|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 24, 2006 5:30:22 GMT -5
Uhm, it's a nice teory but it would squeeze Peter even more into family dynamics, and this is the kind of things that Quesada wants to avoid apparently. By the way, has it ever been explained why, after loosing their first born, Peter and MJ didn't try to have another one ? is it their choice or is there something else linked to Pete's mutated DNA ?
|
|
jkemble
Reservist Avenger
the Cosmic Frog
Posts: 243
|
Post by jkemble on Jun 29, 2006 10:39:55 GMT -5
hmmm, so, Spiderman's outing is a plot device to get rid of MJ? ...but, that still doesn't make him single... and hey, I wan't joking about the Beyonder... he's stirring... First, finding the Beyonder was a top priority to Thanos in Silver Surfer: Annihilation. There's that mention of him/her. Sure enough, next month the Beyonder get's a miniseries that concludes shortly after the Civil War event. uh, wait, on second thought, I don't know squat!
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Jul 4, 2006 11:41:08 GMT -5
I'm sorry but this just shows how immature these guys at Marvel are. They can't handle writing a character who is married. Ever read Fantastic Four in the past forty years? “They”? or just one writer (who is often vilified by fandom assembled)? What other Marvel characters graduated from college in the late ’70s and early ’80s? (Bobby Drake, maybe?) I wouldn’t mind seeing more Marvel marriages that last...but not all adults get married, either. And not all adults who get married stay married. Those interested in the Peter Parker marriage debate might be interested in this thread on “real change” vs. “illusion of change”. NP, I gotta agree on marvel's shoddy marriage record. Sorry I come to this one so late in the discussion. For Reed and Sue being the one shining example, you've got a hundred other terrible ones- Wanda and Vizh, Crystal and Pietro, Hank and Jan, Johnny Storm and Lyja,(maybe MJ's a Skrull too-simple annulment there! notice how no one ever talks about Torch's marriage anymore...), Scott and jean, Clint and Bobbi just off the top of my head. DC has become just as bad; I remember when almost all their "backbone" (i.e. supporting) heroes were married, Flash, Hawkman, Atom, Elongated Man, GA and Black Canary were pretty close to the altar, now almost every one of their spouses is dead (some have come back, as well as other odd occurences) but if you look at the marriage and divorce/widower rate for superheroes, you'll find a highly disproportionate group. I find it odd that in a storytelling medium with so many fantastic possibilities that so many writers simply can't tell a good intimate and interesting stories about married people for the most part. That I think is a failing within the medium. And just one of the many things I think Joe Q totally gets wrong about the industry...
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jul 5, 2006 17:12:02 GMT -5
NP, I gotta agree on marvel's shoddy marriage record. Sorry I come to this one so late in the discussion. For Reed and Sue being the one shining example, you've got a hundred other terrible ones- Wanda and Vizh, Crystal and Pietro, Hank and Jan, Johnny Storm and Lyja,(maybe MJ's a Skrull too-simple annulment there! notice how no one ever talks about Torch's marriage anymore...), Scott and jean, Clint and Bobbi just off the top of my head. DC has become just as bad; I remember when almost all their "backbone" (i.e. supporting) heroes were married, Flash, Hawkman, Atom, Elongated Man, GA and Black Canary were pretty close to the altar, now almost every one of their spouses is dead (some have come back, as well as other odd occurences) but if you look at the marriage and divorce/widower rate for superheroes, you'll find a highly disproportionate group. I find it odd that in a storytelling medium with so many fantastic possibilities that so many writers simply can't tell a good intimate and interesting stories about married people for the most part. That I think is a failing within the medium. And just one of the many things I think Joe Q totally gets wrong about the industry... As I mentioned in the post you quoted, although I feel the Reed–Sue relationship proves that Marvel can handle a long-term marriage (with some missteps, as later discussed), I wish it had some more company. (The Vision–Wanda and Clint–Bobbi marriages are the ones I would most have preferred to see with greater staying power.) But I do think marrying off Peter was a poor decision, and I also don’t mind a disproportionately high divorce/widowing rate among superheroes. Generally, superhero (and more particularly Marvel superhero) comics are serial entertainment, and the dissolution of marriages is a time-honored staple of serial drama. Of course, marriage and romance usually aren’t quite as central to superhero comics as they are to daytime dramas ( Noble Causes notwithstanding); but still, divorce and death are legitimate means of providing interesting change in a long-running property. And in Spider-Man’s case, romantic problems used to be, but the Peter–M.J. marriage has greatly limited that option. But what’s good for Spider-Man isn’t necessarily a must for all superheroes.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Jul 6, 2006 12:20:22 GMT -5
NP, I gotta agree on marvel's shoddy marriage record. Sorry I come to this one so late in the discussion. For Reed and Sue being the one shining example, you've got a hundred other terrible ones- Wanda and Vizh, Crystal and Pietro, Hank and Jan, Johnny Storm and Lyja,(maybe MJ's a Skrull too-simple annulment there! notice how no one ever talks about Torch's marriage anymore...), Scott and jean, Clint and Bobbi just off the top of my head. DC has become just as bad; I remember when almost all their "backbone" (i.e. supporting) heroes were married, Flash, Hawkman, Atom, Elongated Man, GA and Black Canary were pretty close to the altar, now almost every one of their spouses is dead (some have come back, as well as other odd occurences) but if you look at the marriage and divorce/widower rate for superheroes, you'll find a highly disproportionate group. I find it odd that in a storytelling medium with so many fantastic possibilities that so many writers simply can't tell a good intimate and interesting stories about married people for the most part. That I think is a failing within the medium. And just one of the many things I think Joe Q totally gets wrong about the industry... As I mentioned in the post you quoted, although I feel the Reed–Sue relationship proves that Marvel can handle a long-term marriage (with some missteps, as later discussed), I wish it had some more company. (The Vision–Wanda and Clint–Bobbi marriages are the ones I would most have preferred to see with greater staying power.) But I do think marrying off Peter was a poor decision, and I also don’t mind a disproportionately high divorce/widowing rate among superheroes. Generally, superhero (and more particularly Marvel superhero) comics are serial entertainment, and the dissolution of marriages is a time-honored staple of serial drama. Of course, marriage and romance usually aren’t quite as central to superhero comics as they are to daytime dramas ( Noble Causes notwithstanding); but still, divorce and death are legitimate means of providing interesting change in a long-running property. And in Spider-Man’s case, romantic problems used to be, but the Peter–M.J. marriage has greatly limited that option. But what’s good for Spider-Man isn’t necessarily a must for all superheroes. I don't deny that death and divorce are legitimate methods of keeping a character viable; however I think marvel and DC have an overreliance on them. And by their overuse, they've made them into expected story turns. Does anyone think the Storm/Black Panther marriage will last? Or will they even get to the altar? Will it just be retconned out of existence in six years? I remember Joe Q saying that from now on, "dead is dead" because readers don't treat death as a impact filled story turn because they know at some point it will be reversed. And of course, after saying that, any of a dozen characters were resurrected. It still means nothing. For example, does anybody believe marvel won't bring back jean grey at some point? If 99% of stories end the same way, that's a failing. It has become hackneyed and predictable when you can point to that high a rate. Out of thousands of characters, marvel has one long lasting, high-profile marriage (I believe that Mj was written out of Spider Man during their marriage for a while at least twice according to my research). That's not just a high percentage; that's fairly complete. Reed and Sue are an anomaly. That's what I have an issue with. There are smart strong and interesting marriage stories to be told as well as all the big doom and gloom stories. yet marvel and DC don't seem to be able to tell them very well. You're very likely right that spiderman may be better off not being married, but that's one example out of a hundred. What's the good excuse for all the other broken marriages? That's what I have a problem with. For the most part it's just a cop out. And that's weak way of telling stories from both my fan side and my writer side.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Aug 14, 2006 21:56:13 GMT -5
While I was away from the board, I was thinking about this topic and made an observation that I, at least, found interesting. Of all the Marvel marriages, Reed and Sue’s has had the most staying power—not just longevity, but stability (with bumps) and near-unanimous support from fandom (and, I presume, writers and editors, who, I hope, would also be fans). And, unlike the other Marvel marriages we’ve been discussing, Reed and Sue’s is the only one established by Stan during the original run when the Marvel Age was young.
Is that strictly coincidence? I’m starting to think it isn’t. All the other major Marvel marriages were not established until the individual characters had been around for at least a little while. We can argue about the advisability of the Parker–Watson nuptials, but there was a time when Peter looked ready to marry Gwen—heck, there was a time he was already dating before Mary Jane was even on the scene. There was a Wanda Maximoff before there even was a Vision—and she was being eyed by Clint Barton long, long before there was a Bobbi Morse. Even Hank Pym had a few adventures before there was a Janet Van Dyne—in fact, when readers first met him, he was married to somebody else!
True, Reed and Sue were not yet married at the outset, and Sue did have some additional suitors (Ben, Namor)—but Reed and Sue were already established as a couple from the beginning and never really strayed from one another before Stan and Jack tied their knot. Indeed, the Reed–Sue relationship is part of the premise of Fantastic Four: a family of adventurers.
While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Reed–Sue marriage is inviolable, as part of the original gospel according to Stan, it’s one of the basics that one should think long and hard about tinkering with.
So, right there we have a major challenge in establishing a major Marvel marriage that lasts, since major Marvel characters are seldom established as already being in stable marital or quasi-marital relationships from the beginning. The best chance for a successful Marvel marriage might lie in introducing characters as already being in a relationship upon which their premise rests. Otherwise, there will be too many people who fondly remember the characters’ good ol’ single days—or at least don’t see any reason why the characters couldn’t be single.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Aug 14, 2006 22:22:49 GMT -5
Well... lets knock on wood when it comes to Sue & Reed... I've heard a lot of rumors saying that by the time CW is over their marriage will be considerably less solid, and it has been hinted they'll even go through a separation...
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Aug 14, 2006 22:29:43 GMT -5
Well... lets knock on wood when it comes to Sue & Reed... I've heard a lot of rumors saying that by the time CW is over their marriage will be considerably less solid, and it has been hinted they'll even go through a separation... And it wouldn’t be the first time.
|
|
Ultron
Reservist Avenger
"Die, Humans!"
Posts: 196
|
Post by Ultron on Aug 15, 2006 17:47:36 GMT -5
No!
I'd rather be mauled by a masturbating bear.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Aug 15, 2006 18:06:46 GMT -5
Ultron: it depends... are we talking Yogi or Smokey, here...?
|
|
Ultron
Reservist Avenger
"Die, Humans!"
Posts: 196
|
Post by Ultron on Aug 15, 2006 19:58:18 GMT -5
|
|
jkemble
Reservist Avenger
the Cosmic Frog
Posts: 243
|
Post by jkemble on Aug 20, 2006 17:03:36 GMT -5
word. don't eat the tuna salad. uh, so, we know for sure peter & mj are going to split, and we know it won't be a divorce, but Joe Q has stated: "...it's not when they get back together, it's how." [paraphrase] doesn't sound like death, but in the Marvel U... well, y'know. ...and I think that's all we know so far, right?
if I wasn't so lazy, I would link everything, anyone want to add links?
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Aug 25, 2006 8:13:44 GMT -5
As for Reed and Sue, I think it's actually becase Stan married them himself. In my mind, they have always been husband and wife (I was surprised when I found out that they weren't married at the beginning of FF). Peter instead has been single for almost 20 years I think, the marriage with MJ happened in the eighties. And he was close to Betty Brant, Gwen, the Black Cat etc.
|
|
jkemble
Reservist Avenger
the Cosmic Frog
Posts: 243
|
Post by jkemble on Aug 25, 2006 17:34:04 GMT -5
As for Reed and Sue, I think it's actually becase Stan married them himself. In my mind, they have always been husband and wife (I was surprised when I found out that they weren't married at the beginning of FF). Peter instead has been single for almost 20 years I think, the marriage with MJ happened in the eighties. And he was close to Betty Brant, Gwen, the Black Cat etc. I remember when he was courtin' the Black Cat (and yes, they did "do it") It was a lot of fun because Pete wanted some of that fine feline hoochy, but was afraid to show his face to a known (at the time reforming) supervillian. ton's of fun! (I think it ws around the time of the Beyonder...)
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 27, 2006 6:46:37 GMT -5
...Yeah, I've been hearing about a Reed/Sue split as well. The cover of 541, for one thing. (A picture of Reed and Sue cracked down the middle) plus the fact that they are on opposite sides of the Civil War and things have been... strained... for a couple of years now. For example, during Waid's run:
"I love you Sue. Even if... when it came to protecting our children from Victor, you were worse than useless. OH well- at least they have a father they can count on."
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Aug 27, 2006 12:57:48 GMT -5
For example, during Waid's run: "I love you Sue. Even if... when it came to protecting our children from Victor, you were worse than useless. OH well- at least they have a father they can count on." Citation, please.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Aug 27, 2006 20:03:19 GMT -5
For example, during Waid's run: "I love you Sue. Even if... when it came to protecting our children from Victor, you were worse than useless. OH well- at least they have a father they can count on." Citation, please. Actually I believe this came at a point when Reed was trying to force Sue away so he could trap Doom and himself in a time loop. If it's what I recall, he did it to the entire FF so they wouldn't follow him out of loyalty for something he felt he had to handle alone. So the context (if its the sequence I recall) is quite important.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Aug 27, 2006 21:36:22 GMT -5
Actually I believe this came at a point when Reed was trying to force Sue away so he could trap Doom and himself in a time loop. If it's what I recall, he did it to the entire FF so they wouldn't follow him out of loyalty for something he felt he had to handle alone. So the context (if its the sequence I recall) is quite important. Thank you for jogging my memory. It’s in FF #506. The Doc’s quote is not exact, but it’s pretty close. Since Reed was misrepresenting his feelings about Sue to protect her, and since Sue knows he was, I don’t believe that the quote is a sign of marital strain…at least, not for the reasons that a literal reading of the quote would suggest. On the other hand, Reed’s tendency to shut out his wife from the big decisions and mislead her about them, even if for her own protection, is a marital problem.
|
|
Ultron
Reservist Avenger
"Die, Humans!"
Posts: 196
|
Post by Ultron on Aug 28, 2006 20:28:24 GMT -5
Man, Mr Fantastic is a total gangsta. Stick it to that invisible biotch, home boy!
He's like the Snoop Dogg of Marvel Comics.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Aug 29, 2006 16:30:36 GMT -5
An allegedly reliable spoiler regarding the resolution of the married-Spider-Man “problem” has been posted at Silver Bullet Comic Books (you’ll need to view the image in the first item).
|
|
jkemble
Reservist Avenger
the Cosmic Frog
Posts: 243
|
Post by jkemble on Aug 29, 2006 17:33:07 GMT -5
awww, I don't believe it. I mean, c'mon, couldn't they get a better artist. (hack hack) excuse me, hairball.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Aug 29, 2006 22:25:12 GMT -5
awww, I don't believe it. I mean, c'mon, couldn't they get a better artist. (hack hack) excuse me, hairball. who's the artist? in any case, I can see Joe Q commissioning this red herring artwork and letting it leak just to "rip the internet in half" as he likes to do...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 30, 2006 7:37:00 GMT -5
Gee, looks an awful lot like that DD cover where he hugs Elektra's headstone...
Recycling is very important these days, though. Maybe Marvel is just going "green".
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 31, 2006 11:03:35 GMT -5
Congratulations, you called my bluff I must admit, I knew that while writing and was half interested in seeing firstly if anyone here read FF and secondly what the reaction would be if they didn't. But yeah, I purposely reported the quote out of context because it works in arguments like these. Maybe a little childish, but quite interesting to see your responses
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Aug 31, 2006 12:07:08 GMT -5
Congratulations, you called my bluff I must admit, I knew that while writing and was half interested in seeing firstly if anyone here read FF and secondly what the reaction would be if they didn't. But yeah, I purposely reported the quote out of context because it works in arguments like these. Maybe a little childish, but quite interesting to see your responses My response to your deceit is to henceforth discount anything you say.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 31, 2006 12:33:29 GMT -5
I'm sorry that my joke offended you. I realise some may have considered it in poor taste and I sincerely hope I can prove henceforth that I can in fact be trusted when I report things. To be fair, my quote WAS accurate. Just out of context. So it's not actually a deception.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 31, 2006 12:55:14 GMT -5
General comment:
People don't like to feel manipulated, particularly in a setting where everyone is anonymous. While we don't deal with any earth-shattering issues around here, it is nice to have a level of comfort that what we are saying matters to others, and isn't for any one person's malevolent amusement.
Carry on...
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Aug 31, 2006 15:08:26 GMT -5
Congratulations, you called my bluff I must admit, I knew that while writing and was half interested in seeing firstly if anyone here read FF and secondly what the reaction would be if they didn't. But yeah, I purposely reported the quote out of context because it works in arguments like these. Maybe a little childish, but quite interesting to see your responses I think you can put forth a good argument at times, but I also think you do enjoy pushing buttons a bit. nothing technically wrong with it, but I think it's part of the reason you were seeing a lot of negative karma. This is a silly tactic (that you have apologized for, so at least you fessed up) and I would prefer not to see anything like it again. Just my take on it. Do what you will.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 31, 2006 15:13:38 GMT -5
Well as I said before, I apologize and I understand exactly. Though I do want to add that in my defence, I immediately admitted that it was a bluff. While I shouldn't have done so in the first place, at least I didn't try to argue stupidly.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Aug 31, 2006 15:59:32 GMT -5
things have been... strained... for a couple of years now. For example, during Waid's run: "I love you Sue. Even if... when it came to protecting our children from Victor, you were worse than useless. OH well- at least they have a father they can count on." Congratulations, you called my bluff I must admit, I knew that while writing and was half interested in seeing firstly if anyone here read FF and secondly what the reaction would be if they didn't. But yeah, I purposely reported the quote out of context because it works in arguments like these. Maybe a little childish, but quite interesting to see your responses I'm sorry that my joke offended you. I realise some may have considered it in poor taste and I sincerely hope I can prove henceforth that I can in fact be trusted when I report things. To be fair, my quote WAS accurate. Just out of context. So it's not actually a deception. Well as I said before, I apologize and I understand exactly. Though I do want to add that in my defence, I immediately admitted that it was a bluff. While I shouldn't have done so in the first place, at least I didn't try to argue stupidly. You admitted your “bluff” three days after you made it, also three days after its underlying fallacy had been exposed. “Immediately” is not an adverb that springs to mind. Bluffing is deception. Purposeful misrepresentation is deception. Misrepresentation is not accuracy. (And since, as previously reported, the quote is not verbatim, it’s not even accurately repeated.) So much for sincerity.
|
|