, but that really just sounds like the same misguided BS that Marvel has been relentlessly trying to force onto the fans for the past decade. Peter going from one failed relationship to another endlessly adds nothing to the series or the character. Nothing! In fact if anything, I would say it detracts, because it eventually just makes him look like a pathetic idiot who can't get his act together. You can do that for a little while in the beginning while he's still a young student and trying to find his way, but eventually somethings gotta give. I personally have no interest in reading about a guy who keeps failing and failing in the same area over and over and over again and not doing anything to try and take charge or change his life. If that's really what the premise is supposed to be, then you can count me out big time.

... The original wedding was a sales ploy because Stan was doing it in the strips... Read the books from that era, it was all forced.

I have read the books from that era, I'm quite familiar with them. And while there is some truth to the fact that the wedding ceremony itself was rushed to coincide with the newspaper strip, that's not to say that there wasn't anything in the books at the time to justify a union between the 2 characters. Even a blind man could've seen that there was clearly a lot going on between them. As many people have pointed out about that era, the 2 characters might not have been officially dating at the time, but they might as well have been. But people like Quesada and Slott try to make it sound like there was absolutely no unrequited love or conflicted feelings or unspoken longing for each other or anything at all like that between them at the time just before the wedding took place, which is complete revisionist bull.

Eliminating the marriage/relationship was a step in the right direction imo.
It may have been ugly, but at least MJ didn't have to unnecessarily get killed.

Considering how badly her character has been handled since then, I sometimes wonder if it might've been better if she had been.

But to answer your question, I find mostly ALL Marvel characters being butchered currently, similarly to what was going on in the late 90s.

Okay, that i'll definitely agree with you on.

 

[Themanofbat]

Maintain his friendship with her? What're you talking about? As I said in a previous post, she genuinely doesn't seem to even like him anymore. And they have to write her that way because it's the only way to justify keeping them apart. I think it's safe to say that the days of them being friends is a thing of the past.

Until the next writer comes along that needs MJ back in the books.
And FYI, friends fight/don't get along from time to time.
I'm not reading books at the moment, so I can't comment specifically to what's happening, but since we both agree that characters are being butcherd, alea jacta est.

Sorry, but that really just sounds like the same misguided BS that Marvel has been relentlessly trying to force onto the fans for the past decade. Peter going from one failed relationship to another endlessly adds nothing to the series or the character. Nothing! In fact if anything, I would say it detracts, because it eventually just makes him look like a pathetic idiot who can't get his act together. You can do that for a little while in the beginning while he's still a young student and trying to find his way, but eventually somethings gotta give. I personally have no interest in reading about a guy who keeps failing and failing in the same area over and over and over again and not doing anything to try and take charge or change his life. If that's really what the premise is supposed to be, then you can count me out big time.

Many heavy hitters at the time made those statements, like Marv Wolfman and Roger Stern for example. Those were words said in 1987, and for the most part, it came true. Yes, there were "gems" in their 20 marriage, but so much more was lost in MY opinion.

Please keep in mind it's not the fact that he's just a "loser", it's that he tries, and can succeed to a certain point, but the fact us that he "loses" in his personal life as Peter Parker BECAUSE he has to succeed in his life as Spider-Man. Being Spider-Man is not just fun and games, his responsibilities to being Spider-Man comes at a cost to Peter Parker, and those selfless decisions to be Spider-Man is what makes us, the readers, admire Peter Parker, because quite frankly, not many of us could be that giving of ourselves.

I have read the books from that era, I'm quite familiar with them. And while there is some truth to the fact that the wedding ceremony itself was rushed to coincide with the newspaper strip, that's not to say that there wasn't anything in the books at the time to justify a union between the 2 characters. Even a blind man could've seen that there was clearly a lot going on between them. As many people have pointed out about that era, the 2 characters might not have been officially dating at the time, but they might as well have been. But people like Quesada and Slott try to make it sound like there was absolutely no unrequited love or conflicted feelings or unspoken longing for each other or anything at all like that between them at the time just before the wedding took place, which is complete revisionist bull.

I was reading the books too. yes, they were good friends with hints of their romantic flirty past, but they had not dated since Roger Stern brought her back in ASM #243, and just a few issues before the proposal, Peter spent the night at Felicia's during Gang War.
Maybe you like to romanticize the books to suit your favour, but the proposal/marriage felt pretty forced to me. And while I was excited about it at the time, the marriage idea quickly soured (TO ME) during their "Honeymoon" Annual stories that immediately followed. Boring. As were most stories (aside from those rare "gems") that followed.

Considering how badly her character has been handled since then, I sometimes wonder if it might've been better if she had been.

Hahaha... maybe, but then we'd be complaining about her "lame" resurrection stories that would have inevitably followed...

Okay, that i'll definitely agree with you on.

Cheers.

 

[Ben_Reilly]

Nope.

Gang War occurred in ASM #284 to 288.
Peter proposes in ASM #290.
She accepts inas m #292.

Crap, yeah. I was thinking of the Chamelion/Hammerhead vs Kingpin/Arranger vs Lobo Brothers gang war...

 

[dkamphaus43]

Until the next writer comes along that needs MJ back in the books.
And FYI, friends fight/don't get along from time to time.
I'm not reading books at the moment, so I can't comment specifically to what's happening, but since we both agree that characters are being butcherd, alea jacta est.

That's assuming that whoever comes along next would want to utilize her or if they would even be allowed to. Keep in mind, Marvel pretty much has to portray her the way she currently is in order to justify her and Peter no longer being together. And I'm sorry, but nothing about the way they currently interact indicates that they're still friends who are merely going through a rough patch.

Many heavy hitters at the time made those statements, like Marv Wolfman and Roger Stern for example. Those were words said in 1987, and for the most part, it came true. Yes, there were "gems" in their 20 marriage, but so much more was lost in MY opinion.

Please keep in mind it's not the fact that he's just a "loser", it's that he tries, and can succeed to a certain point, but the fact us that he "loses" in his personal life as Peter Parker BECAUSE he has to succeed in his life as Spider-Man. Being Spider-Man is not just fun and games, his responsibilities to being Spider-Man comes at a cost to Peter Parker, and those selfless decisions to be Spider-Man is what makes us, the readers, admire Peter Parker, because quite frankly, not many of us could be that giving of ourselves.

Having Peter go through the problems and annoyances of everyday life is one thing. Having him go from one lame doomed to fail relationship after another endlessly is something else. Something I have absolutely zero interest in reading about.

Yes, being spider-man comes with a price and it often causes unwanted problems for his regular life that may or may not happen otherwise. That didn't change when he got married. The post clone saga/pre-Mackie reboot era of 1996-1998 (a very underrated era IMO) is proof that Peter can be married to MJ and still have an appropriately problematic life.

And I think Stern's issues had less to do with believing Peter shouldn't be married and more to do with thinking that he and MJ aren't a good match.

 

[Themanofbat]

Yes, being spider-man comes with a price and it often causes unwanted problems for his regular life that may or may not happen otherwise. That didn't change when he got married. The post clone saga/pre-Mackie reboot era of 1996-1998 (a very underrated era IMO) is proof that Peter can be married to MJ and still have an appropriately problematic life.

A problematic life is still easier to deal with when you go to bed every night with a loved one. Not quite the same panache as when you make these decisions alone. And YES, that did change when they got married.

Anyhoo, clearly we view things differently, and that's cool.
I appreciate you keeping it civil. Doesn't happen a lot around here when opinions differ.

Cheers.

 

[Ben_Reilly]

This is actually the most civil board I've been on!

 

[Themanofbat]

This is actually the most civil board I've been on!

I find the Spider Comics one typically decent, but I've seen conversations get nutty all over the place here in my 17 1/2 years of posting here....

Oh my...

 

[Ben_Reilly]

I find the Spider Comics one typically decent, but I've seen conversations get nutty all over the place here in my 17 1/2 years of posting here....

Oh my...

Wow, yeah.
It has been that long for both of us, hasn't it?
Amazing, it doesn't feel like nearly 20 years have passed.

 

[dkamphaus43]

In light of the recent announcement that Bendis will be leaving Marvel for DC, I'm wondering what that'll mean for MJ's status in the Iron Man books (since he obviously won't be writing them anymore). I'm wondering if she'll either remain in Iron Man (depending on whether the next writer will want to keep her or not) or if she'll go back to supporting character limbo?

 

[Themanofbat]

I guess that depends on the new writer and potential direction they wanna go...
Hard to say...