Printable View
Is your complaint about 300 issues of Amazing Spider-Man, and all the ups and downs of Peter's love life, being compressed into a year of "Marvel Time"? Or is your complaint about Peter, a man in his mid-late 20s, having had approximately 5-6 sexual partners in his lifetime?
[QUOTE=Lee;4565783] Or is your complaint about Peter, a man in his mid-late 20s, having had approximately 5-6 sexual partners in his lifetime?[/QUOTE]
My complaint is about that happening in BND in the span of a single comic book year.
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4565788]My complaint is about that happening in BND in the span of a single comic book year.[/QUOTE]
So it's a "Marvel Time" issue?
That's how Marvel Comics operates. The past 300 issues of Amazing Spider-Man weren't written as a calendar year from January to December. There are several references to things that happened "X months ago", "a year ago" etc, especially in relation to events like Secret Invasion, Dark Reign, Original Sin, Time Runs Out, Secret Wars. If you add all of those up, you arrive at several years. Put simply, the years and seasons passed, but the characters remained the same age - because it's comics, and characters only get older if the people making them want them to.
It's odd that you can rationalize 10 years of Marvel Comics continuity - everything that happened to Jameson, Osborn, the Avengers, Peter's professional and personal life - happening within a 365 day window, but Peter having four sexual partners is a bridge too far.
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4565105]
Before Peter got married, he had sex with two women (Felicia, MJ) and he married one of them. That takes place over a 24 year period as per the current timeline and the idea that Peter has aged at most 10 years.
.[/QUOTE]
That's not totally true.
Despite that stupid line in Sins Past, as "Blue" pointed out, Peter had sex with Gwen.
Also, a sexual relationship was heavily hinted with Debra Whitman. A relationship with a married woman, do not forget the controversy that Debra Whitman character brought to the ASM title.
[QUOTE=Lee;4565805]So it's a "Marvel Time" issue?[/quote]
It's a story, character, plot issue. A choice issue on the part of writers.
[quote]That's how Marvel Comics operates. The past 300 issues of Amazing Spider-Man weren't written as a calendar year from January to December. [/quote]
Yeah...no. That's not what the issue is about.
[quote]It's odd that you can rationalize 10 years of Marvel Comics continuity - everything that happened to Jameson, Osborn, the Avengers, Peter's professional and personal life - happening within a 365 day window, [/quote]
Because the incidents and amount of stuff happening is not the issue. It's the content and the range.
[quote]but Peter having four sexual partners is a bridge too far.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Because writers wrote the character knowing that they aren't allowed to age the guy a great deal or move him forward. Especially in the BND era, writers know that they aren't writing a character who is allowed to age. So when you add in new girlfriends and sex partners, it creates a character issue because this happens in what is a very short amount of time, and if you add that up, you have Peter serially having many sex partners in a very short amount of time. And that against a context where other characters around Peter are shown as worse off than him.
If they had written one relationship and have Peter be single and not date anyone that's fine. But you keep adding and bringing in new love interests, and then there's the pretense that this somehow isn't going to change and alter how people see the character, which is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=AlexCampy89;4565812]Despite that stupid line in Sins Past, as "Blue" pointed out, Peter had sex with Gwen. [/quote]
Blue is told from the point of Peter Parker's nostalgia laden narration...and it makes numerous changes to the continuity of events from ASM #39-47 (which is roughly the chronology it covers). So stuff like the end of Blue (which just has Peter and Gwen kissing and doesn't imply or suggest anything) can be easily explained away and dismissed as simply Peter's memories playing tricks on him, mixing his fantasy with reality and so on. Or you know it happened so long ago and Peter's undergone so much trauma that it's hard for him to keep his own past straight.
Blue makes numerous errors in continuity from ASM #39-47 (which is roughly the chronology it covers). Peter and Gwen weren't dating each other in that time and they didn't have their first kiss (in the presence of Gwen's dad more or less) until the issues in the #50s.
It's a topic of debate if Spider-Man Blue was canon. Because it was published in July 2002 at a time when Peter and MJ were still "separated" and yet she's there in the end as his wife and secure. So people weren't sure if it is set in a real timeline or if it's just some standalone mood piece that's take it or leave it. The art style of the comic is very retro and artistic after all, it's very much the '60s as imagined and remembered in the '90s. For one thing Mary Jane isn't wearing her famous black top, blue jeans and white jacket ensemble in her introduction as reimagined there.
[quote]Also, a sexual relationship was heavily hinted with Debra Whitman. A relationship with a married woman, do not forget the controversy that Debra Whitman character brought to the ASM title.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and also Betty Brant who was married to Ned Leeds and with whom Peter became a co-partner with in adultery. You know because Marv Wolfman hated MJ and thought she was a skank and at the same time had Peter engage in a sympathetically portrayed creepy relationship because that's how Marv Wolfman (who made Terra, a victim of Deathstroke's statutory-rape, into a femme fatale type and pure evil) saw things.
The fact is these examples are ambiguous. Whereas Peter being with MJ and Felicia, or being with the girls in the Post-OMD era isn't.
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4565815]Because writers wrote the character knowing that they aren't allowed to age the guy a great deal or move him forward. Especially in the BND era, writers know that they aren't writing a character who is allowed to age. So when you add in new girlfriends and sex partners, it creates a character issue because this happens in what is a very short amount of time, and if you add that up, you have Peter serially having many sex partners in a very short amount of time.[/QUOTE]
If you add it up, then the Avengers saved the world 400 times in a year. If you add it up, Homer Simpson has had 100 jobs in a year. If you add it up, Charlie Brown celebrated 50 Christmases in 4 years. It's the same thing. The story marches onwards, the seasons change, the times change, but the characters only get older when the people in charge decide. Sometimes they even get younger.
[QUOTE=Lee;4565851]If you add it up, then the Avengers saved the world 400 times in a year. If you add it up, Homer Simpson has had 100 jobs in a year. If you add it up, Charlie Brown celebrated 50 Christmases in 4 years. It's the same thing. The story marches onwards, the seasons change, the times change, but the characters only get older when the people in charge decide. Sometimes they even get younger.[/QUOTE]
I have given you many chances to back down from the implication of your statement. But now that you have ignored and dodged that let me allow you to say things clearly.
Are you saying Michelle Gonzales, Carlie Cooper, Lian-Tang, Silk, Bobbi Morse are to be considered one relationship with some composite woman and shouldn't be seen as separate ones? Your argument about adding things up essentially amounts to that. You are saying we shouldn't treat these as separate relationships with the same person or that we shouldn't consider Peter as one person having relationships with these women. Alternatively are you saying that we should only consider some relationships canonical and ignore the rest? Like some of them didn't happen, all of them didn't happen.
Which is it?
Because your bizarre illogical idea that people shouldn't add up continuity amounts to saying that a good part of Slott's run should be disposed of and forgotten. I agree with that sentiment but it's strange to see that articulated by people who are Slott fans.
If you commit logically to a certain way you also commit and welcome all that goes with it. You can't defend one view and then attack people for bringing it up by saying they are just adding stuff. Well yeah, that's how continuity work. Events, issues, stories and arcs add up, go forward, carry over. How each issue fits in a given time compression is an article of faith for readers and so on. A good writer is able to keep the faith, a bad writer makes excuses or have excuses made on their behalf by unpaid fans.
It's all canonical, just as all of Charlie Brown's Christmases are all canonical. The characters just stayed the same age. Marvel Time doesn't make sense when you over-analyze it, because you're not supposed to over-analyze it.
nyc style polyamory please
[QUOTE=boots;4565983]nyc style polyamory please[/QUOTE]
I'd be down for this. ;)
wait wait wait
are we going with the incorrect conclusion that fictional character peter parker did not have intimate relations with fictional character betty brant before his marriage to fictional character mary jane whopper?
[QUOTE=Snoop Dogg;4566101]are we going with the incorrect conclusion that fictional character peter parker did not have intimate relations with fictional character betty brant before his marriage to fictional character mary jane whopper?[/QUOTE]
When they were dating in the Ditko era...no.
During the Wolfman era, well Wolfman may have wanted that to be the case but officially Marvel will say no for the obvious fact that morality contracts it signed with various companies over the years included morality claims about things Peter can't outright do in the pages. Hence why Peter can't drink beer or otherwise be allowed to get drunk (which led to that asinine trash story in BND where Peter was placebo'd into drunk sex without actually being drunk).
under the desk, they only held hands because stan would never allow any sin or degeneracy to occur in the glorious dawn of marvel comics
but wolfman? he's gotta have one win, at least ONE
[QUOTE=Snoop Dogg;4566101]wait wait wait
are we going with the incorrect conclusion that fictional character peter parker did not have intimate relations with fictional character betty brant before his marriage to fictional character mary jane whopper?[/QUOTE]
So it would seem, ridiculous I know. ;)