|
Post by woodside on Jan 3, 2008 17:21:02 GMT -5
Well said, Tone-Loc.
At the end of the day, I think throwing out creators names doesn't exactly change anything. No matter who supported it or who wrote it, I believe fully that there was a misreading of the reader's attitude. As many have said and pointed out, an unmarried Peter Parker can be found in Ultimate Spider-Man, MA Spider-Man, Mary-Jane Loves Spider-Man, and Spider-Man Family. Joe Q has pointed out that Spider-Girl is an option for those seeking a married Peter Parker . . . but it's not.
Like I've said, I'm fine with Spider-Man no longer being married. I can deal with the whole "never were married" idea since apparently we're being told they were instead in a long-term relationship . . . but the execution of "One More Day" and the "magic reset button" that was used to enforce this idea are the fundamental flaws of the story.
Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Aunt May have rather have died that see Peter and MJ break-up?
JMS is a good writer. They made a huge mistake by suppressing his story. I would have made sure he changed it so it didn't get rid of the past 30ish years or so, but it was a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 3, 2008 17:27:19 GMT -5
At the end of the day, I think throwing out creators names doesn't exactly change anything. No matter who supported it or who wrote it, I believe fully that there was a misreading of the reader's attitude. Okay, but I wasn't justifying the idea based on those names, I was rubbishing the suggestion that this is Joe Q and only Joe Q. I don't find that a valid argument. Those are NOT 'the' Spider-Man. There is one main Spider-Man and it is absolutely natural that we all want the best things to happen to HIM rather than Ultimate Spider-Man. Titles don't have to be different for the sake of being different, they should be the absolute best that they can be, and if Joe Q thinks making Spider-Man single in the main Spidey will make him better, then he'd be foolish not to on the basis that "Well, all the other, non-primary Spider-Mans possess trait X." I honestly do feel it's like saying "Well, if you want to read about a Spider-Man named Peter Parker, go read those other books, here in the 616 we have Bob Barker, Spider-Man!" Yes. But then, as we saw, MJ would rather have had them break up than Aunt May die.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 3, 2008 17:33:29 GMT -5
How much more compelling would a tortured divorce scenario for Spidey be that just rebooting back to the good ol' days of Spidey of over two decades ago? How would that affect his personality? What if he lost Mary Jane and then ultimately lost Aunt May too (which he no doubt will do... this a deal with Mephisto he's made for cripes sake). It's probably a story that will be explored later on, but was it necessary to have this contrived storyline to get us there? Thanks, Tone. This is exactly how I feel. After all, Spidey is the everyman character, the one who shows us that having power doesn't make one's life any easier - in fact, it makes one's decisions even harder. If Marvel wanted to make him single again, then why not have him deal with something that affects many people - divorce? Or maybe just let Aunt May finally die, have Peter deal with his guilt over her death, potentially driving Mary Jane away from him? As OMD is written, his decision to sacrifice his marriage is more about relieving himself of the tremendous guilt he feels than it is about saving May. It comes off as selfish and childish, and not what I expect from this character at all.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Jan 3, 2008 17:41:13 GMT -5
Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Aunt May have rather have died that see Peter and MJ break-up? Yes. But then, as we saw, MJ would rather have had them break up than Aunt May die. I am not sure I agree with that assessment. I think she did it out of love for Peter, much much moreso than for Aunt May. In fact, and thanks for bringing up the other thing that kind of bothered me... Maybe I need to read it again, but I don't recall anyone even wondering what May's wishes might be. Maybe she's ready to move on and spend eternity with Ben, aside from the fact that it would help uncomplicate Peter and Mary Jane's lives as well (I know that sounds cold, but I am putting myself in May's shoes here). Surely May would remind Peter that his wife is now certainly the greater responsibility, than say... getting her a little more time among the living.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 3, 2008 18:05:32 GMT -5
Well, they're both such selfless characters that I honestly think both Mary-Jane AND May would say Peter should have more time with the other.
But ultimately, I don't find Peter's decision selfish at all. If May died because of him, then he would have lost both his uncle and his aunt - the only family he had ever known- due to his mistakes. If you don't think that kind of grief could crack a person in two, then I can't agree with you at all.
And while May would tell Peter he wasn't responsible, I definitely think Mary-Jane would do anything other than see Peter go through that. Even if it means putting aside her own happiness, if it gives Peter a chance at happiness, then she'll do it in a heartbeat. And I don't see how that's out of character at all.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Jan 3, 2008 18:46:10 GMT -5
Well, if JMS indeed wanted to undo the Gwen/Osborn tryst and subsequent twins, then he's back on my "good writer" 's list... Just for trying.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Jan 3, 2008 20:26:56 GMT -5
Well, they're both such selfless characters that I honestly think both Mary-Jane AND May would say Peter should have more time with the other. But ultimately, I don't find Peter's decision selfish at all. If May died because of him, then he would have lost both his uncle and his aunt - the only family he had ever known- due to his mistakes. If you don't think that kind of grief could crack a person in two, then I can't agree with you at all. And while May would tell Peter he wasn't responsible, I definitely think Mary-Jane would do anything other than see Peter go through that. Even if it means putting aside her own happiness, if it gives Peter a chance at happiness, then she'll do it in a heartbeat. And I don't see how that's out of character at all. I think your last paragraph basically summerizes my premise that Mary Jane did it out of love for Peter, and not necessarily for Aunt May. So we obviously seem to have some level of agreement on that point. But as to Peter's selfishness... I couldn't disagree with you more. Mary Jane did it for Peter because Peter couldn't get over his own feelings about the prospect of May's death under the circumstances. It's Peter's selfishness that ultimately drives MJ to see that he won't ever forgive himself (or ultimately her) if they choose themselves over May. What was the first point of debate out of MJ's mouth in the issue? "Would it be selfish to choose themselves over May." She's testing Peter at that point. She's probing for his true feelings... she wants to know if he could ever accept choosing to let May die (which I reject that premise from the get-go... they aren't actively choosing to let May die if they don't take Mephisto's bargain). This was ultimately Peter's choice to make. She gauged him, saw he couldn't look past his own feelings, and then quickly made the decision she believed he wanted... a painful decision that had to be made, made suddenly as if to avoid prolonged pain (akin to ripping off the band aid, rather than slowly pulling it). Sure maybe she actually believes that their love will ultimately conquer all, maybe she's trying to pull a trick of her own with ol' Scratch, but ultimately she left the final decision to Peter. All Peter had to do at that point, if his concern was for MJ instead of himself, was to simply not agree to the deal. It took both of their agreements to seal the deal. He chose to avoid his feelings. He chose to avoid his "responsiblity" of May's death (if he really even has any to begin with), and take the deal. He took the easy route.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 4, 2008 7:14:58 GMT -5
I think your last paragraph basically summerizes my premise that Mary Jane did it out of love for Peter, and not necessarily for Aunt May. So we obviously seem to have some level of agreement on that point. Given how much she loves Aunt May, I'd say there's an element of that in it too. In fact, I'd go as far as to say if she considered letting Aunt May die for her marriage, then that was probably a moment of HER being selfish. Actually, I'd say they were. How likely is it that May would die on the stroke of midnight by coincidence? In choosing to hear Mephisto out, he has been able to ensure that if they do not take his bargain, May *WILL* die on the stroke of midnight, whereas before that she was simply in a coma state with no chance of coming out. So I'd say yes, they are letting her die if they don't. I don't think that's true at all. I don't think Peter can REMOTELY be blamed, because as I said, that kind of grief would crack anybody in two. It's not being selfish, it's being human. And if losing your happiness in life- because remember, it was MJ who ensured he could be happy, not him- so if losing your happiness in life so someone you love can live is being SELFISH... well then, I don't know what selflessness is. EDIT: You say it's Peter's choice- Joe Q disagrees. Here's a quote from the CBR interview: Ah, thanks for noticing. It is interesting so many fans are saying that Peter made this deal with the devil when, in fact, Peter was vacillating and who knows what he was going to do if left to his own devices. It was actually MJ that forced his hand by agreeing first without really consulting him. She’d heard enough from Mephisto and she knew Peter well enough that she agreed to the pact. Perhaps, in her own way, she knew that he would say no, but she also knew that if May died with Peter feeling that it was his responsibility, he would never be the same man again and the guilt would devour him forever. Perhaps she felt that this would be the end of Spider-Man and the world needs a Spider-Man." So there you go- Joe Q implies Peter would actually say no.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Jan 4, 2008 8:49:42 GMT -5
EDIT: You say it's Peter's choice- Joe Q disagrees. Here's a quote from the CBR interview: Ah, thanks for noticing. It is interesting so many fans are saying that Peter made this deal with the devil when, in fact, Peter was vacillating and who knows what he was going to do if left to his own devices. It was actually MJ that forced his hand by agreeing first without really consulting him. She’d heard enough from Mephisto and she knew Peter well enough that she agreed to the pact. Perhaps, in her own way, she knew that he would say no, but she also knew that if May died with Peter feeling that it was his responsibility, he would never be the same man again and the guilt would devour him forever. Perhaps she felt that this would be the end of Spider-Man and the world needs a Spider-Man." So there you go- Joe Q implies Peter would actually say no. You'll have to pardon me if I discount the "thoughful" explaination of a situation from the person who says out of the other side of his mouth that we don't really need to understand anything, because... ya know... it's MAGIC, man!
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on Jan 4, 2008 9:09:18 GMT -5
We may disagree, but I'd like you to point out a SINGLE instance where I have said definitively that you were wrong and it was NOT in regard to a specific fact or prefaced with "I disagree" or some such thing. No, I don't. If I did, I'd insult you. I didn't. Then you will note my alternative to you not having bought COIE was that we had completely different views on things. Clearly, this is the case. Now either you think this is an insult or else... well, I didn't insult you. Firstly- again, point out a SINGLE insult in what I said. I said EITHER you had no idea what you were talking about and hadn't read COIE OR we had different views on things. Since you HAVE read COIE, that means we have different views on things. Again, is that an insult? And again, did I try to tell you how to think at all? I told you facts, which were that this does not remove most of those past stories, that the creators I named disagreed with the marriage and the stated differences between Crisis and One More Day. I have been much less argumentative lately, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore your allegations when they are patently false. I'd be happy to continue this discussion over PM if you'd like, but I won't post on it more in the forum and I do not appreciate your false claims about what I have said to you. I can think of many which are considered classic anyway. Millar's MK: Spider-Man 12 issue run is often held to be a modern classic. Several of JMS's stories, including his first one with JRJR usually make the list as well. As for Avengers, well I'd argue the Busiek run certainly makes the cut. The one I'm certain about is FF though, I'd have to argue not only were there classic stories after 1990, but one of the three BEST FF runs ever in the form of the Waid run. Yes I would agree we have completely different views on a lot of things that Marvel is doing, and leave it at that. Better to simple agree to disagree then continue a pointless arguement of difference of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 4, 2008 14:32:00 GMT -5
I've had a feeling for some time now, essentially since Civil War, that the people in charge at Marvel no longer understand their own characters. This feeling was made into certainty for me by Quesada's response to the question, "Why not just have Peter and Mary Jane divorce?" Quesada says that he can't picture parents having to sit down and tell their kids that Spider-Man is getting a divorce. So Joe, it's easier to picture these same parents telling little Janey and little Johnny that instead Spider-Man made a deal with the Devil?
Huh?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 4, 2008 14:39:12 GMT -5
See, saying "Spider-Man made a deal with the devil" is really twisting what actually happened. It would be more accurate to say "Spidey gave up his happiness to help someone else." That's both more accurate AND much easier to tell kids. "Deal with the devil" doesn't really let you know that if he hadn't made said deal, a person would die. Incidentally, I'm surprised no one has yet said that "this is all to match the movies!!!" Of course it's not, and that makes no sense given basically everything else they're doing,but that doesn't usually stop people...
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 4, 2008 15:00:02 GMT -5
The only thing I'll say about the movies is, in number 3 Aunt May tells Peter that a husband has to put his wife's needs/happiness ahead of his own, and asks him if he can do that.
I guess we all know the answer to that now.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Jan 4, 2008 15:27:59 GMT -5
See, saying "Spider-Man made a deal with the devil" is really twisting what actually happened. It would be more accurate to say "Spidey gave up his happiness to help someone else." That's both more accurate AND much easier to tell kids. Wait, so how does that same answer not apply to a circumstance where MJ says she wants a divorce because she just can't handle it anymore, or Peter decides to divorce Mary Jane to spare her the troubles of a life with him? Would Spidey not be giving up his happiness (presumably meaning his marriage) then, too?
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 4, 2008 16:03:52 GMT -5
See, saying "Spider-Man made a deal with the devil" is really twisting what actually happened. It would be more accurate to say "Spidey gave up his happiness to help someone else." That's both more accurate AND much easier to tell kids. Wait, so how does that same answer not apply to a circumstance where MJ says she wants a divorce because she just can't handle it anymore, or Peter decides to divorce Mary Jane to spare her the troubles of a life with him? Would Spidey not be giving up his happiness (presumably meaning his marriage) then, too? Agreed. The problem with all this, is it's a very contrived story, written only to achieve the goal of making Spidey single again. The creators of this story decided to go the easiest, laziest route imaginable: it's all magic, so we don't have to explain anything! For this same reason, Peter acts out of character, becoming a cowardly, selfish man who would force his wife into the untenable position of choosing between their marriage or his aunt's life, all because he can not handle the guilt he would feel over his aunt's death. How much better and more meaningful would this story have been if say Aunt May died, and Peter decided to divorce Mary Jane because he doesn't want anything to happen to her because of his Spider-Man identity? Honestly, if I had to sit down with a kid and explain why Spider-Man is now single, I'd rather say, "because he felt he had to sacrifice his personal happiness in order to keep his wife safe" rather than "Because he couldn't stand the thought of being responsible in some way for his aunt's death, and he forced his wife to make a deal with the devil to prevent it".
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 4, 2008 16:09:37 GMT -5
See, saying "Spider-Man made a deal with the devil" is really twisting what actually happened. It would be more accurate to say "Spidey gave up his happiness to help someone else." That's both more accurate AND much easier to tell kids. "Deal with the devil" doesn't really let you know that if he hadn't made said deal, a person would die. The "Deal with the devil" statement is still true. It may not give all the reasons but it is still what happened. That's like saying that if a man stole food because his children were hungry that someone would be twisting the truth to say "That man stole food." There's nothing twisted, just omitted. As for being easier to tell the kids, I don't think that saying "He made a deal with the devil but that's okay as long as it's for a good reason" is easier to explain than "Things didn't work out for Spider-man and MJ so they got a divorce." I guess that's just me. Incidentally, I'm surprised no one has yet said that "this is all to match the movies!!!" Of course it's not, and that makes no sense given basically everything else they're doing,but that doesn't usually stop people... This kind of statement is just proof that you don't really listen to people who disagree with you. The people who have previously argued that Marvel has changed things to match the movies have had tie-ins and examples to back up their statements. You may not have agreed with them, but they have never just randomly thrown it out there. Your implication here is exactly that. There is nothing in One More Day that makes this like the movies except that May is still alive in the movies. This just makes it look like you have little respect for the opinions of the people who have made the statement previously. Then again, maybe that was your intention.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 4, 2008 16:30:01 GMT -5
The "Deal with the devil" statement is still true. It may not give all the reasons but it is still what happened. That's like saying that if a man stole food because his children were hungry that someone would be twisting the truth to say "That man stole food." There's nothing twisted, just omitted. As for being easier to tell the kids, I don't think that saying "He made a deal with the devil but that's okay as long as it's for a good reason" is easier to explain than "Things didn't work out for Spider-man and MJ so they got a divorce." I guess that's just me. Well, leaving aside that the reasons for a divorce were far more than that one reason, we disagree here. I think if you only give HALF the story, then it is a twist. By your logic of omission, then it's accurate to say "Peter Parker is a hero because he killed his uncle Ben through negligence." Technically, it's undeniably true. But it's also not the whole story. No, it's proof that I disagree with these people. I don't believe most of the "tie-ins" presented before were valid in the slightest. There is nothing in "The Other" which makes it remotely more like the movies except organic web-shooters- while there is a GREAT DEAL in that story that distances it from the movies. This did not prevent people from claiming "The Other" was just an attempt to cash in on the movies. In fact, there's actually MORE logic to claiming it with OMD than with "The Other" or "Back in Black".
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jan 7, 2008 0:09:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 7, 2008 6:41:48 GMT -5
It's funny you should mention that, Woodside, because if you look in the discussion section you'll see people discuss that this section is too biased, and planning to change it!
And they're right. Look at the Civil War article, House of M article, ANY other comic article, and they don't go that in depth in detail on the reviews. This spent an entire paragraph dissecting IGN's 3 reviews and putting them up, etc, which is basiclaly unheard of for wikipeida. The reason? It was uploaded by irate fanboys.
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jan 7, 2008 9:29:20 GMT -5
The reviews don't go in-depth? Or the article about the reviews? The reviews themselves do go in-depth and discuss the major problems with this story. Esspecially the ones at newsarama.
Doom, I'm a little confused here, buddy . . . did you actually like this story? I thought you didn't. Would you mind clarifying a bit for me because if you didn't like it, it's a little surprising to see you defend it.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 7, 2008 12:16:02 GMT -5
It's funny you should mention that, Woodside, because if you look in the discussion section you'll see people discuss that this section is too biased, and planning to change it! Wow, is this the New York times reporting on the presidential race? They're actually changing the article because some people think it's too biased? There are times when people do take this whole thing too seriously. I'm as angered by OMD as anybody because I'm a Spidey fan and hate to see them do this to my favorite character but this is still an article about reviews for a comic book. I understand that the press has to be impartial when it comes to certain hot political topics due to bribery and undue influence upon mainstream society, but can't we at least have a little freedom of the press somewhere? The people who object to the tone of this article (Which was probably right on the money) should find a place to print their rebuttal but the article should not be changed to appease them. On a lighter note, I thought it was funny that Wizard magazine was thinking along the exact same lines that I was by comparing it to the Dallas fiasco but in their case, I think if I were them, I'd do a little research before printing my comparison. JR getting shot was never a dream. It was Bobby's dying that was the dream. The worst part of that whole thing was that Knot's Landing had one of its best seasons at that same time and tied in to its sister show by having Valene and Gary name one of the twins after the deceased Bobby. Abby also tried to use Gary's distraction concerning his grief for his brother against him. When Dallas popped up and said the whole thing was a dream, it left Knots Landing with egg on their faces because their season wasn't a dream. They never crossed over with Dallas again. I see OMD as having those same kinds of ripples across the MU.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 7, 2008 12:54:34 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of the story, but I've read worse, and I cannot deny that the standard of both writing and art were excellent, whatever the content was like. Which is why I find it hilarious when peopl;e say the story is the worst Spider-Man story ever. If the worst Spidey story ever has art and writing this good, then d**n the average stories must be insane.
Also, woodside, wikipedia basically NEVER goes into that level of detail on reviews. Usually you may get "IGN's editors disliekd the story, giving it a '0' and saying it was 'XX' and 'XX'. There's then a citation linking to the full review for more. This devoted an entire paragraph to explaining in depth why IGN disliked it, which is unheard of in any other wikipedia article!
And Spiderwasp, it's an encyclopedia. It's job is to present facts. It's job is NOT to present in-depth summaries of why some people think a story sucked. It's not about freedom of the press- no one is saying that these same reviews can't be cited. It's about the fact that whoever filled in that section has decided to quote loads and loads of negative points and then make a passing reference to one positive review, instead of listing some highlights as is the standard for any other review.
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jan 7, 2008 13:14:32 GMT -5
A bad comic can still have good qualities. I thought the art was great and script was good for both OMD and "Disassembled." But because the core concept and the story was flawed AND it smacked Spider-Man's history in the face, it made for a terrible comic.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jan 10, 2008 9:25:59 GMT -5
I've only read the issue yesterday... and you can count me among those who didn't like it It just confuses things to a tremendous level, which makes it hard to appreciate the few positive elements (ie, getting rid of the "sins past" storyline, the organic web, the new powers etc). According to an interview with Quesada, posted in the italian Marvel site however, reality is not changed, but the way people see and perceive it has, which seems to suggest this is some kind of uber-illusion. Joe's words were that "Harry is not back, but everyone perceives him as alive". It reminds me a bit of a Star Trek TNG episode, where a character from the olographic deck actually comes to life due to a programming mistake. Anyway, I'm still confused as to how this all fits in the general marvel universe continuity. Marvel tried to make this story about 7 years ago, after MJ seemingly died in a plane crash. In that story, Peter was to attempt suicide, just to meet the Shaper of Worlds who would have put him in a reality just like this one in BND (something like a Spider version of heroes reborn almost). There, he would have either slowly understood the truth or not, depending on sales, but the idea was considered too cosmic for an urban hero like Spidey, so Marvel didn't go ahead. Sadly, it did now
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 10, 2008 9:49:09 GMT -5
That's an interesting idea about it all being an illusion of some sort. I wonder if Harry is actually Mephisto in disguise?
It does seem like this creates a real mess, continuity-wise. It seems to me that comics are somewhat novel in entertainment; other than soap operas, I can't think of any other serial form of entertainment that has so much history. Both Marvel and DC have produced thousands of stories and characters for more than 40 years. It's just so much material. Is it possible that it reaches a critical mass at some point? Is a 'purge' necessary from time to time, to clean things up and make the universe more approachable?
DC seemed to attempt a half-@ssed purge with the original Crisis, restarting some heroes but not others, such that everyone was confused about which past stories were "real" and which weren't. If Marvel had ended the regular Marvel universe after they started the Ultimate universe, I would view that as a purge. But so far, I don't think we've seen a real purge.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 10, 2008 15:51:32 GMT -5
It just confuses things to a tremendous level, which makes it hard to appreciate the few positive elements (ie, getting rid of the "sins past" storyline, the organic web, the new powers etc). This isn't the first reference I've seen to this undoing the "Sins Past" storyline. Did I miss something? I realize that the story did come out after MJ and Pete were married, but the events that mattered (Gwen sleeping with Norman) happened way before so how would one affect the other. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for undoing that fiasco of a storyline but I just don't see how it does.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jan 10, 2008 16:09:40 GMT -5
Your question is correct, in fact I have no idea how that got retconned out, but apparently it was. Both Quesada and JMS have stated that Past Sins is out of continuity now (according to the article I mentioned earlier, this was the origin of the rift between them. JMS wanted to retcon out only Past Sins, while Quesada wanted to do it with everything else). MJ asked for Peter to "be happy", maybe getting rid of those 2 falls under this vague definition. PS, this is the article www.paninicomics.it/News.jsp?Action=Carica&Id=13604. If anyone is interested I can translate the main elements.
|
|
|
Post by scribbler357 on Jan 24, 2008 1:00:17 GMT -5
I wonder if (and how...) Spider-Man's still gonna be part of the New Avengers... Yeah, that's what I've been wondering since "it" happened. Just seems a long way to go just to break up a marriage...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jan 25, 2008 18:04:26 GMT -5
Just thought I'd throw these in (With thanks to Billy Parker at CBR, and Tom DeFalco's book)
Marv Wolfman: "Peter always worked better when he was a loser who worked hard. I didn't think he should be dating somebody who looked like a supermodel. I used the proposal to end their relationship." (When Peter first proposed to MJ) Writer issues #181-204 ASM
Roger Stern: "I picked up some of the recent Spider-Man stuff, and while it all seems to be very well written, it doesn't say anything to me. Spider-Man doesn't quite feel like Spider-Man to me anymore. It all seemed to fall apart when he got married. I'm not saying I would never have married Peter off, but I wouldn't have paired him with Mary Jane. She worked best as a spoiler, an old girlfriend who would occasionally appear to mess up Peter's life. She and Peter really cared about each other, and they had some good times together, but they were like oil and water. I never thought the marriage would work. [Later] Peter seemed different to me. He had changed and wasn't as happy as he used to be. I guess he just had alot more on his mind." Writer issues #206, 224-227, 229-252 ASM
Ron Frenz: "I was offered the chance to pencil the wedding, but turned it down because it just didn't seem right to me." (Ron and Tom Defalco originally planned to have MJ leave Peter at the altar) Penciler issues #248, 251-2, 255-261, 263, 265, 268-271, 273-77, 280-4 ASM
David Michelinie: [When asked about writing the marriage issue] "I did - but it wasn't my fault! I didn't think they actually should get married. I only wrote the script for the wedding issue. Jim Shooter wrote the final plot. I wasn't keen on the marriage from the start. I was plainly against it. I think it diminished the identification factor with the readership. The average Marvel reader was fifteen years old at the time, and few fifteen year olds are married. I thought the marriage was a big mistake, like when they decided it was time for Pete to graduate from college. It changed the basic aspect of the character, but there was nothing I could do about it." Writer issues #205, 290-92, 296-352, 359-388 ASM
Stan Lee: "I told John [Romita] that I thought Peter should end up with Gwen." Writer issues #1-100, 105-110, 116-118, 365, 400 Annual 1-9, 18 ASM, Amazing Fantasy 15
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 25, 2008 22:22:07 GMT -5
Just thought I'd throw these in (With thanks to Billy Parker at CBR, and Tom DeFalco's book) Marv Wolfman: "Peter always worked better when he was a loser who worked hard. I didn't think he should be dating somebody who looked like a supermodel. I used the proposal to end their relationship." (When Peter first proposed to MJ) Writer issues #181-204 ASM Roger Stern: "I picked up some of the recent Spider-Man stuff, and while it all seems to be very well written, it doesn't say anything to me. Spider-Man doesn't quite feel like Spider-Man to me anymore. It all seemed to fall apart when he got married. I'm not saying I would never have married Peter off, but I wouldn't have paired him with Mary Jane. She worked best as a spoiler, an old girlfriend who would occasionally appear to mess up Peter's life. She and Peter really cared about each other, and they had some good times together, but they were like oil and water. I never thought the marriage would work. [Later] Peter seemed different to me. He had changed and wasn't as happy as he used to be. I guess he just had alot more on his mind." Writer issues #206, 224-227, 229-252 ASM Ron Frenz: "I was offered the chance to pencil the wedding, but turned it down because it just didn't seem right to me." (Ron and Tom Defalco originally planned to have MJ leave Peter at the altar) Penciler issues #248, 251-2, 255-261, 263, 265, 268-271, 273-77, 280-4 ASM David Michelinie: [When asked about writing the marriage issue] "I did - but it wasn't my fault! I didn't think they actually should get married. I only wrote the script for the wedding issue. Jim Shooter wrote the final plot. I wasn't keen on the marriage from the start. I was plainly against it. I think it diminished the identification factor with the readership. The average Marvel reader was fifteen years old at the time, and few fifteen year olds are married. I thought the marriage was a big mistake, like when they decided it was time for Pete to graduate from college. It changed the basic aspect of the character, but there was nothing I could do about it." Writer issues #205, 290-92, 296-352, 359-388 ASM Stan Lee: "I told John [Romita] that I thought Peter should end up with Gwen." Writer issues #1-100, 105-110, 116-118, 365, 400 Annual 1-9, 18 ASM, Amazing Fantasy 15 Just because some of the previous writers of Spider-Man have expressed their dislike of the Peter - Mary Jane marriage, it doesn't change the fact that the method used to dissolve said marriage was one of the most poorly conceived ideas in comics history. It doesn't matter how many people you quote.
|
|