Bringing Back a Married Spider-Man - The Official Appeal - The Discord is Live!

[Xix25]

Quick adjustments are rare if we're talking about a new direction and creative team for a flagship book. Look at how much time passed between Tom Brevoort being announced as the new X-Men editor and the releases of the creative teams for the new titles (and those are still a few months away.)

It's entirely possible Wells is wrapping up his last story. He said he wanted to book for about 2 1/2 years/ 60 issues and the current stories have a tying up loose ends vibe. In this case, Marvel probably has a new creative team ready and they're working on their next comics.

But we might have it wrong. Maybe Wells isn't planning on going and wants to stick around until at least Issue 1,000.

Marvel has solicited a Spider-Goblin story by Ed McGuiness that ends in July. There's probably a few issues of art already completed for a follow-up story by John Romita Jr (due to the twice-monthly schedule of Amazing Spider-Man, even prolific artists like him would have to get a head start on a longer story.)

That story would take us to October.

If Marvel decides they need a new direction and creative team, there are several ways to handle it.

The most excessive would be to cancel everything that hasn't been published, and get a new creative team ASAP. In that situation, they're going to have come up with new material fast, and some of it will likely be filler because they're not going to come up with a long-term plan in one weekend.

Not quite at that level would be telling Wells he's fired and that someone else will finish all his scripts. They could do it, but it'll likely upset other writers and artists.

The most civilized way to do it would be for Marvel to tell Wells that they've decided to go in a different direction, that someone else will be taking over soon, and that he'll be able to finish the stories he's currently started with a few issues or an annual to tie up loose ends. Sometimes writers walk away under these circumstances, but Wells doesn't seem like that sort. An advantage here is that it also gives time for the next creative team to get ready. But assuming it'll take six issues to wrap things up (in a scenario where Wells wasn't planning on doing that) we're not going to have the first issue of the new creative team until November. If Marvel made the decision today, it would probably take six months to implement.

I mean if Wells is allowed to stick around that just means Marvel is fine with losing money on the table. Don't think that's a good thing to advocate for.

[Mister Mets]

If you mean unmarried, sure (although it was close to an even split by the time of OMD, and likely more actual married issues of Peter-led Spider books).

But single Peter is the aberration.

In the context of discussions of One More Day, "single" pretty much always mean unmarried.

Twenty years of marrage ... if that's not long term, then what is?

They reset it a few times.

After about seven years, there was the Clone Saga, when it was revealed that the Peter who got married was a clone (this was stetconned later- to use Peter David's term for retconning a retcon.)

There were three more years of married Spider-Man comics.

Then MJ was believed dead. And then she and Peter was separated.

And they were back together for just under five years.

In that context, the almost four years between Peter & MJ reconciling in Amazing Spider-Man Volume 5 #1 to their breakup in Amazing Spider-Man Volume 6 #1 is
standard.

I mean if Wells is allowed to stick around that just means Marvel is fine with losing money on the table. Don't think that's a good thing to advocate for.

I don't think Marvel sees it that way.

The sales indications are that Amazing Spider-Man is successful under Wells.

[TinkerSpider]

In the context of discussions of One More Day, "single" pretty much always mean unmarried.

Pretty sure people who are in serious but not legally papered relationships would disagree

Which brings up a sidebar:

The supposed golden era of Peter the swinging single - pun intended - that was given as one of the the reasons why OMD had to happen never was. That's cloudy nostalgia-goggles for a time period that never existed. Peter was a serial monogamist for almost his entire published career until OMD.

They reset it a few times.

After about seven years, there was the Clone Saga, when it was revealed that the Peter who got married was a clone (this was stetconned later- to use Peter David's term for retconning a retcon.)

There were three more years of married Spider-Man comics.

Then MJ was believed dead. And then she and Peter was separated.

And they were back together for just under five years.

In that context, the almost four years between Peter & MJ reconciling in Amazing Spider-Man Volume 5 #1 to their breakup in Amazing Spider-Man Volume 6 #1 is
standard.

So...Peter being married did NOT stop the status quo from resetting. Therefore, there's no reason why they shouldn't reset it again.

I don't think Marvel sees it that way.

The sales indications are that Amazing Spider-Man is successful under Wells.

The sales indications are ASM was previously thought to be ceiling, but it's actually a floor and leaving more than 100% of its money earned on the table.

[Garlador]

In the context of discussions of One More Day, "single" pretty much always mean unmarried.

They reset it a few times.

I find this same example could be levied at other heroes too. DC made multiple attempts to reset and erase a Superman and Flash (and others) who were in committed relationships with their wives. They’ve existed as single longer than they’ve been married too and DC made attempts to return them to that factory reset state. Largely, just as with Spider-Man, fans overall didn’t approve of that mandate and those marriages have become established again.

I would argue that JMS’s statements that “nothing works the way it should” when Marvel tries to keep Peter & MJ apart is a pretty concise summary. Every attempt to end their marriage - from Clone Saga to the Byrne/Mackie run to One More Day to Dead Language - are all held as some of the most universally disliked and detested storylines. That’s more than enough documented feedback data to form a pattern.

I write from a place of bias, obviously, but as I’ve just read vol. 19 of Adams’s The Flash - a genuinely love letter to marriage, family, and the exciting adventures and new opportunities that come along with it - I’m both grateful to see my hero there doing everything Spidey Office stood against and succeeding, just as I am with USM thus far. It’s only encouraging me that returning to this heart of storytelling would be correct - for the narrative, for fan reception, and for future business.

[Mister Mets]

Pretty sure people who are in serious but not legally papered relationships would disagree

Which brings up a sidebar:

The supposed golden era of Peter the swinging single - pun intended - that was given as one of the the reasons why OMD had to happen never was. That's cloudy nostalgia-goggles for a time period that never existed. Peter was a serial monogamist for almost his entire published career until OMD.

Saying that the argument is about a single Peter Parker is equivocation.

The arguments about whether Spider-Man should be single are mostly about whether he should be unmarried, because people are more apt to use the word single.

So...Peter being married did NOT stop the status quo from resetting. Therefore, there's no reason why they shouldn't reset it again.

In all cases, the marital status of Spider-Man changed. And it's harder to use those resets again, to make it that MJ's believed dead or legally separated from Peter or that the real Spider-Man never got married.

There would be a few choices left to shake up the status quo, but the low hanging fruit is gone.

The sales indications are ASM was previously thought to be ceiling, but it's actually a floor and leaving more than 100% of its money earned on the table.

I don't think anyone believed ASM's sales were the ceiling, just that it was doing well.

And it's still doing well. Historically, the title hasn't always been the #2 ongoing, so it's not quite at the floor.

I find this same example could be levied at other heroes too. DC made multiple attempts to reset and erase a Superman and Flash (and others) who were in committed relationships with their wives. Largely, just as with Spider-Man, fans overall didn’t approve of that mandate and those marriages have become established again.

I would argue that JMS’s statements that “nothing works the way it should” when Marvel tries to keep Peter & MJ apart is a pretty concise summary. Every attempt to end their marriage - from Clone Saga to the Byrne/Mackie run to One More Day to Dead Language - are all held as some of the most universally disliked and detested storylines. That’s more than enough documented feedback data to form a pattern.

I write from a place of bias, obviously, but as I’ve just read vol. 19 of Adams’s The Flash - a genuinely love letter to marriage, family, and the exciting adventures and new opportunities that come along with it - I’m both grateful to see my hero there doing everything Spidey Office stood against and succeeding, just as I am with USM thus far. It’s only encouraging me that returning to this heart of storytelling would be correct - for the narrative, for fan reception, and for future business.

The resets with Wally West and Superman were reversed pretty quickly.

I do think at this point it's harder to reset because they have kids who are part of the supporting cast. It would also hinder LGBTQ representation if Superman's son doesn't exist.

[TinkerSpider]

Saying that the argument is about a single Peter Parker is equivocation.

The arguments about whether Spider-Man should be single are mostly about whether he should be unmarried, because people are more apt to use the word single.

Since Wells was very quick to break up a Peter and MJ who were just dating, evidence suggests Marvel doesn’t agree with this.

In all cases, the marital status of Spider-Man changed. And it's harder to use those resets again, to make it that MJ's believed dead or legally separated from Peter or that the real Spider-Man never got married.

There would be a few choices left to shake up the status quo, but the low hanging fruit is gone.

This is moving goal posts, and moving them into an area that is strictly opinion and has no empirical evidence. One can’t prove imagination doesn’t exist.

I don't think anyone believed ASM's sales were the ceiling, just that it was doing well.

And it's still doing well. Historically, the title hasn't always been the #2 ongoing, so it's not quite at the floor.

USM shows that the entire previous perception of the market was a floor.

ASM does well for what people thought was the market. USM continues to demonstrate that the market is much bigger and the ceiling is much higher than previously believed.

[Mister Mets]

It worked for twenty years. It worked when Amazing Spider-Man was the best-selling comic in the late 80s/early 90s. Now USM is the best-selling comic.



This is your opinion.

It is not a fact. It has nowhere been established as a fact. Empirical evidence does not support your assertion that a status quo must be viable for an arbitrarily picked number out of the blue at all. The history of comic books does not support your assertion. May I point to Superman as evidence?

We've had this discussion before.

And I will again point out Spencer tried to establish the status quo that Peter and MJ are unbreakable and she's vital to Peter's story/success, chosen by Strange as his champion against Mephisto.

That status quo did not last.

Marvel is planning to keep the series going indefinitely, so it would behoove anyone trying to convince Marvel to restore the marriage that this is a status quo that works in the long term.

I'm not sure what's objectionable with that interpretation.

Some fans don't care about the long-term, but the stewards of the characters are different.

Why? If the market rejects it, what's to stop them from pulling another "What Did Peter Do"/Dead Language to change the status quo? If the status quo is so abhorrent, wouldn't readers cheer?

(I will point out the market did not reject Spencer's status quo, that wasn't the impetus behind the change. And readers did cheer when Spencer abruptly changed the status quo in his first issue. And the market wasn't the reason for the OMD status quo change either, but that's another discussion.)

My impression was that you as an individual want the marriage to be a permanent fixture in the series.

The main thing stopping Marvel from another One More Day is that they've done it before. It'll get clunky and repetitive to come up with new ways to erase a legal status from reality.

The main issue with the marriage from my perspective is the long-term limitations. I don't doubt that readers like in the short term.

I don't mind Peter and MJ being back together every now and then.

Which is why the argument that Marvel pays attention to rude randos to the extent that Marvel will cut off its nose to spite its face is inherently weak.

Marvel, if it wants to stay business, should pay attention to the market and numbers.

The argument was that a rando who is ignorant and rude is going to be ignored, not that it will taint anyone on his or her side.

I am thoroughly confused. The sales are not a strawman. The sales are at the heart of the argument and always have been. I am, in fact, meeting people on the ground rules they established: the sales charts are accurate. I still assert they are not scientific and should not be used to represent anything than what they say they represent, but I am also pointing out that if people want us to believe the charts accurately reflect the market for ASM, then they reflect the market for USM.

I will also point out that second, third, etc printings are another empirical piece of evidence that demand for USM is strong.

You seem to be putting words into the other side's mouth. This is problematic if the ethos is that Marvel should ignore what rude randos on your side say.

You're going for a level of precision that wasn't argued. The main argument about sales wasn't on the level of concrete claims about differences (IE- That Ultimate Spider-Man #4 has double the sales of an Amazing Spider-Man issue that same month.)

The Bleeding Cool data also leaves out information available in the monthly discussion (it looks at sales over a few days rather than the whole month.)

“Creating good problems” is something I tell my coworkers. I aim to create more business than we have the means to handle. Once we have the problem of too much business, I look into hiring people to manage the accounts.

To a degree, that’s what I’m encountering in this campaign. The more who join or become attached to it, the higher the chances of someone (even just 1 out of 400) going off the wall and saying something that hurts our platform. So I delegate and monitor everything to ensure Slott’s request that our outreach remain predominately respectful, if honest, is honored. But I acknowledge I can’t control the behavior of a thousand people at once, so diligence is the key.

And I’ve seen a few doom and gloom posters asking why things haven’t turned around yet. I remind them we have barely gotten started, and it’s only ramping up. These things take time. I don’t know what Marvel has planned after Wells’s run, but I know discussions must be happening, which is why it’s ideal to voice our feedback now so it’s taken into consideration for what comes next.

My point wasn't about the problems of too many people onboard.

If one person isn't disciplined and says/ does something stupid, in most cases it won't make a difference. If that side wants to be taken seriously, how they respond to those kinds of comments is important.

The gloom and doom posters are an issue if they inspire others to be impatient.

[Garlador]

The resets with Wally West and Superman were reversed pretty quickly.

I do think at this point it's harder to reset because they have kids who are part of the supporting cast. It would also hinder LGBTQ representation if Superman's son doesn't exist.

Well, “pretty quickly” is relative. Clark & Lois were established as unmarried (and generally pretty cold towards each other) for four years after the New 52, and DC’s push to make Supes/Wonder Woman the new power couple. They yanked Post-Crisis Lois & Clark out of the multiverse 4 years later.

Wally’s marriage (AND his kids) were erased around 2011 and only popped back up in late 2019, over 8 years later. That’s no small amount of time.

Scott & Jean weren’t together for nearly 17 years either (a bad case of “death”) yet they’ve been a married couple again after her return.

And, of course, Spidey Office has no qualms about retconning and erasing 20 years worth of marriage material.

I don’t think Spidey Office particularly cares about the optics (they fridged a Pakistani girl during AAPI Heritage Month and folks are still rolling their eyes at Marvel’s attempt to celebrate “LGBTQI ALLIES” recently). Even JMS said that his story of Aunt May accepting Peter’s full identity was a strong LGBTQI+ parallel of coming out and fearing parental rejection, only to have Marvel metaphorically put Peter “back in the closet” in his relationship with Aunt May.

[TinkerSpider]

Marvel is planning to keep the series going indefinitely, so it would behoove anyone trying to convince Marvel to restore the marriage that this is a status quo that works in the long term.

A few things:

1) "We" don't have to convince Marvel of anything. Marvel would be, in fact, rather ridiculous if they listened to a bunch of randos on a message board or even social media. I doubt Galador is under the apprehension that the campaign is going to "convince" Marvel of anything all on its own.

Marvel does, however, have a fidiciary responsibility to Disney's shareholders to maximize value and respond to the market. And Disney has armies of analysts who are no doubt crunching numbers as I type.

The campaign provides qualitative evidence of what the market wants. And my guess is the qualitative evidence will support the quantitative evidence.

2) There is no rule that says there must be "proof" the marriage works as status quo in the long term. This is opinion.

3) Even if the opinion were factual, there IS proof. It's been pointed to ad nauseam times.

4) Again, a lack of imagination in not something that can be proved. In the first place, one can't prove an absence. In the second place, looking at the history of human creativity, trying to prove people are unimaginative is inherently a non-starter IMO.

My impression was that you as an individual want the marriage to be a permanent fixture in the series.

1) My allegiance is to storytelling. If there are sides to be chosen (and IMO one of the most egregious problems with discussions like this is that it has become tribalized with people swearing loyalty to their side as if it an indelible part of their identity, choosing allegiance over rationality and logic - and sales now, apparently), I belong to the side that wants Peter and MJ to be treated like actual three dimensional characters and not rubber action figures, and for MJ to be a deuteragonist.

2) My wants and preferences have no bearing on the discussion. This is, in fact, a strawman.

The main thing stopping Marvel from another One More Day is that they've done it before. It'll get clunky and repetitive to come up with new ways to erase a legal status from reality.

If the only thing stopping Marvel from a story is that they've done it before:

Oh, man, do I have bad news for you about the current run of ASM! Every single arc has been a repeat/remash of earlier stories.

Including the fact that Dead Language is just OMD in its story intent, just with a lot more problematic elements and minus the emotion JMS was able to create.

The main issue with the marriage from my perspective is the long-term limitations.

Again, you can't prove an absence of imagination. I find this argument rather...not kind...to creators and their creative ability to work with an established serial continuity. Everything about a serial continuity is a limit, once you establish a character and their world.

The argument was that a rando who is ignorant and rude is going to be ignored, not that it will taint anyone on his or her side.

I am so incredibly confused. Are you saying that companies pay attention to rude randos and then automatically assume that everyone who has a similar opinion is also a rude rando and they don't pay attention to the quality of the arguments or to the individual who is making the argument, but just lump everyone into one bucket even when the market says differently?

1) That's an ad hominen logical fallacy.

2) Seriously, we all need to stop this tribalistic thinking.

3) If this were true, then Spider-Man would cease to be published because rude behavior doesn't belong to just one "side."

4) But luckily, companies tend to be rational actors.

5) At the end of day, companies follow the money.

You seem to be putting words into the other side's mouth. This is problematic if the ethos is that Marvel should ignore what rude randos on your side say.

How did you get from sales back to rude randos? I am so confused.

You're going for a level of precision that wasn't argued. The main argument about sales wasn't on the level of concrete claims about differences (IE- That Ultimate Spider-Man #4 has double the sales of an Amazing Spider-Man issue that same month.)

The argument has been that USM outsells ASM, of course I'm going to back that up with citations? I'm still so confused.

The Bleeding Cool data also leaves out information available in the monthly discussion (it looks at sales over a few days rather than the whole month.)

I have always been very precise that the charts measure only what they say they measure. The monthly charts lack the ratio that Bleeding Cool provides.

I have many lengthy posts about the charts, their data, what they do and don't measure, the scientific accuracy (or lack thereof), etc. I can repost them if needed but I was pretty sure people are tired of seeing me talk about them.

I also pointed to the evidence of second, third, fourth, etc. printings.

And again: if one is going to use the charts to support one's opinion about ASM, then one must also agree that the charts apply to USM. Can't cherry pick for one title and not the other.

[Xix25]

Yeah, all this fuss over pretending the sales record is fine and not under par is weird. Either you would care that it should be above par or you really don't care about sales as a whole unless it's to push a particular point of view which is already weakly supported. That isn't great debating IMO.

[Vegan]

Genuinely so bizarre to act like the marriage couldn’t support long lasting stories when it lasted twenty years, had plenty of people who were perfectly happy to write Married Spider-Man, there were no signs that they were running out of story ideas, and since Spidey has been single we’ve been seen the pulse pounding “what if Spider-Man got a crazy new tech suit” story done like 5 times in a decade and “what if Spider-Man were also the green goblin” twice in six months. It seems way more like the well is running dry on “single mid-late twenties Spider-Man” than it was on married Spider-Man

[WebLurker]

Marvel is planning to keep the series going indefinitely, so it would behoove anyone trying to convince Marvel to restore the marriage that this is a status quo that works in the long term.

I'm not sure what's objectionable with that interpretation.

It worked for two decades and was only scrapped because the Powers That Be at the time didn't like it (and has stayed in effect because all subsequent Powers That Be also don't like it). Revivals of it have done really well and been well-received by fans and critics alike. It's wormed its way in one form or another in some of the most influential adaptations (e.g. the stuff that people outside the small comics-reading demographic consume). No one needs to "prove" that the marriage works long-term; that's been established for years and not up for debate. From where I'm standing, it's all a question of preferences of content creators vs. fans and where the balance lies.

Some fans don't care about the long-term, but the stewards of the characters are different.

As the stewards at Marvel have been consistently telling us since 2007, it was never about the "long-term," but their creative preferences.

For getting back on topic a bit, I think getting a website for movement resources (codified "what we stand for," info on how to write to the editors and spread the word on social media, lists of franchise installments of interest to our demographic, etc.) should be a goal. It'll make it easier to get our name out and network.