Controversial Spider-Man Opinions

[ImOctavius]

That and Civil War, and No More Mutants.

I don't know about those two. They are two of the greatest hits of Marvel.

[TinkerSpider]

This is a clear example of the "cherry picking" and "wishful thinking" fallacies. I've fell for these plenty of times myself!

Someone asking a question at a panel, especially at that point in time where Stan Lee is a part of it, is ONLY going to draw applause to that type of question in that environment.

And, yes, I'm sure the question was submitted periodically via letter and even printed at times.

But that is not indicative of an overwhelming demand. It most likely would've been done a lot sooner if it were. And would've been done first and foremost in the comic.

Instead of WAITING for Stan to do it in the strip.

Since we're identifying fallacies, this is the moving the goalposts informal fallacy, as the original assertion was "There were no fans 'demanding' it."

I think affirming the consequence is a different logical fallacy. It is an invalid logical argument. The logically sound argument is, "If editorial interference is acceptable for the wedding, then it may be acceptable for OMD." That is, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with editorial interference. But that doesn't mean all editorial interference is equally well-judged.

On the one hand, we have Stan Lee and Jim Shooter, who between them were editors-in-chief on just about all the standard candidates for best Marvel run of all time. (Kirby's FF, Ditko's Spider-man, Romita sr's Spider-man, Claremont's X-Men, Simonson's Thor, Miller's Daredevil - the only real exception is David's Hulk.) When later editorial revert to factory settings they mean a status quo that existed under either Lee or Shooter. Shooter was the writer on the original Secret Wars, a story that is frankly much better than it had any right to be.
I think you'd be pushed to say that the editorial team behind OMD have anything like that degree of presumption of competence.

You're right, although I believed the argument more to be "If editorial interference is acceptable for the wedding, then it must be acceptable for OMD" - when as you point out, "editorial interference" comes in all shapes and flavors and the nature of the editorial interference isn't defined.

But yes, you're right and thanks!

[Vegan]

I suppose my controversial opinion is that people arguing for Spider-Man to stay permanently one thing and never develop or grow or mature are essentially arguing for him to stop being an actual character and start being simply a piece of IP, and subsequently, are arguing for the death of Spider-Man as a piece of art rather than a piece of content

[phonogram12]

I suppose my controversial opinion is that people arguing for Spider-Man to stay permanently one thing and never develop or grow or mature are essentially arguing for him to stop being an actual character and start being simply a piece of IP, and subsequently, are arguing for the death of Spider-Man as a piece of art rather than a piece of content

While I would never say that there have never been any Spider-Man stories that can be considered art, as long as the character is owned by a giant mega corporation (whether that's Disney or whomever), he will always be considered IP first and foremost.

Gotta please those investors, you know.

[Alan2099]

I suppose my controversial opinion is that people arguing for Spider-Man to stay permanently one thing and never develop or grow or mature are essentially arguing for him to stop being an actual character and start being simply a piece of IP, and subsequently, are arguing for the death of Spider-Man as a piece of art rather than a piece of content

Spider-man has grown and changed as much, if not more, since OMD than he had during the entire time he was married. However people don't want to accept any of the new changes because it slightly altered one change they did like. The character continues to grow and change but people are standing around shouting how that doesn't count.

While I would never say that there have never been any Spider-Man stories that can be considered art, as long as the character is owned by a giant mega corporation (whether that's Disney or whomever), he will always be considered IP first and foremost.

Gotta please those investors, you know.

Same as it ever was. Sales have always dictated things.

[wleakr]

Since we're identifying fallacies, this is the moving the goalposts informal fallacy, as the original assertion was "There were no fans 'demanding' it."

That's on me, as one should avoid using versions of "all" or "none" when speaking/writing.

Another example of the "should know better than that" fallacy. I fall for that one more than I care to admit...SMH.

That said, IMHO fans who question "Will Peter & MJ get married in the future?" or "Will they tie the knot anytime soon?" doesn't fall under a "demand". Or fans clapping at a panel as being equivalent to "high demand". I would've clapped, too, had I been there and I care nothing about it!

But I'll buy it...the fans demanded Peter and MJ marry and Marvel responded by giving the fans what they desired. It was just coincidence they waited until Stan Lee decided to do it in the strip.

[Kevinroc]

Spider-man has grown and changed as much, if not more, since OMD than he had during the entire time he was married. However people don't want to accept any of the new changes because it slightly altered one change they did like. The character continues to grow and change but people are standing around shouting how that doesn't count.

How has he changed? Because he was temporarily the CEO of a mega corporation? The comic doesn't even bring that up that anymore.

Same as it ever was. Sales have always dictated things.

Hickman's Ultimate Spider-Man is outselling ASM and has been since it made its debut.

The market is telling Marvel what to do, but they won't listen.

[TinkerSpider]

Spider-man has grown and changed as much, if not more, since OMD than he had during the entire time he was married. However people don't want to accept any of the new changes because it slightly altered one change they did like. The character continues to grow and change but people are standing around shouting how that doesn't count.

Examples?

Because Peter declaring "Otto was a jerk" and putting on a web diaper as his reaction to Superior is, um, yeah, no. Not character development and growth. The opposite.

Peter taking a PhD he didn't earn and a company he didn't built, running it into the ground while negatively affecting the online privacy of billions of people, and then pretty much shrugging with the attitude, "welp, that happened, guess i learned absolutely nothing nor do I care about my responsibilty to others, I'm just gonna go back to eating ramen while crashing in my sorta girfriend's apartment wearing her 'Ask Me About My Feminist Agenda' t-shirt" is not character growth or development. Far from it.

Peter watching "MJ" die in his arms only to learn it was Kamala but his only reaction is to steal her mask - and sleep with it, cringe - and her bangle (while Norman's reaction is pretty much "she was nice, she brought me coffee") and then it's never mentioned again, never comes up with regards to how either MJ or Peter feel about each other having gone though that scenario (compare and contract to, oh, let's say Kraven's Last Hunt or even Last Remains, which at least had a few pages of reaction): not character growth or development.

There seems to be a growing conflation of story beats with character growth and development. Parker Industries, for example, is a series of stories beat. But there was zero character growth and development; Peter as a character stayed flat.


Nick Spencer summed up the post-OMD era quite well:

[Jman27]

he cant break the cycle

[TinkerSpider]

he cant break the cycle

He's not allowed to now.

But before OMD, he did. That's what Spencer is meta-critiquing.

[Jman27]

He's not allowed to now.

But before OMD, he did. That's what Spencer is meta-critiquing.

I say only up to clone saga

[Daibhidh]

To be fair, I can believe that the number of fans actively demanding the marriage before Stan Lee proposed it was low, in that I would suppose few people thought A-list solo superheroes could get married before that happened. (As I understand it, Barry Allen's Flash was the most prominent example, and I believe Flash was not quite A-list.) Peter was breaking new ground again in that respect. That doesn't mean fans didn't like the idea once Lee proposed it.
That said, it is I think cynical to think Lee was only motivated by getting a temporary fillip to the newspaper strip. (I doubt the strip sold to a significant number of extra newspapers because Spider-man got married.) As far as I know, Lee expressed pride in the marriage even after One More Day.

[Garlador]

Interpreting the evidence incorrectly (imho) is not the same as lying.

To be fair, I can believe that the number of fans actively demanding the marriage before Stan Lee proposed it was low, in that I would suppose few people thought A-list solo superheroes could get married before that happened. (As I understand it, Barry Allen's Flash was the most prominent example, and I believe Flash was not quite A-list.) Peter was breaking new ground again in that respect. That doesn't mean fans didn't like the idea once Lee proposed it.
That said, it is I think cynical to think Lee was only motivated by getting a temporary fillip to the newspaper strip. (I doubt the strip sold to a significant number of extra newspapers because Spider-man got married.) As far as I know, Lee expressed pride in the marriage even after One More Day.

To wit, people demand something they like more once it's taken away. "You never know what you've got until it's gone" after all. Nobody was "demanding" Spider-Man even EXIST until they went and did it, after all. And through those stories, through that engagement and investment, it created fans and demand, just as the marriage itself did. There absolutely were fans asking for it long before it happened, but I doubt they'd be as zealous about it now if it had truly never happened.

But it did. And it wasn't a short, forgettable stint either. It was decades. And it was subsequently attached to many of the most acclaimed stories of the era as well.

This is basic logic, that if you create thousands of issues that readers invested their time and money into and grew fond of, then there would be an eternal demand for what made them happy and what they felt was worthy of their dollars. "The Marriage" is a monster of editorial's own making, by the most generous of their readings.

I'd argue that everyone - creators, editors, readers, and the money counters - would be a lot happier doing right by those stories and the readers that valued them then and now. For SOME reason, that's controversial when to me it's just basic common sense on the most basic level of competent narrative writing.

[Tuck]

To wit, people demand something they like more once it's taken away. "You never know what you've got until it's gone" after all.

I recall reading that the emotional deficit caused by losing something is several time stronger than the emotional benefit one gets from gaining something.

From a business standpoint, Marvel got what it wanted out of OMD. But the idea that the fans would eventually get over it has turned out to be a Sisyphean goal.

[ImOctavius]

How has he changed?

He said that because he changed a lot of different costumes.