# [Spoilers] Spiderman: One More Day...



## Relique du Madde (Dec 29, 2007)

Ok... can someone please explain to me WHY the hell Pater Parker and Mary Jane would honestly have their entire existence RETCONNED so that Aunt May wouldn't die?  Honestly, if I were to make that same stupid deal with the devil I half expect Aunt May to bite it tomorrow morning of old age.  I mean honestly... how many years does Aunt May have left? 1?  2?  5? 10?  

Just let her die... and then make Peter and Mary Jane brake up honorably..



Joe Quesada.... you're dead to me..


----------



## Klaus (Dec 29, 2007)

JoeQ has stated time and again that he didn't like Peter as a married man. And the Editor-in-Chief gets his way, for good or ill.

Even though, if Peter stopped to think about it, he'd realize that Aunt May would *want*  Peter and MJ to stay together and be happy, and she would finally move on and be with Uncle Ben again.

So yeah, poorly conceived, brings too much mystical mumbo-jumbo, totally out-of-character decisions. Reminds me of Civil War.


----------



## CrusaderX (Dec 29, 2007)

The Peter and MJ marriage never should have happened in the first place.  The only reason it did happen was because of the Spider-Man newspaper comic strip.  The strip was going to be cancelled in alot of papers, and the publishers of the strip needed to do something to draw attention to it, so they decided to have Peter Parker marry.  This was never supposed to be the plan in the regular Marvel Universe, but Jim Shooter, the Editor In Chief of Marvel at the time, insisted that the mainstream comics capitalize on the media attention as well.  The regular Spidey comic writers weren't building to any sort of marriage at all (MJ was barely even in the comic at the time, IIRC), but editorial mandate made them quickly force the marriage into the comics.

This One More Day deal with the devil is hardly the most elegant solution, but the marriage was never an elegant situation to begin with, so I can live with it.


----------



## Felon (Dec 29, 2007)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> The Peter and MJ marriage never should have happened in the first place.  The only reason it did happen was because of the Spider-Man newspaper comic strip.  The strip was going to be cancelled in alot of papers, and the publishers of the strip needed to do something to draw attention to it, so they decided to have Peter Parker marry.  This was never supposed to be the plan in the regular Marvel Universe, but Jim Shooter, the Editor In Chief of Marvel at the time, insisted that the mainstream comics capitalize on the media attention as well.  The regular Spidey comic writers weren't building to any sort of marriage at all (MJ was barely even in the comic at the time, IIRC), but editorial mandate made them quickly force the marriage into the comics.
> 
> This One More Day deal with the devil is hardly the most elegant solution, but the marriage was never an elegant situation to begin with, so I can live with it.



It makes no sense to suggest that the marriage was "never supposed to happen in the first place" just because the decision to get married was decided at an administrative level. The quaint notions that only the writers' plans count as "official", and they should be left alone to run their little fiefdoms as they see fit without editorial direction, has a kind of charming naivety to it. Spider-Man and X-Men are Marvel's biggest titles, so let no one doubt for a second that events in those comics transpire without constant editorial oversight. If the editor-in-chief decides that Spidey and MJ were supposed to get married, that's as "supposed to" as it gets.

I find it particularly self-contradicting to disregard Jim Shooter's editorial decision as being the act of an editorial interloper while regarding Joe Q's over-the-top retcon as being legitimate when it was a decision that the writer, J. Michael Whatever, resisted. 

Spidey and MJ had been dating for years. I don't see what's so inelegant about them doing what some grown-ups do.

What I do find very much in need of correction is Spider-Man being an A-list hero with billionaire buddies and access to quinjets. That is very much the antithesis of what Spidey is about.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Dec 29, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> So yeah, poorly conceived, brings too much mystical mumbo-jumbo, totally out-of-character decisions. Reminds me of Civil War.




So, what do the Civil War and the MJ and SM break have in common. Oh, yeah... JoeQ.

Funny, but at this point it feels wrong to have MJ and SM break up, to be apart. It would be like having Kent and Lane get a divorce... But if the market demands it, then the market demands it and the fans want unhappy heroes.


----------



## Felon (Dec 29, 2007)

Just got back from Wikipedia. The story is cosmically stupid. I'm amused that J. Michael Whatever wanted to have his name pulled, even though he copped-out at the last minute. 

"Oh, I'll write your lousy story, and I'll cash your dirty paychecks all right--but I will protest most stringently by attempting to conceal my involvement!"

How noble....   

Fans get that this was crap and the story is easily constructed so that it can all be magically undone (they learned that from the Cone Saga at least; always leave a backdoor).

Sorry, Relique, I can't answer your question as to why Peter and MJ would sacrifice so much just to restore Aunt May to a point where a stiff breeze could kill her.


----------



## CrusaderX (Dec 29, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> If the editor-in-chief decides that Spidey and MJ were supposed to get married, that's as "supposed to" as it gets.




Right.  And the editor-in-chief is now deciding that Spidey and MJ were not supposed to get married.  So what's the problem?

I'm not saying that Quesada's decision is perfectly legitimate while Shooter's decision was totally illegitimate.  I'm saying that the two decisions are actually very much alike.  Fans who praise one while damning the other don't seem to know how alike the two situations really are.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Dec 29, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Just got back from Wikipedia. The story is cosmically stupid. I'm amused that J. Michael Whatever wanted to have his name pulled, even though he copped-out at the last minute.
> 
> "Oh, I'll write your lousy story, and I'll cash your dirty paychecks all right--but I will protest most stringently by attempting to conceal my involvement!"
> 
> ...





It's cool.. but the possibilities created by that retcon boggles my mind.  I mean, if the devil could effect reality that much when why not just have him undo Decimation by having the X-men never form or the Civil War by having the Avengers never reunite?    

Sure I like there tp be some semblance of continuity within the Marvel universe, but having two magical reset buttons being pressed within two years is just lame since it creates a paper thin univers..  Besides... shouldn't Dr. Strange technically go after Spiderman now that he had the devil use magic to usurp reality?


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 29, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Ok... can someone please explain to me WHY the hell Pater Parker and Mary Jane would honestly have their entire existence RETCONNED so that Aunt May wouldn't die?  Honestly, if I were to make that same stupid deal with the devil I half expect Aunt May to bite it tomorrow morning of old age.  I mean honestly... how many years does Aunt May have left? 1?  2?  5? 10?



Hmm. I'm guessing someone's name have been removed from a rich relative's will.   

Are you sure you're not the shafted Paris Hilton who will inherit nothing because grandpa is leaving his wealth to charities?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 29, 2007)

It is indeed lazy writing and attributes far too much power to Mephisto.

Winter Soldier, how would you like to trade that freshly redeemed soul for me to bring back Captain America?

Cyclops, how would you like to trade your soul for your unknown brother to never have been ripped from the womb and you to actually grow up with your family?

etc.. etc... etc....

It's just bad writing.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 29, 2007)

If Spiderman must be miserable, I'm sure there are dozens of ways to do it while keeping himmarried. People point to Mary Jane being a supermodel. Guess what, supermodels fall by the wayside as they get older and a newcome steals the spotlight. She's an actress? Maybe not a very good one, and she bows out of her biggest assignment when the producer tries to do a little "casting couching" with her. There you have it: not only one person struggling, but two.

But Peter must always endure through his tribulatons, and Spierman must always be taking his frustrations out on the villains by humorously mocking them. When he dons the costume, it's the one time the underdog gets to be the big dog. That's what made Spiderman so successful to begin with.


----------



## Felon (Dec 29, 2007)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> Right.  And the editor-in-chief is now deciding that Spidey and MJ were not supposed to get married.  So what's the problem?
> 
> I'm not saying that Quesada's decision is perfectly legitimate while Shooter's decision was totally illegitimate.  I'm saying that the two decisions are actually very much alike.  Fans who praise one while damning the other don't seem to know how alike the two situations really are.



Your post certainly did intimate that there was something inherently problematic and "inelegant" about Spidey being married. Your rationale was that it wasn't supposed to have happened and you described One More Day as a "solution". 

I do not deride One More Day because it stemmed from an editorial decision. I deride it because it makes poor sense as a story. I deride because it devolves Spidey as a character, rather than developing him the way marriage did. I deride because The Clone Saga tried to do the same thing once and it is one of the famous lead balloons in comic history. 

I liked Peter Parker as a teenager who had dating problems and couldn't rub two nickels together and who was considered by other heroes to be an outsider and a bit of an oddball. But that's over. Quesada signed off on him taking off his mask and joining the Avnegers. Why retcon now? Just part of the plan, or is he trying to do a takeback? It's so hard to think of anything to praise here.


----------



## Felon (Dec 29, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> It is indeed lazy writing and attributes far too much power to Mephisto.
> 
> Winter Soldier, how would you like to trade that freshly redeemed soul for me to bring back Captain America?
> 
> ...



Heck, consider the possibilities of making deals with scumbags. Mephisto isn't getting a pure soul out of this deal, after all. He's just sort of...being a jerk.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 29, 2007)

JQ said, that editors and writers almost felt hogged tied, with the marriage in the picture. They felt they couldin't explore other avenue with the charcter.

The marriage was honored as so, for a while, back from the Stan Lee's run in the newspapers comic section.

And last, keeping the 'immortal' look around, is the only way for them to make money.

And again lastily...yes, it was the cheapest to get out of it.


----------



## Felon (Dec 29, 2007)

Well, I guess it's bonkers to suggest that a character can have an interesting, eventful life once they've tied the knot. That's it, marriage is the end. Cue the curtains. 

.Instead, I will posit that marriages can dissolve without cosmic intervention. Heck, have Gwen Stacy show up as the Green Goblin Queen and throw MJ off a bridge. Or, just have'em get a divorce.


----------



## Villano (Dec 29, 2007)

JoeQ...the reason I only collect a single Marvel title anymore.

But, seriously, don't worry about it.  They can always fix it by having Aunt May put on Iron Man's old armor and invade Latveria and use Dr. Doom's time machine to...um...   

Did I mention that I dropped nearly all of my Marvel titles since JoeQ took over...?


----------



## Felon (Dec 29, 2007)

As I understand it, Joe Q did some good for Marvel after the Bankruptcy. He helped turn the trade paperback market into a thriving primary market, for instance. 

I hold New Avengers to be the epitome of what I think is wrong with Marvel: there's no policing of anything. Writers are just allowed to go nuts, without regard for what's come before or what might come afterwards. If it sounds like it will generate a short-term sales boost, do it! But I have to acknowledge that New Avengers was a big, big success. For some reason, Spidey and Wolvie as Avengers clicked with a lot of readers. Go figure. 

So I don't want to pick on Joe--not after groaning at all of the Shooter-bashing I've heard over the years--but this is just bad stuff.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Dec 29, 2007)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> JQ said, that editors and writers almost felt hogged tied, with the marriage in the picture.




I’ve done enough writing of my own to appreciate the need to create obstacles and problems for characters to grapple with – that was not and is not my primary issue with this story arc. 

First, it just points to how flakey the stories are in comic books. They’re here, they’re there, they’re everywhere – and next week it will be more of the same random assortment of situations calling itself a plot. If one writer likes something, then he rearranges the entire universe to suit himself. If another writer does not like it, then he rearranges the entire universe to suit himself. It makes the entire thing difficult to keep straight in my head. 

Second, I respect good planning and departmental communication – all this twisting and turning sounds to me like poor planning, poor communications (between the people handling the different lines) and management by throwing things at the wall (on a month by month basis) and seeing what sticks. 

Third, I’ve never understood why writers see marriages as such a burden. Plenty of bad things can happy to married people; it really is not protection against anything. The notion that it is some kind of (ahem) impregnable safe haven is an illusion. That is something anyone who is married can tell you. 



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> He's just sort of...being a jerk.




Well, he is a devil-like entity. He’s hardly ever going to give people flowers and pink bunnies.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 29, 2007)

And I could be misremembering, but hey, they already killed MJ off only to have MJS bring her back.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 29, 2007)

CBR (www.comicbookresources.com) is running a five part interview with JQue about this very topic.  Only one part if posted so far, but I figured some of you might be interested.


----------



## megamania (Dec 29, 2007)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> And again lastily...yes, it was the cheapest to get out of it.





Another clone?


----------



## megamania (Dec 29, 2007)

MJ as a clone?!?


----------



## megamania (Dec 29, 2007)

Instant no marriage IF they remove the clones from OUR memories.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Dec 29, 2007)

Or they could take a page from Iron Man and Ant MAn and make Spiderman get really drunk one night and abusive towards MJ that way they would surely get divorced.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 30, 2007)

megamania said:
			
		

> MJ as a clone?!?




Hey, for all we know, she's a Skrull....


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 30, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Hey, for all we know, she's a Skrull....



If she's a Skrull, then I'm not reading another Spidey book ever again.   

As for my feelings on this attempt to make Spidey *relatable *to young audiences once again, I'll sum it up in 3 words : I HATE IT. 

Sure, Spider-Man's youth and inexperience made him resonate with young readers, but we also connected with him when he grew older and wiser and learned from his mistakes. And despite what Joe Q thinks, we cheered for the good things in Peter Parker's life as much as we felt for him during the bad things. His marriage was the best thing to happen to him, and I was happy for him. Did that make him any less interesting? Course not! If anything it added one more interesting dimension to Spider-Man that I feel Joe Q has totally missed.


----------



## Felon (Dec 30, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> CBR (www.comicbookresources.com) is running a five part interview with JQue about this very topic.  Only one part if posted so far, but I figured some of you might be interested.



Thanks for posting that. Having read it, I can't help but be amused by Joe thinking that organic posed some sort of storytelling obstacle that required a solution. 

Here's my favorite part though:



> By contrast to that, the "Brand New Day" segment was drawn in a manner to reflect the fact that Peter/Spider-Man is perhaps the greatest comic book character in the world today, and, in the end, it's exactly that -- a comic, not real life. And, while Peter goes through trials and tribulations, his world should be fun, bouncy, colorful and fantastic. Every page of "One More Day" that I drew over the four issues were drawn the way they were in order to make the last nine pages an emotional release. For over three and a half issues, I wanted to make the art dark and heavy, with the weight of Peter's world pushing against it, solely because I wanted the last nine pages to feel like the clouds had parted after the worse storm ever. It's a new day full of hope, color and, yes, the unknown just around the corner and while there is incredible sadness that this great love has been derailed, perhaps there is something amazing on the horizon.



????

Doesn't the bad guy actually win here? Isn't this retcon basically Mephisto having way with Spidey? How can that lead to anything bright and sunny and optimistic?


----------



## Klaus (Dec 30, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> If she's a Skrull, then I'm not reading another Spidey book ever again.
> 
> As for my feelings on this attempt to make Spidey *relatable *to young audiences once again, I'll sum it up in 3 words : I HATE IT.
> 
> Sure, Spider-Man's youth and inexperience made him resonate with young readers, but we also connected with him when he grew older and wiser and learned from his mistakes. And despite what Joe Q thinks, we cheered for the good things in Peter Parker's life as much as we felt for him during the bad things. His marriage was the best thing to happen to him, and I was happy for him. Did that make him any less interesting? Course not! If anything it added one more interesting dimension to Spider-Man that I feel Joe Q has totally missed.



 Easy: Have Amazing Spider-Man deal with the adult Peter trying to make it as a husband, and have Tales of Spider-Man deal with adventures set back when Peter was a kid.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 30, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Doesn't the bad guy actually win here? Isn't this retcon basically Mephisto having way with Spidey? How can that lead to anything bright and sunny and optimistic?




Does he remember he and MJ were married/in love? If not, he gets to fool around again with no consequences and no angst. (I seem to remember an earlier statement when the whole 'One More Day' thing was 'just a suposition': one major reason he hated the marriage was that it meant they could never again show Peter with another woman other than MJ without Peter being hated for it). I could see Quesada thinking that might be a good thing.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 30, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Easy: Have Amazing Spider-Man deal with the adult Peter trying to make it as a husband, and have Tales of Spider-Man deal with adventures set back when Peter was a kid.



Then there is no threat posed to spiderman in those flashbacks since the audience knows he has to live through them. Granted the threat of permanent death to a marvel cash cow does not exist in the first place…


As for this retcon idea, wow, utterly craptastic. I'd rather see another reboot.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 30, 2007)

I'm just hoping the hints of them eventually getting back together turn out to be true...since MJ and Peter just worked perfectly.

I mean, we know MJ's now going to be running around as "Jackpot" so maybe we get a Black Cat/Spidey type relationship for a while.

Not to say I like this at all...but at this point, I can only hope that Brand New Day is just that, and this can be mostly forgotten and eventually fixed...again.


----------



## Silver Moon (Dec 30, 2007)

Strikes me as an extremely lame way to end his marriage when an obvious solution is right there if the Editor-in-chief really wants Peter single again - he revealed his identity in to the world in Civil War - having done so, one of his enemies kills her to get back at Spidy.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 30, 2007)

JoeQ likes MJ, he just doesn't like Married-Peter.

But where he fails is to see that Peter and MJ could still get divorced without Peter becoming "The Amazing Divorce-Man". I know lots of people under 30 who got married really young and were already divorced.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 31, 2007)

In the 70s and 80s I really, really enjoyed Spiderman. One of my top favourite heroes (perhaps because as a geeky guy who couldn't get on with girls there was an element of wish-fulfilment there? Likely I guess). I've not really read much in the way of marvel comics for the last 10-15 years or so, but this thread is quite a sad one for me.

I guess I'll always be able to go back and read those stories from "my" heydey of spiderman


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 31, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Then there is no threat posed to spiderman in those flashbacks since the audience knows he has to live through them. Granted the threat of permanent death to a marvel cash cow does not exist in the first place…
> 
> 
> As for this retcon idea, wow, utterly craptastic. I'd rather see another reboot.





On the other hand, we have the all ages Spider Man Marvel Adventures book as well as Ultimate Spider Man. As well as MJ Loves Spider Man.

But hey, one more single Spider Man is truly what the world needs.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Dec 31, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> On the other hand, we have the all ages Spider Man Marvel Adventures book as well as Ultimate Spider Man. As well as MJ Loves Spider Man.
> 
> But hey, one more single Spider Man is truly what the world needs.




Correction... one more single Spider Man and a crime fighting Mary Jane is truly what the world needs.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 31, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> JoeQ likes MJ, he just doesn't like Married-Peter.
> 
> But where he fails is to see that Peter and MJ could still get divorced without Peter becoming "The Amazing Divorce-Man". I know lots of people under 30 who got married really young and were already divorced.





I don't read comic books anymore (partly because of these type of ret-cons...), but the first thing that popped into my head was MJ cheating on him, then they divorce. I mean, it's not an unthinkable thing, IMO.

The other thing I thought of was, shouldn't this be what Ultimate Spiderman (that's the reboot universe, right?) is all about? An alternate take on Spiderman to service fans that haven't read centuries of backstory.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jan 1, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> JoeQ likes MJ, he just doesn't like Married-Peter.



 I take no credit for the post below, which I found in the doctorwhoforum. But I thought it an appropriate response to this:



> I picture Joe Q with pin-up shots of MJ, muttering 'If only she wasn't married, she could be mine!'
> 
> There is a thwappa, thwappa sound, as of paper being brushed against during a repetitive physical activity.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 1, 2008)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Strikes me as an extremely lame way to end his marriage when an obvious solution is right there if the Editor-in-chief really wants Peter single again - he revealed his identity in to the world in Civil War - having done so, one of his enemies kills her to get back at Spidy.




He's gone on record several times as saying that, as badly as he didn't like the marriage, he felt that having Spidey as either a divorcee or a widower would be even worse. (And, on the divorce angle, I have to agree if only on the basis that Spidey's mantra is "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" and him divorcing MJ seems to fly in the face of him being so dedicated and devoted and responsible. Of course, there are two people in any relationship, it's true, but I still don't like the divorce angle. The death angle even less.)

In any event, I think the whole thing stinks on ice- I think it's absolutely stupid that people feel they are hamstrung by the whole marriage (JMS did a great job of it). Getting rid of it, and in such a contrived fashion as this, was pretty ridiculous. Heck, bringing back Aunt May in the first place was pretty ludicrous, but this is just awful.

We'll see how it all turns out.

[EDIT- On another note, I seem to recall reading Joe Q. saying that one of the reasons they got rid of the webshooters initially was because he felt the stories of Pete running out of web fluid were played out, and now here he is saying how he thinks having that be a possibility in stories again is great.]


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 1, 2008)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> As for my feelings on this attempt to make Spidey *relatable *to young audiences once again, I'll sum it up in 3 words : I HATE IT.




Not to mention that, well- that's pretty much what Ultimate Spider-Man is there for, right?


----------



## horacethegrey (Jan 1, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> [EDIT- On another note, I seem to recall reading Joe Q. saying that one of the reasons they got rid of the webshooters initially was because he felt the stories of Pete running out of web fluid were played out, and now here he is saying how he thinks having that be a possibility in stories again is great.]



Quesada always backpedals whenever one of his *brilliant *ideas for Spider-Man are rejected by the fans. He thought _Sins Past_ was a great story right until longtime Spidey fans cried foul and objected to Gwen Stacy being portrayed as a ho. He also patted himself in the back when _The Other_ became such a big sales smash, only to admit his mistake in approving the story in the first place after fans utterly rejected the idea of a mutated Spidey.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 1, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> He's gone on record several times as saying that, as badly as he didn't like the marriage, he felt that having Spidey as either a divorcee or a widower would be even worse. (And, on the divorce angle, I have to agree if only on the basis that Spidey's mantra is "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" and him divorcing MJ seems to fly in the face of him being so dedicated and devoted and responsible. Of course, there are two people in any relationship, it's true, but I still don't like the divorce angle. The death angle even less.)
> 
> In any event, I think the whole thing stinks on ice- I think it's absolutely stupid that people feel they are hamstrung by the whole marriage (JMS did a great job of it). Getting rid of it, and in such a contrived fashion as this, was pretty ridiculous. Heck, bringing back Aunt May in the first place was pretty ludicrous, but this is just awful.
> 
> ...



 Re: Divorce: Peter wouldn't have to divorce MJ, *she* could divorce *him*. She could reach the end of her rope after being targeted one too many times (or maybe her parents are targeted, or whatnot), and thinks the best thing for her family (and for Peter, too) is to remove one of Peter's weaknesses, which is worrying about his family being targeted.

MJ: As long as I'm your wife, by your side, I'll be a target. And you know it. And when you start worrying if I'm safe, you'll be distracted. And that could kill you.

PP: But, MJ...

MJ: I love you too much to see you die on my account. So I'd rather leave now. You'll always have a place in my heart, Peter, but I have to think of...

PP: ... of what?

MJ: Nevermind. I have to go. Goodbye, Peter.

PP: ...


Later on, we see MJ in a cab heading for the airport, touching her belly.

MJ (thinking): ... I have to think of our daughter, Peter.

MJ (smiling): ... I think I'll call you May.


----------



## Felon (Jan 1, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Then there is no threat posed to spiderman in those flashbacks since the audience knows he has to live through them. Granted the threat of permanent death to a marvel cash cow does not exist in the first place….



Worked fine for Legends of the Dark Knight. Damn fine.


----------



## Felon (Jan 1, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Does he remember he and MJ were married/in love? If not, he gets to fool around again with no consequences and no angst. (I seem to remember an earlier statement when the whole 'One More Day' thing was 'just a suposition': one major reason he hated the marriage was that it meant they could never again show Peter with another woman other than MJ without Peter being hated for it). I could see Quesada thinking that might be a good thing.



Spidey may have a happy delusion, but we, the readers, know the bad guy won.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 1, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Worked fine for Legends of the Dark Knight. Damn fine.




Workin' pretty well for Batman (and Superman) Confidential too.

A death or divorce would have been better.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 1, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Re: Divorce: Peter wouldn't have to divorce MJ, *she* could divorce *him*. She could reach the end of her rope after being targeted one too many times (or maybe her parents are targeted, or whatnot), and thinks the best thing for her family (and for Peter, too) is to remove one of Peter's weaknesses, which is worrying about his family being targeted.




Considering Aunt May was shot I don't see why they didn't go that route.  I mean that would have been a much cleaner story and hell, if they wanted Aunt May to have survived Peter could have always asked Wolverine to bring Elixer over to heal her   (Assuming that the exents of OMD occurred between Quest for Majik and Messiah CompleX).


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 2, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Later on, we see MJ in a cab heading for the airport, touching her belly.
> 
> MJ (thinking): ... I have to think of our daughter, Peter.
> 
> MJ (smiling): ... I think I'll call you May.




See- now that would be even crappier than just having her divorce him, IMO. Having her run away to have Peter's baby in secret, and keeping him out of his daughter's life? Talk about a horrible way to end the marriage.

In any event, I did acknowledge that yes, there are two people in a marriage and she could call it quits, but that pretty much ruins her as any kind of recurring character in his life. If she's walking away to protect him from his enemies, then she's either got to be gone completely, or else you've got this constant "I love you, but I can't be with you" melodrama going on ad nauseum.

Really, what's the problem with them being married? Of the 45 years the character has been around, the two have been married for 20- and yet he's still going strong (arguably, stronger than ever, what with the successes of the film franchise).


----------



## Felon (Jan 2, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> See- now that would be even crappier than just having her divorce him, IMO. Having her run away to have Peter's baby in secret, and keeping him out of his daughter's life? Talk about a horrible way to end the marriage.



Yeah, I gotta think that having his wife leave him would be just as much of a distraction as his wife being around. It's not as if there aren't people in the real who get married and have kids despite leading dangerous lives.

Of course, Spidey should never have revealed his identity. That accomplished nothing positive. I didn't read Civil War, but I can't imagine what would constitute a good rationale for that action. It's not like the Registration Act requires you to make your identity public.

And think about it, guys. The dissolution of the marriage is a smokescreen for the real reason for OMD. The marriage happened before the current powers were in office, so they can say that's a bad idea and needs fixing. What they can't own up to is that it was a bad idea for Spidey to pull his mask off in a press conference, because that's a mistake they own utterly. I think we're falling for their deception. 



			
				Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Really, what's the problem with them being married? Of the 45 years the character has been around, the two have been married for 20- and yet he's still going strong (arguably, stronger than ever, what with the successes of the film franchise).



I think it's the same problem that a lot of mainstream fiction has: there's a perception that UST (Unresolved Sexual Tension) is a lot more exciting than RST (Resolved Sexual Tension). For those who aren't aware, those are widely used terms used in fandom. Think of shows like Cheers, Moonlighting, and Northern Exposure, where the interest in the show plummeted once the sexual tension was resolved. Or the X-Files, where the chemistry is hinted at just enough to maintain fan interest, but never amounts to anything. Or think of a show like Friends, which employed a successful formula where relationships are consummated, then broken, then consummated, then broken, repeat and rinse until the series finale. Of course, this is all the bread-n'-butter of daytime soaps.

So that's it in a nutshell. Letting the character date again gives writers all kinds of opportunities to rehash soap-opera plots. Build up a relationship, have it fall apart despite the characters' best efforts, put that relationship on the back-burner and introduce another love interest. Just never let anything ever actually get resolution, because--as Joe would put it--we need the character to be fresh and new for the next gen of readers.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 2, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> See- now that would be even crappier than just having her divorce him, IMO. Having her run away to have Peter's baby in secret, and keeping him out of his daughter's life? Talk about a horrible way to end the marriage.
> 
> In any event, I did acknowledge that yes, there are two people in a marriage and she could call it quits, but that pretty much ruins her as any kind of recurring character in his life. If she's walking away to protect him from his enemies, then she's either got to be gone completely, or else you've got this constant "I love you, but I can't be with you" melodrama going on ad nauseum.
> 
> Really, what's the problem with them being married? Of the 45 years the character has been around, the two have been married for 20- and yet he's still going strong (arguably, stronger than ever, what with the successes of the film franchise).



 Hey, I was just coming up with that stuff out of thin air! That's where the editor comes in and say "y'know, let's keep that one for later".



As for MJ being gone: so what? Let her be gone for a while. If villains know Peter is Spidey and learn that Peter had a nasty divorce, they'll likely conclude that MJ is no longer a target. Ex-wives rarely are.

And then, in one story, Spidey has to go to the West Coast to fight some baddie, and bumps into MJ, etc.

The point is, Spiderman comics don't have (and shouldn't) revolve around MJ. She's a *supporting* character, not a main one. It's not like Superman comics revolve around Lois, even after 12 years of marriage. She shows up in two pages, probably helping Clark cope/understand something, and then it's off to superheroing.


----------



## Ghostwind (Jan 2, 2008)

Has anyone considered that this retcon of Spidey has also done away with the ramifications of his identity being revealed? Nobody knows anymore since his whole history has been reset.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 2, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Of course, Spidey should never have revealed his identity. That accomplished nothing positive. I didn't read Civil War, but I can't imagine what would constitute a good rationale for that action. It's not like the Registration Act requires you to make your identity public.




According to an ongoing series of interviews with Joe Q at CBR, the reason they did it was because they knew that they were going to end up rebooting the marriage/history, so figured they could get away with it and fit it into the Civil War thing.

Which, sadly, is really all about editorial mandate, again. I think CW was pretty horrifically done, but I can actually see where they could have gotten some mileage (and interesting mileage) out of the identity reveal. Unfortunately, all they really did with it was use it as a catalyst for this storyline.



> So that's it in a nutshell. Letting the character date again gives writers all kinds of opportunities to rehash soap-opera plots.




Well said, and sadly so. At least we can thank the gods that Chuck Austen isn't at Marvel anymore, and isn't writing Spider-Man.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 2, 2008)

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> Has anyone considered that this retcon of Spidey has also done away with the ramifications of his identity being revealed? Nobody knows anymore since his whole history has been reset.




Well, like I said, Joe Q's said that this whole debacle was the reason they did that in the first place.



			
				Joe Quesada said:
			
		

> In the end, knowing what that story was going to be is what allowed us to go ahead with the unmasking of Spider-Man in "Civil War" -- we had our "way out" ahead of time, it was a great place to be.




(This is from part 2  of his interview at CBR.)

Which is so forced, IMO.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 2, 2008)

Yupe, that will affect the Civil War story arc as well. But wait, why do I get the feeling, he was kicked to another alt. Earth.


			
				Ghostwind said:
			
		

> Has anyone considered that this retcon of Spidey has also done away with the ramifications of his identity being revealed? Nobody knows anymore since his whole history has been reset.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 2, 2008)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Yupe, that will affect the Civil War story arc as well. But wait, why do I get the feeling, he was kicked to another alt. Earth.





I wonder what the "new" version of Civil War will be and how it will be revealed. Who did Spidey sign with, did he fight Stark or Cap, what silly costume variations did he go through?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 2, 2008)

It's too bad that the first issue of Brand New Day doesn't open with the Watcher saying that these are the adventurers of Spider Man on earth 617 or something.


----------



## Felon (Jan 2, 2008)

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> Has anyone considered that this retcon of Spidey has also done away with the ramifications of his identity being revealed? Nobody knows anymore since his whole history has been reset.



Um, yeah, I kind of talked about it at length a couple posts before yours.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jan 2, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I wonder what the "new" version of Civil War will be and how it will be revealed. Who did Spidey sign with, did he fight Stark or Cap, what silly costume variations did he go through?




"Wait...didn't he unmask himself?  Yeah, yeah, he did, I was there, but...but..."

Granted, if it's a simple "he didn't reveal his identity" then Tony Stark would still likely know it (since he was, after all, building Peter suits of power armor).  OTOH, that'd mean it'd still be in the SHIELD databases, which wouldn't do Pete a bit of good from them hunting them down.  I suspect this would have to be a farther-reaching thing.

(No, I haven't been following the comics...how can you tell?)

Brad


----------



## Agamon (Jan 3, 2008)

There was definitely a better way to do this: realistically.

MJ is a model.  Peter is gone all the time.  So MJ finds someone else, Peter finds out, lots of angsty drama ensues.

Silly JoeQ.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 3, 2008)

Agamon said:
			
		

> There was definitely a better way to do this: realistically.
> 
> MJ is a model.  Peter is gone all the time.  So MJ finds someone else, Peter finds out, lots of angsty drama ensues.
> 
> Silly JoeQ.




Or like WayneLigon suggested.. they could have made MJ into a Skrull thus nullifying their marriage on the grounds that the real MJ was dead since the 80s


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 3, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Or like WayneLigon suggested.. they could have made MJ into a Skrull thus nullifying their marriage on the grounds that the real MJ was dead since the 80s




Worked for the Human Torch and Alicia after the first Secret Wars.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 3, 2008)

Joe Q's at it again. From the latest session of the OMD interviews at CBR (discussing the Sins Past storyline):



			
				Joe Quesada said:
			
		

> Joe came to me with a storyline that had Peter meeting these twins... These kids would turn out to be kids that he had with Gwen... In my world, there was no way I could go forward with this story as is. For starters, you’re talking to a guy that feels that a married Peter Parker isn’t the healthiest thing for the franchise since it ages the character... And there were further implications of the story that were out of my comfort zone. *First, it was the dealing with the repercussions of Peter and Gwen having unprotected or careless sex out of wedlock.*




(emphasis mine)

So- it's not okay that Peter and Gwen- two people who are in love with one another and in a healthy, committed relationship to have "unprotected or careless sex out of wedlock", but it is somehow okay to have her cheat on him with her ex-boyfriend's father (also Spider-Man's nemesis and a nutjob?). That's somehow a better compromise.

(Not to mention that even "safe" sex isn't 100% guaranteed to be effective...)

Yeesh.

The interview does make it seem like the changes to the OMD storyline by editorial were done to do damage control (evidently JMS was going to wipe out all Spidey history back to 1971, while this change only mucks with things going back to '87).

Gah! So many people dropping the ball so many ways for so long now on Spidey. It shouldn't irritate me (these are comics, after all, and history can be written and re-written- and probably will- many, many times). But it does.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 3, 2008)

And on it goes. 

(JMS' response to Joe's interview. Looks like there may have been some degree of throwing someone under the bus, but at this point, I'm not sure who was the victim. 

Honestly, I tend to fall in the camp of JMS probably really did have things through through so that the continuity wouldn't be violated/would be violated minimally, to Joe Q's "JMS was going to wipe it all out to 1971", because JMS- in my opinion, and based on my knowledge of his work, such as Babylon 5- seems to have a great respect for continuity, and a grave dislike of the "reset button".)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 3, 2008)

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards just taking a break from Spidey...well, not Ultimate, because that's still absolutely wonderful in every single way(save for the breakup of him and Kitty Pride, which was the perfect relationship for Peter to be in).

But even though I love Dan SLott's work, and he's doing the first Brand New Day arc, I just...don't care anymore. Besides, I buy enough comics every week. Be nice to have one less title to compete for my money.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 4, 2008)

Ultimate Spidey is one of the 5 regular comics I buy.  This is a good reason why (JMB aside).  I've always been a big Spidey fan, but the MU version has so much baggage as a result of some really bad editorial decisions.


----------



## Felon (Jan 10, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Joe Q's at it again. From the latest session of the OMD interviews at CBR (discussing the Sins Past storyline):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, in the latter case it's just Gwen being a weak-willed slattern. Petey's absolved.

How did this thread ever fall off page one?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 10, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, in the latter case it's just Gwen being a weak-willed slattern. Petey's absolved.
> 
> How did this thread ever fall off page one?




The molecular bonds that formed this thread dissolved after an hour, causing it to plummet.


Right now all I'm hoping for is that Messiah CompleX doesn't drop the ball in its final two issues...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 10, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> How did this thread ever fall off page one?




Some of us are trying to wipe this from our memory.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 10, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> How did this thread ever fall off page one?




Mephisto tried to retcon it out of everyone's memory, but fortunately (unfortunately?) there are those of us immune to his "it's magic; we don't need to explain it" powers.


----------



## TheLe (Jan 10, 2008)

You know, Joe Quasada is taking quite a lot of heat for this, but I have to believe that Straczynski should take some of the blame too.

He may not be responsible for the "Mephisto" stuff, but he certainly was on-board for ending the marriage.

`Le


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 10, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> If Spiderman must be miserable, I'm sure there are dozens of ways to do it while keeping him married.




For example: He's married.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 10, 2008)

Fie. Fie to all of it. This is why I only follow Ultimate Spidey and then rather loosely.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 10, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> For example: He's married.




lol

Or they could have had MJ get pregnant only to reveal that the baby was a half-skrull.  THEN we could have found out that Peter spent the last several weeks captured by the skrulls and that he fought his way out only to find that Aunt May was fatally shot...


----------



## Klaus (Jan 10, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> For example: He's married.



 PRECISELY!


----------



## Agamon (Jan 11, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> For example: He's married.




Ba-dump-ching!


----------



## Klaus (Jan 11, 2008)

I just got this image that Peter Parker would grow up to be Kevin Spacey's character in American Beauty, married to MJ (acting like Annete Benning's character), father of May (like Thora Birch's character) and thinks he's in love with May's friend, Gwen (like Mena Suvari's character).


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 11, 2008)

TheLe said:
			
		

> You know, Joe Quasada is taking quite a lot of heat for this, but I have to believe that Straczynski should take some of the blame too.
> 
> He may not be responsible for the "Mephisto" stuff, but he certainly was on-board for ending the marriage.




Without knowing exactly what went on behind the scenes, I do know that Joe Q has been harping on the marriage since he started as EIC, which was several years before JMS ever came on board Marvel. 

That, plus JMS' comments in response to Joe Q's interview, came across to me more like a guy saying, "Well, if this is what is going to happen, I'd rather do it and do it well than see it handled dismissively." (Which is how it ended up happening- dismissively, with Joe Q preferring to wave a magic wand rather than actually do the dirty detail work that JMS' plan would have done).

So, for my part, I'm not really inclined to throw too many stones JMS' way for this.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 11, 2008)

Again, contributing without actually saying anything!

For a little more on JMS's side of things, I suggest that everyone check's out this  website, which is an archive of posts that JMS makes to various newsgroups.  There's quite a bit on the OMD stuff there.  I'd link to specific posts, but last I checked the archive system doesn't maintain the same URL for the same posts (boo!).  Here's his latest post on OMD:



			
				JMS said:
			
		

> Speak of the devil and he shall appear....
> 
> For whatever it's worth, the situation is not as clear cut as one
> might hope. The reality of any writer workingfor any company, DC or
> ...




For the record, JQ is a big reason why I stopped reading Marvel, and keep mostly to a few indie label comics.

Also, for a great example of JMS writing without editorial oversight, I highly recommend Rising Stars.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 11, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> And, on the divorce angle, I have to agree if only on the basis that Spidey's mantra is "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" and him divorcing MJ seems to fly in the face of him being so dedicated and devoted and responsible.



I disagree with the implication that divorce is intrinsicly irresponsible. The nice thing about it being a story is that the writer can make the decision to divorce as responsible or irresponsible on either person's part as they choose. Especially with spidey's secret identity blown, constructing a situation where amicably ending their relationship is the best course is not difficult.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 11, 2008)

I can actually understand why they didn't go the divorce route.

Its cheesy, but simple: MJ and Peter never would get divorced. Its not in who they are. Despite all the crap thrown at both of them, including the insanity caused by Peter revealing he was Spider-Man, they stuck together and actually stayed strong. The entire Back in Black arc that was done pre-OMD was a great way to show just how good MJ and Peter were together. She was willing to do whatever was necessary.

Sure, a writer could come in and create problems, but IMO, that would be just as bad as Quesada's "MAGIC!" solution. Maybe Peter being married creates a problem for the writers, but, for me at least, its one of the things that has kept him such a great character through the years. To be honest, it would matter how this was done...I wouldn't like it. MJ and Peter being married just fits, simple as that.

So I'd be unhappy no matter how it was handled, but I definitely think that the whole "Its Magic!!" thing just makes it seem like more of an insult to the readers.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jan 12, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I disagree with the implication that divorce is intrinsicly irresponsible.



I agree, my parent's divorce was the best thing that they ever did for me and my siblings.


----------



## Felon (Jan 13, 2008)

So help me out here, guys. If having Peter mate for life is a bad thing, then what exactly is the point of him being single? What does that buy the writer? 

He can do storylines about Peter meeting chicks and them turning out to be evil, or related to evil people. He can do stories where the new love interest gets upset that Pete keeps missing their appointments (because she doesn't know he's Spider-Man. 

What else is there for writer to do with a single Peter that he can't do with a married Peter? The Black Cat can still try to jump his bones. The damsel can still wind up in distress.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 13, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> So help me out here, guys. If having Peter mate for life is a bad thing, then what exactly is the point of him being single? What does that buy the writer?
> 
> He can do storylines about Peter meeting chicks and them turning out to be evil, or related to evil people. He can do stories where the new love interest gets upset that Pete keeps missing their appointments (because she doesn't know he's Spider-Man.
> 
> What else is there for writer to do with a single Peter that he can't do with a married Peter? The Black Cat can still try to jump his bones. The damsel can still wind up in distress.




In this particular case I think it was more the secret id being out of the bag in the marriage.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 19, 2008)

Erik Larsen (former artist in Spidey, current honcho at Image and creator of the Savage Dragon) posted a column on OMD/BND: http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=20

Here's how he'd tackle the storyline:



> To start with, you'd need to make a list of goals, things that want to be accomplished. Clearly, going into " Brand New Day," the powers-that-be wanted a few things:
> 
> 1. They wanted Peter Parker to be single again so that he could play the “loser” beats that they used to play.
> 
> ...


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 19, 2008)

I seriously hope that in a year its revealed that Aunt May died, and that peter parker is in an asylum and imagining the event's or BND and that he blames MJ for Aunt May's death.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 19, 2008)

I think Larson does miss that some of these plot developments were only there because they knew they'd reverse them. No need to revert Parkers identity to secret, since it never woulda been revealed, from what I understand from these threads.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 19, 2008)

I think its funny how Spiderman's releasing his identity during Civil War cause so much complications in his life, but every other superhero didn't have similar event's happen to them.  I don't buy the "it was only because spiderman did a big press meeting theory."


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 19, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> In this particular case I think it was more the secret id being out of the bag in the marriage.




The only problem with that is Joe Q's on record as saying the only reason they decided to have Pete reveal his secret ID is because they knew they were going to retcon the marriage.

From part II  of the One More Day Interviews at CBR:



			
				Joe Quesada said:
			
		

> In the end, knowing what that story was going to be is what allowed us to go ahead with the unmasking of Spider-Man in "Civil War" -- we had our "way out" ahead of time, it was a great place to be.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 19, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> I think its funny how Spiderman's releasing his identity during Civil War cause so much complications in his life, but every other superhero didn't have similar event's happen to them.  I don't buy the "it was only because spiderman did a big press meeting theory."




No other heroes (besides Tony Stark, anyway) really publically revealed their identities, though. The Registration Act requires them to register with the Federal government, but those records aren't public.

Not that I think it makes the storyline any better (I think it's godawful, at least in the way it was executed), but Spidey's situation _was_ different.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 19, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I disagree with the implication that divorce is intrinsicly irresponsible.




For that matter, I've never understood why so many writers see marrage as a problem (for creating conflict and crisis) in the first place. It makes me wonder what kind of marrages they have.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 19, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> For that matter, I've never understood why so many writers so marrage as a problem (for creating conflict and crisis) in the first place. It makes me wonder what kind of marrages they have.



 The "none" type.


----------

