Mary Jane Watson/Parker Appreciation Thread 2018

[WebLurker]

I think Peter did kind of take advantage of Liz a little in that he kept making promises with her only to end up ditching her and the rest of their group, but he still snagged a date with her to the homecoming dance only to still end up ditching her and landing her dad in prison (even if she had no idea about the last point).

I really don't think Peter treated Liz all that well in the movie, even if I don't think he meant her any harm.

I think that's the tragedy of the situation.

I can guarantee you that ABSOULTELY NOBODY thinks MJ is a slut just because Emma Stone said it once in an interview four years ago that pretty much nobody knows or cares about. They like Gwen because they liked her in those movies, and because of Spider-Gwen. But they also like MJ because despite everything else that's gone on, people still think of her as Spider-Man's main romantic interest.

I think Emma Stone was joking; in a more serious interview, she did speak favorably about the character and indicated that she liked being able to play a character who's story helped set up the MJ story arc.

Bro I've been to tumblr you've not seen some of the dark **** I've witnessed there...

I don't think Tumblr represents the majority as a whole (heck, I've seen a couple of pro-MJ Tumbl pages). Also, the internet is full of outliers who's vocality makes them seem bigger then they actually are (case in point Comicsgate).

[Spidercide]

“I've never really seen where this "MJ vs. Gwen agenda" directly from Marvel themselves came from.”

Stan Lee. It came from Stan Lee. Stan Lee in his run pitted Gwen and MJ against one another and in fact introduced MJ specifically to be Gwen’s foil. He intended long term for Gwen to be the endgame though, but he and Romita Senior were frustrated by the fact that in spite of their plans they and the audience preferred MJ and found she stole the scene all the time.

So they began to make Gwen more like MJ, whilst downplaying/removing traits from MJ, giving her long absences from the series and even painting her unfavourably to Gwen. Gwen got MJ’s dance moves, she stole the spotlight from MJ in ASM #47, she got MJ’s hairstyle, MJ lost her own hair style, MJ took long absences from the book, Peter in his dialogue and thought captions sometimes wrote MJ off as shallow/compared her as lesser to Gwen, MJ was played up in a very bad light in the Drug Trilogy whilst Gwen was played up as loyal, loving, borderline saintly. The latter story was hardcore THE quintessential example of the Madonna/Whore dynamic between Gwen and Mary Jane.

And BTW...was also Quesada’s first Spider-Man story...yeah.


There is way more too.

“Is it because of Spider-Gwen and all the attention she got? ”

Oh my no, it grossly pre-dates Spider-Gwen (it dates back to the 1960s), that was just a period where it became more overt than usual. In the same broad time Spider-Gwen got a whole month of variant covers and a character based upon one of those variant covers, Mary Jane was being played as an insufferable diva punching down on Gwen in Spider-Gwen and in Spider-Verse was showing up to just be killed, traumatized or in the case of the Spider Woman book be given brief dialogue as set up for being punched directly in the face.

Oh and also around that stretch of time getting called ‘anti-Marvel’ by Dan Slott. Let’s not forget that one.

“Well that's simple, Spider-Gwen got unexpectedly uber popular and they jumped at the opportunity to exploit/market it. ”

It’s not really about hyping up Gwen so much as it was erasing or punching down on MJ whilst they were at it, but also this wasn’t confined to the Spider-Gwen boom of the mid-2010s it’s got a long and ugly history dating back to the Silver Age.

They weren't pushing Gwen because she's "better than MJ", they pushed her because she was the "new hotness". And hell, Renew Your Vows started around the same time as Gwen's first volume, and even though she didn't end up doing much in the book, they still made a big deal about MJ in Iron Man.

Only one I would really say "has a problem" with MJ is Slott, and even then that's only because he just didn't feel like writing them together as a couple if they weren't gonna be married. If Quesada really didn't want them to be together at all, he could've easily told Spencer no, but he let him do it. I do believe its just the marriage he doesn't like (even though I also agree its for a dumb reasoning).

Also I should qualify a character not being promoted or not having many appearances isn’t solely what I am talking about in regards to an anti-MJ agenda within Marvel. Remember the ONLY reason MJ wound up in Iron Man was because Bendis found out no one within the Spider Office was/wanted to use her and took pity on the character, but again that’s not solely what I am talking about.



I’m talking about MJ showing up just to get punched in the face, look like a weak and/or unlikable person, being denounced as anti-Marvel or for awhile there mainly appearing as an AU diva ***** character designed to illicit sympathy for Gwen.


As for Slott being the only guy with a problem with MJ, oh...if only that were true. Marv Wolfman broke her and Peter up and eventually wrote her out of the series because he felt she was too attractive to date Peter. Romita Senior, love him as I do, once referred to her as a tramp in the 1990s. Chris Priest denounced the Spider Marriage because MJ only good for a roll in the hay (his words) and kept calling everyone tiger because she couldn’t be bothered to remember every man’s name. Roger Stern referred to MJ as just the wild one of the group and definitely not the person Peter should ever marry, that’d just be crazy apparently (again his words). They only kept the marriage going according to him because they fundamentally changed who Peter and MJ were. Mark Waid once said this:

“Peter Parker seems young again. He’s back to being the ultimate hard-luck kid. There’s a newfound vitality to all his relationships now that he no longer has a supermodel wife to go home to at night,... Really, at the end of every day, how hard is your life if you’re married to Mary Jane Watson? If I had even a cardboard standee of M.J. in my apartment, my life would be easier. (Also, creepier.)”

[Spidercide]

And as for Quesada...in OMIT he character assassinated MJ, had a character who was arguably his own author avatar assault Mary Jane and prevent her wedding to Spider-Man, in a 2010 interview about OMIT referenced her potential night with Bruce, how Peter was thinking of Gwen the night before his wedding (and in the audio you can near damn near the venom dripping from his voice when he said that) and you know...totally planned on bringing Gwen back in OMD until Brevoort or whoever talked him out of it.

And it’s not surprising since again his INTRODUCTION to Spider-Man was the story that played MJ as a hardcore (by Silver age standards) ‘Whore’ to Gwen’s hardcore ‘Madonna’. And then from the very next issue onwards kept reinforcing that narrative with Gwen pretty much engaged to Peter and MJ still flirting with people in front of Harry and hurting him. Then that gets Harry addicted again, which makes Norman go over the edge, which gets his Gwenship sunk and it got sunk so Peter could be shipped with that ‘Whore’ Mary Jane...and eventually he even married her. So is it any wonder Quesada was so personally invested in trashing that relationship, that in his stories he treated MJ horribly and made her look just the worst and even intended to bring Gwen back?


In regards to Slott more specifically, I think your seriously downplaying this. Slott didn’t simply not want to write her. He called her anti-Marvel. He compared Otto to Peter during Superior on the grounds that Otto dated women who were not conventionally attractive. In Big Time he did a scene wherein he specifically made Mary Jane look stupid and shallow.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/cZXPf2bmJe..._k2ABDXn=s1600


In Superior he did an entire subplot built off the back of teasing the possibility that she’d be raped by Otto. In that story he also wrote her as stupider than she realistically would be in being either oblivious to or blindly accepting of all the obvious red flags Otto as peter was exhibiting (remember she’s sussed out Peter imposters before) and in one scene had her literally sit on the floor of a burning building and just wait to be rescued by Spider-Man.

These are not the depictions of someone who merely doesn’t want to write them as a couple if they aren’t going to be married. Roger Stern didn’t like Peter and MJ as a couple but he never wrote MJ that poorly.

Quesada could’ve changed his mind between then and now, remember he was the EIC back then and now he isn’t, we don’t even know how much power he wields at all. Being higher on the totem pole doesn’t necessarily mean you have power. The Vice President is technically speaking the second most powerful government position in America but its often been toothless or else symbolic, with Governors and Senators wielding much more real power.

Plus just because he hates/wants something doesn’t mean he’s going to go totally all the way to being unreasonable. Hence he agreed to not bring Gwen back event though he wanted to.

But initially it seemed like you were talking about how the general public feels, casual comic readers who may be more familiar with other media. And that's who I was referring to when I said that nobody thinks that way because of what you said. Like yeah, maybe that day when she said it some people thought she had a point, but that was 4 years ago, the only people who remember it are the ones upset about it, and I would bet hard on saying if someone for some reason asked her about it now she would say she way over-exaggerated.

I was speaking literally, as in nobody = 0.

Most people barely remember MJ and those who do remember the upside down kiss.

I was referring to fans, be they comic book or otherwise, who care to think deeply enough upon the movies.

And also remember, they originally were gonna have her in ASM2, and were planning to have her be the main focus in ASM3. So if they were so serious about how terrible she was, why were they gonna have her in the films almost certainly for him to get together with her in the end.

Actually we don't know that that was the plan at all. Yeah she was gonna be in ASM2 but only a little bit and I don't think Sony themselves even knew what ASM3 was gonna be.

Looking at those e-mails it seems like (depending on who had what for breakfast that day) it was either going to be Venom, the Sinister Six, the clone Saga with a revived Gwen, Gwen and MJ as symbiotes mud wrestling or a mid-quel between ASM1 and ASM2....or some kind of crossover with Scarlet Spider, Silver Sable, the Sinister Six, 2099 and who knows what else as a Maximum Carnage movie.

The plans for MJ or lack thereof really weren’t that pinned down at all, the most siginifcant suggestion was the idea of doing another reboot adapting Kraven’s Last Hunt where Spider-Man would be married but that’s it.


And remember...they did cut her from the movie so how much did they like her really. Honestly though it was more that they decided to spin that narrative in the first place because they needed to promote their new love interest as a point of novelty with the older movies. The fact that the general public loved Stone’s Gwen much more than Dunst’s MJ also played into that.



Regardless though, the fact that they promoted the movie that way and were confortable with doing so is indicative of the narrative they wanted to spin to sell the general public upon their rebooted universe and it was sexist AF.

[Spidercide]

I also personally don't think "closest to the source material" or "how different" is what should be the deciding factor in terms of quality. Spectacular is one of my favourite superhero TV shows period. Ultimate is one of my favourite comic runs of all time. They aren't great because of how much influence they took from original comics, they're great because they're excellent stories with great characters, with the elements from the Spider-Man mythos used as a starting point. Doesn't bother me when something is different because the execution is still really well done.

A work's quality is dependant upon the intentions and more significantly the 'mission statement' if you will behind it.

Case in point, a romantic comedy that has very little romance or humour in it and really just has lots of exposions and car chases is a bad romantic comedy.

So here we come to USM. USM's mission statement was ostensibly the same as Spec's. And so in this regard it failed. You can argue it was great if it was meant as just an AU story where stuff is different for the sake of being different. But it wasn't supposed to be that, it was supposed to be a true blue representation of the Spider-Man mythos. It need not replicate those comics of course, Spec didn't do that, but it needed to capture the spirit of the characters and those stories and in this regard changing stuff for the sake of it hurt the series. E.g. why oh why is Richard Parker as big, if not a bigger figure in Peter's life than Uncle Ben?

That doesn't even make sense from a realistic point of view because if Peter was raised by Ben from such a young age he'd realistically just regard him as his real father sans calling him Dad and such. But in Ultimate his Dad invented the webbing, his Dad's formula for that was a major thing in Peter's life and he mentioned it to like Harry or MJ in issue #1, his Dad came up with the Great POwer/Great responsibility thing, his Dad created Venom, his Dad's legacy played into creating Carnage, his Dad seemingly returned in the storyline surrounding issue #100 and that issue specifically dedicated a massive chunk of it's narrative to an entirely pointless flashback about his Dad (which even if we ignore everything else I'm saying is sloppy writing in general). Why is Richard Parker such a big deal in the life of Spider-Man when it wasn't just that it wasn't the case in 616, but it very importantly wasn't because Uncle Ben was the actual heart of Peter's drive and who he was trying to be.

Or an example of poor execution. Venom. Say whatever you like about Eddie Brock and his motivations in the 616 (I have a lot to say in his defence) and how much apparently better Bendis did that in USM...when Eddie actually BECAME Venom, he was a grossly inferior character.

Whether in the 1980s or the 1990s, Venom HAD a personality. You could argue it was not a good one perhaps. But he had one. He was sadistic, possessed a macabre sense of humour and was unable to accept his own failings and blamed others for them. The icing on the cake being that he viewed himself as a hero amidst all this when he was anything but. All round he was an evil Spider-Man.

Once Eddie became Venom in Ultimate though none of that was there. He was just a mess of growling teeth and tentacles. No personality existed and certainly not one acting as a dark counterpoint to Spider-Man's. So that was a case wherein for a major arc and character the 616 version was better executed.

Meanwhile in the Spec cartoon though they took a very similar version of Eddie Brock from Ultimate but had him as Venom act like 616 Venom, so they absolutely executed things much better.

There are other examples too.

You could say the same thing towards someone like Slott, that he despises the character because of ways he's written her, and we know that just isn't true. Sometimes peoples perspectives change, they aren't as passionate about a character or situation they might have been previously, or they don't have any true ill will towards a character and just write whatever actions for them to serve their story (even if said actions weren't a good idea). I guess the way I've always seen stories, just because a character is portrayed terribly doesn't mean everyone in charge hates them, most of the time its just simply a bad story.

Thing is...no we don't know that.

We have Slott's word that he doesn't hate the character.

But Slott, from multiple angles, has an incentive to not really be honest about that. And after all...he has admitted he lies. Even if he hadn't his various interviews and stories showcase that yeah his public statements might not be entirely true.

As I posted above the way he handled the character really doesn't paint him as someone who likes the character at all.

TBH, when it comes to professional writers vs. their works, their works are usually much more revealing than what they are saying publically. There is even a psychological facet to this. When you make a public statement you are far more conciously aware of what you are saying, you are far more in control of the message you are trying to communicate (of course reporters and editors can misquote you). But when you are writing, there is way more of your subconcious getting engaged in the story. Case in point, Gerry Conway in 2004 once said in his head Gwen Stacy died before Spidey ever showed up at the bridge.

But he also in the same interview questioned then why he chose to on impulse put the snap sound effect in. That was a pure instinct thing by him, he didn't really think about it, implying that really...he either felt Gwen was in fact alive/the story would be better if she died that way/he wanted to do that to Gwen/some combo of the above.

Also remember when it comes to female characters they just naturally tend to be magnets for negative feelings. There is a reason people blamed MJ and/or the marriage for 1990s Spider-Man being bad and I assure you it wasn't because it was true at all.

Sidenote: You said they write the character however to serve the story. Therein lies the problem. You should never ever do that as a writer. Characters must always be prioritized over plot.

[Inversed]

Look I'm sorry, but with most of this all I really see is trying to come up for a reason why there is an "agenda" against this character and it just seems like looking way too deep into everything.

-Of course Stan Lee made MJ and Gwen into foils, its a story and they're the love interests of course that's gonna happen.
-You're forgetting at this same time of Spider-Gwen's start, Renew Your Vows was a thing, the one where she's actually a lead role AND was Dan Slott's idea.
-Nobody wanting to use a character for a certain amount of time also doesn't mean the company hates them. If that were the case Marvel would hate literally half their universe.
-Again, you're looking at a badly written portrayal and equating that to be "as part as some massive agenda to make a character look useless and terrible", and that's clearly not the case.
-If Quesada really despised MJ that much, don't you think he would've killed her off or just completely written her out of everything? You said it's because he doesn't have alot of power, but if you're saying all of Marvel as an "anti-MJ" agenda, wouldn't they agree with him?
-Slott has written many characters poorly over the years, doesn't mean he hates them. Queenpin Black Cat was a bad idea, does he despise the character and wanted to ruin her? Of course not. Sometimes a misguided idea is just a misguided idea.
-You're underestimating how much people know about MJ. And maybe people like Stone's Gwen better than Dunst's MJ simply because it's a better performance, not this vendetta. Obviously it was a sexist comment, but it's not a goal they were trying to attain.
-I don't care that what they did in Ultimate was different, because everything they do works in context with its own narrative. Yes, Venom is a much better (and technically an actual) character in 616 books, but in Ultimate he's a one/two off villain that's treated as more monster than man, and it works in that story. Spectacular's Venom isn't good just because he's closer to 616, he's good because the character is well written and executed, with the previous incarnations simply acting as a base block.
-Slott has said it himself, he lies regarding stories "Peter's dead for good, Ben Reilly's never coming back" because they're JUST stories. If it's his own opinion or something he feels, he has no reason to lie, so I'm inclined to believe him when he says "Eh, don't hate MJ, just don't feel like writing her."

That's not to mention the main Renew Your Vows series, all of the variant covers, and letting Insomniac and Spencer make her a main focus. Just because a character is under-utilized does not mean they hate her. Like yeah, I wish she was given more focus too, and I wish she wasn't written poorly in some stories, but I wouldn't say this is part of some master plan to completely ruin the character.

[Miles To Go]

Quesada approved of Renew Your Vows. Some of the stronger marriage stories occured under his watch before OMD, indeed, healthy depiction of Peter and MJ was across the board back when he was EIC through USM and other things. It's no coincidence that since he's gotten back into publishing, the Peter/MJ focus has been largely consistent again. I think the dude loves the pair, but the marriage issue is his only hang-up, and that's strictly from a franchise point of view. Even then, he's allowed Peter to remain married in the newspaper strip because that's no threat to anything.

[Spidercide]

Look I'm sorry, but with most of this all I really see is trying to come up for a reason why there is an "agenda" against this character and it just seems like looking way too deep into everything.

-Of course Stan Lee made MJ and Gwen into foils, its a story and they're the love interests of course that's gonna happen.
-You're forgetting at this same time of Spider-Gwen's start, Renew Your Vows was a thing, the one where she's actually a lead role AND was Dan Slott's idea.
-Nobody wanting to use a character for a certain amount of time also doesn't mean the company hates them. If that were the case Marvel would hate literally half their universe.
-Again, you're looking at a badly written portrayal and equating that to be "as part as some massive agenda to make a character look useless and terrible", and that's clearly not the case.
-If Quesada really despised MJ that much, don't you think he would've killed her off or just completely written her out of everything? You said it's because he doesn't have alot of power, but if you're saying all of Marvel as an "anti-MJ" agenda, wouldn't they agree with him?
-Slott has written many characters poorly over the years, doesn't mean he hates them. Queenpin Black Cat was a bad idea, does he despise the character and wanted to ruin her? Of course not. Sometimes a misguided idea is just a misguided idea.
-You're underestimating how much people know about MJ. And maybe people like Stone's Gwen better than Dunst's MJ simply because it's a better performance, not this vendetta. Obviously it was a sexist comment, but it's not a goal they were trying to attain.
-I don't care that what they did in Ultimate was different, because everything they do works in context with its own narrative. Yes, Venom is a much better (and technically an actual) character in 616 books, but in Ultimate he's a one/two off villain that's treated as more monster than man, and it works in that story. Spectacular's Venom isn't good just because he's closer to 616, he's good because the character is well written and executed, with the previous incarnations simply acting as a base block.
-Slott has said it himself, he lies regarding stories "Peter's dead for good, Ben Reilly's never coming back" because they're JUST stories. If it's his own opinion or something he feels, he has no reason to lie, so I'm inclined to believe him when he says "Eh, don't hate MJ, just don't feel like writing her."

That's not to mention the main Renew Your Vows series, all of the variant covers, and letting Insomniac and Spencer make her a main focus. Just because a character is under-utilized does not mean they hate her. Like yeah, I wish she was given more focus too, and I wish she wasn't written poorly in some stories, but I wouldn't say this is part of some master plan to completely ruin the character.

I appreciate it might look that way. This however doesn’t change the fact that there isn’t. There was an anti-MJ agenda under Stan Lee’s run for God’s sake. I think you are giving comic book creators (those people who have in the 2000s an infamous track record for being childish, petty and self-indulgent, Didio and Johns being examples of two people who admit they got into the business largely to restore Barry Allan and Hal Jordan and Chris Priest who killed a character just to spite Tom DeFalco) way too much credit.

- Stan Lee didn’t just make MJ’ Gwen’s foil. He stole traits from her and gave them to Gwen to make her more popular by making her more like MJ. Then he took those traits away from MJ, then he downplayed MJ’s presence, then he continuously made her look bad even AFTER the love triangle was resolved because he knew people liked her more. You don’t do that if you are just playing a character as a foil, you do that when you are trying to sell the audience on one character and not the other. Marvel did the same with Anya when they gave her Julia’s costume and Mayday’s name
- Spider-Gwen predates Renew Your Vows, as does Spider-Verse as does Superior. Renew Your Vows itself doesn’t place MJ in much of a lead role outside of the first and final issues. It’s a story chiefly about Peter (the main character) and Annie (Slott’s OC).
- Moreover whilst Slott had that idea he’s well acquainted with spiking hype by invoking Mary Jane. It’s a favourite tactic of his and Marvel’s. They hyped ASM #600 by teasing maybe Peter and MJ would be getting married because May and Jay’s last names ended similarly to Peter’s and MJ’s. Slott also has a very, very, very long and obvious history of wanting to make HIS run remembered for the ages by touching upon virtually every corner of Spider-Man lore. He’s practically said as much. He gave Peter a PhD in Superior in part so people could always point to it and remember that’s where that came from. So of course he wants to write for a married Spider-Man so people remember he did that. But in the book itself he’s more invested in the Regent and Peter’s relationship with his own OC than exploring Peter and MJ’s actual relationship much. Just because he dislikes the character doesn’t mean he’d be opposed to featuring her to tick off something in his Spider-Man grand tour or else to get into the history books or to generate mega hype. I mean think about it is it REALLY so unbeliable that he’d not like the character but stil use her in that way? He did a story about Spider-Man married even though he’s stated a billion times the marriage isn’t coming back, needlessly been a downer about that, defended One More Day, defended the fact that Spider-Man not being married is a good thing. He’s showcased that in some of his stories too like the lead into Spider-Island. So if he’s anti-marriage but is happy to write a married Spider-Man briefly as part of a big event, then the idea that he doesn’t like MJ much /punches down on her in favour of the characters he wants to promote but is happy to write her in RYV isn’t that unbelievable.

[Spidercide]

- Moreover writing her in RYV is an exception for his handling of MJ. That ONE thing alone doesn’t on balance with all the other ways he’s written MJ paint him as someone who likes the character/thinks she’s an appropriate love interest. Not when he’s called her ‘anti-Marvel’. I mean dude he was dissing the fact he was married to MJ BEFORE One More Day ever happened in his Thing solo series
- When you are a major character and popular character conspicuous via your absence, yes it absolutely does mean you have a dislike for that character or wish to sell anoher character in lieu of them. There is a huge difference between MJ being absent and like Quasar or D-Man. Venom was absent for a long time in USM before his debut and between his debut and second story, even though the Goblin and Doc Ock showed up within the first several arcs and in the Goblin’s case within the first two or three years. Venom and Carnage however, the most famous and popular Spider-Man villains, were wholly absent not even really hinted at for the longest time. Because Bendis didn’t like them and didn’t want to use them despite demands to the contrary
- I’m not looking at a badly written portrayal and equating it to be part of an agenda. Quesada and Slott know how MJ is typically characterized. When the mood strikes him Slott will write her that way, or a facsimile thereof. But he often doesn’t, which means he’s picking and choosing how he wanted the character to look. As for Quesada, no amount of raw incompetence can make you write that character that way. It’s like writing Lois Lane as a coward. The most basic understanding of the character means you couldn’t possibly be doing this unless you are deliberately doing it. It’s like Bendis with the Vision, he hates the Vision so the Vision is treated badly in his stories.
- Of course Quesada/Marvel wouldn’t have killed her off. Again, he’s not beyong compromise because he didn’t go through with bringin back Gwen. He knows MJ is popular, he knows he got backlash over Karen Page’s death and he remembers the massive backlash over the FIRST time MJ died. He also knows future writers may wish to use her. You are equating Quesada having an agenda to ‘he will do anything to pursue that agenda to the fullest’. That need not be the case.
- Marvel is a business. MJ makes money. So they won’t kill her off because they know she makes money. It’s obvious because they’ve said as much a lot of people within Marvel have little-no love for Venom or Carnage but they are huge sellers so they keep them around. Hell in the mid-2000s it was common for a lot of creators to hate on Wolverine but that didn’t stop him showing up everywhere.
- Slott has indeed written many characters poorly. But the fact that he can write MJ or some of those other characters in character (relatively speaking) when he wants to means he is picking and choosing when and how. Meaning when he’s doing it poorly there is a certain amount of deliberate intent behind it. You are right sometimes a misguided idea is a misguided idea but when it comes to his handling of MJ it’s so systemic and he’s punched down on her in interviews so often that it’s obviously not just a case of incompetence. He berated her and Gwen as the iconic love interests because no one else could get a look in, and he created multiple love interests he is aware people were not happy with because they weren’t MJ.
- How exactly am I underestimating how much people know about MJ?
- They like Stone better because she had better chemistry with Garfield and was more conventionally attractive than Dunst’s MJ and possibly because she was more of an idealized girlfriend in the movies.
- You misunderstand. Their goal in the movies was to promote Gwen, because Gwen was a unique aspect of their movies differentiating it from the older ones, which was vitally important since their movie was a remake of the 2002 film people knew and loved. So they painted MJ as loving Spider-Man and Gwen loving Peter, to promote Gwen and shunt off the older movies. Old is bad, new is good.
- Well first of all no not EVERYTHING worked in the context of it’s own narrative. Second of all something can work within the context of it’s own narrative but still be an example of poor execution and/or a bad idea. Case in point, the Jackal’s plan in Maximum Clonage works in the context of his character’s twisted logic. Still a bad idea poorly executed. Superman ending nuclear weapons in Superman IV makes sense in-universe, but is still a bad idea poorly executed. Nothing in Ultimate in-universe requires Richard Parker to not be a big deal or for Venom to have a personality. It’s just an example of a bad idea/execution in the latter, and in the former just...misses part of the point of Spider-Man and his origin which is bad execution if your whole mandate is to be a representation of Spider-Man’s essence, not merely a what if scenario.
- If Venom not having a personality is worse than him having one, then how can him not having one work for that story? The story was building and building up to an emotional confrontation between Brock as Venom and Peter. But when it happens Brock isn’t Brock, he’s just a monster, it undermines the emotional resonance because the story wouldn’t be THAT different if it was just a werewolf or something. So it doesn’t work for that story.
- I never said Spec’s Venom is good merely because he’s like the canon Venom. He’s good because he has a personality and is a dark reflection of Spider-Man, which is something from a creative POV that’s innately better than just being a monster with no personality. And that personality comes from the comics because the comic book version IS good.

[Spidercide]

- Slott has lied about stuff outside of simply promoting his stories.
- If Slott is literally saying the phrase Mary Jane is anti-Marvel, how is that not indicative of him not really liking the character? If he punches down on her, not simply writes her badly but punches down on her, in his stories, how can it be that he doesn’t hold a certain degree of negativity towards her?
- All those things you cited like in RYV vol 2 and such? They are recent developments. Things have been changing within Marvel. I think NOW we’ve moved into an era where they’re more positive towards the character, but notice how that happened when Slott and Alonso left. Yeah I know RYV vol 2, but that was off to the side, out of continuity, didn’t come out at the optimum time to capitalize upon vol 1 and as I said they know it sells. Money trumps creative agendas most of the time.
- Although in the case of the video game that was Insomniac not Marvel’s doing. THEY wanted to include Mary Jane. Marvel never insisted upon it or anything. In fact at the time during and after Spider-Verse Marvel was punching down on MJ the Unlimited mobile game was making their love for Mary Jane plain to see.
- I never said ti was part of a master plan to ruin, her I said it was an agenda against the character and against her relationship with Spider-Man. Meaning that they punch down on her and that relationship and/or there is a certain amount of misogyny thrown at both. Again, Romita Senior called her a tramp, Wolfman broke them up because she was too pretty, Priest said she was only good for a roll in the hay, etc.

Quesada approved of Renew Your Vows. Some of the stronger marriage stories occured under his watch before OMD, indeed, healthy depiction of Peter and MJ was across the board back when he was EIC through USM and other things. It's no coincidence that since he's gotten back into publishing, the Peter/MJ focus has been largely consistent again. I think the dude loves the pair, but the marriage issue is his only hang-up, and that's strictly from a franchise point of view. Even then, he's allowed Peter to remain married in the newspaper strip because that's no threat to anything.

Do we know Quesada approved RYV? He was more invovled in the movies and TV side of things at that point and it seems unlikely it'd be big fish for him to fry.

Moreover, why not approve that? It's out of continuity (like Spider-Girl was) and it temporary and will sell a lot. Doesn't mean he doesn't have an agenda. I he didn't why did he as EIC personally write OMD and OMIT?

Some of the stronger marriage stories prior to OMD can be accounted for thanks to the writers of those books, not him. It was a water treading tactic whilst they figured out how to get rid of the marriage. They were thinking up plans for OMD as early as 2004 and remember QUesada's 3 genies during his tenure were too many mutants (House of M), heroes are too friendly (Civil War), Spider-Man is married (OMD).

Plus, JMS jumped on board with the agreement there would be a relatively hands off approach for his work, which there was up until Sins Past, a story he wrote knowing OMD was coming and he could erase them anyway.

As for him getting back into publishing again, we have 0 idea how much influence or power he actually wields. It's far more likely this is owed to Cebulski (who's work shipped them), Lowe (who's tenure allowed for RYV and more marriage/OMD references in general) and Spencer than anythiung to do with Quesada.

As for Quesada loving the pair....c'mon bro/sis...this is the guy who wrote OMD and OMIT. The guy who wanted to bring back Gwen Stacy. The guy who's first story was MJ being seemingly the worst ever to Harry. The guy who under his tenure had the first page of BND open with Spider-Man making out with a random woman and did so as a reality slap to the readers (I believe he used those exact words). Hell early in BND they were basically engaging in a propoganda campaign against the character. They hooked her up with Bobby Carr even though she seeemingly rememebred OMD. They wrote her as the worst in ASM #605. The promo bumf for her character in guidebooks and toys insisted upon a false narrative that her innate role was as 'the one that got away and couldn't handle his life'. And DC did much the same thing during the Nu52.

http://nikkysounbit.tumblr.com/post/...e-and-her-fans

Also regarding the newspaper thing, I don't know if Marvel themselves has any control over that and/or might let that slide because it's Stan Lee's pet project and he's Stan. Honor thy father.

[AngelJD]

As a MJ, Gwen, and a boatload of other characters fan going to a message board and reading how some fans feel like there is a anti agenda towards their favorites isn't new.

The longer the characters exist the odds become greater they can appear or be used in ways we disagree with. 616 MJ has been in the comics for about 50+ years I think now so during that time it isn't shocking we will have tons of great scenes/stories with her but also even moreso tons of natural scenes/tales with MJ (the kind nobody recalls as they don't make a impact or importance for today), and tons of tales/scenes that we with our views can see as bad.
Was the bad written purposely? Many times it was just poor judgement, or a good idea bad execution, unintentional and so forth. Yes different opinions on how we all see characters can range differently including writers to our favorites.

I will say (this not just focusing on MJ but Marvel characters as a whole) there are MANY times some characters have to look bad or weak for others to look strong. This is mostly what happens to the 'nameless' and defineless Shield Agents and Cops. That they are ineffective when fighting a villain or hero for whatever reasons and often meant to showcase of 'badass' the other is by making ragdoll of the other. This story trope happens all the time where the comperdancy or skill or power of the other has to be lowered to heighten the main characters. I find that annoying (and worse if they were fighting a law official or hero before and it's never brought up agian in terms of actual consequences or legal insurance or hospital fees). Those who look bad for others to look good usually is selected by I feel 'who is useful to us right now). Fortunately MJ I feel has been able to avoid this for the most part unlike some other characters but it's something I look for in stories and find just to often. The thinking that somebody has to look bad for the other to look good.

I also find many stories that fans hate in the Spider-man series seems to stem from the goal of 'Keep Peter young and back to basics". Sins Past started as a idea that the two new characters were Gwen and Peter's kids. That in their young love they 'made love/sex' at some point and apperenalty Gwen got pregnant. Now this would already altar and shift history recon stuff with different degrees and views of it all from people no doubt. But Marvel higher ups told the writers 'No Peter can't be a father!'. Going to that 'Peter must be young for that makes him relatable' thinking. Instead of killing the idea which I feel should of happened the writer changed it that Gwen suddenly despite no evidence in the classic comics of such that Gwen found Norman appealing for his power and slept with him cheating on Peter. To me this came out because the writer love his idea to much to let it go and kill it, Marvel's higher ups views to 'must keep Peter "young"' which will also come into play for OMD, and finally at the time 616 Gwen was still dead (she still is but a shift has happened now) and while some writers made interesting variants from alternate Earths still thus her 'usefulness' for Marvel was nothing to them and for them the fan outcries would be lower in 2004. Thus they could do whatever they like with her and didn't think any consequences would happen for them using a character recklessly for a idea that should've been killed. FOr MArvel they basically went so what if we did this to a past character history? She's in the past and has no importance to us. Then the 2010's happened. Opps Marvel.
That's is what happens when you feel you can use characters hasty and that the usefulness is nothing so you think no consequences of importance will happen. That can change by another writer and idea quickly. The wide variety and free the writers had in using 'Gwen' has helped her greatly in writing for worlds of their own making fitting in and being unique and great character per world made but then taking the established Stan Lee 616 version and appealing a 'no coqueusences' feeling to how you write her backfired big. Now I think they are reconing their recon to 'never happened' (personally with the internet now this will always be documented so Marvel can't hide it and think we will forget like the days before the internet as this dirt always can be brought up so a quick excuse like mind control or heck even early stages expectation to cloning will-less/mindless drones would be better way to take on this embarrassment).

I write this here as I do fear that can happen to MJ. We seen recons with her before (her knowing Peter's secret all along because she saw him jump out the window as Spider-man after Uncle Ben was shot recon and altations of past decades history). But I hope just for a story idea she (and others) will always be considered first that if it really can fit with past evidence and character and how respectful it is to a character. Dead character or character of no importance of today can shift in a huge way by another writer's 2 years from now. Marvel writers I hope when making tales will look at their works and the influences. Particularly: Did I have to alter this just to keep Peter "Young" and if I did should I just kill this idea if it now doesn't really work, does this negativity affect the past of any characters and how so and what degrees, and who am I making look bad or ineffective for whatever reasons and or way just to rise others up and can I somehow avoid that or make it more reasonable and final conqueuses good and bad of this all once finished?


We always hope that the best is given to our favorites. Though also at the same time not given by putting others down or so high up in praise it makes your eyes roll (seen that happen with my favorites also).

[Miles To Go]

So it looks like the Spider-Verse movie isn't going to do MJ or her fans any favours

spoilers:

It's emerged that she ends up divorcing and leaving Peter

end of spoilers

https://whateveraspidercan.com/2018/...peter-parkers/

[millernumber1]

So it looks like the Spider-Verse movie isn't going to do MJ or her fans any favours

spoilers:

It's emerged that she ends up divorcing and leaving Peter

end of spoilers

https://whateveraspidercan.com/2018/...peter-parkers/

That sounds utterly horrible! Ugh!

[Miles To Go]

That sounds utterly horrible! Ugh!

I hope this film bombs is all I can say.

[millernumber1]

I hope this film bombs is all I can say.

I don't hope that, but I do hope that the ending redeems that horribleness.

[Miles To Go]

I don't hope that, but I do hope that the ending redeems that horribleness.

I'm not seeing it and yeah, I'm not sugercoating my feelings, I hope it bombs. I like Miles and Gwen, but I am fed up with Peter's most prominent love interest being thrown under the bus like this, and Peter too, just to prop those two characters up.

It also pretty much makes OMD look even unneccersary...if you're finally comfortable teaching kids this sort of thing is part of life, you may as well have just done it to begin with. Took them ten years. Go figure.

If at all possible, I'll probably purchase a digital copy once it's theatrical run is over and edit it to remove any references to this.