Did anyone enjoy Spider-Man in spite of One More Day?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Well, yes. When one group keeps complaining for years and years, it is understandable the the rest of the people would start to dislike them.

I was referring to the fact OMD was itself a product of toxic nostalgia and overzealous over-correction. I mean to the extent that we use "Toxicity" to describe things we don't like in fandom and rather than respond to that, we try and make the opposing side look like the bad guy. That's more or less how toxicity is used here, and not actual toxic stuff like gamergate and comicsgate.

Nobody said that about Spider-man and DC fans have to put up with it all the time.

Not remotely comparable. DC's publication history with its multiple alternate earths and so on is different from Marvel. DC does wholesale continuity reboots and phases the old version out. The Superman and Batman of the current comics is in continuity terms not the ones that Siegel/Shuster and Finger/Robinson/Kane worked on. Those original versions ended with the Silver Age where you had Silver Age Batman and Superman of another Earth with its own number. This ended with COIE with Byrne's Man of Steel. And that ended with the New 52. When Superman Truth screwed the pooch and s--t the bed, that didn't bother anyone because all DC had to do was bring back the Post-Crisis Superman (the one who died fighting Doomsday, and came back and married Lois) and murder the New 52 Superman and so on. The actual versions of the characters that an audience knew and the continuity with that version of the character isn't affected or changed in DC's way of doing things.

In the case of Marvel, there's a total commitment to maintaining the active continuity of 616 Marvel at all costs. That's a core corporate mandate. DC for instance wouldn't have thought twice and made Ultimate Marvel the main universe and relegated 616 out of view but not Marvel. I mean DC made the Silver Age DC the core continuity and relegated the original Superm and Batman to Earth 2, when in publication terms those two are the original versions of the character but now somehow no longer official. So in Marvel any large retcon and story decision actually does damage the main continuity and creates a situation that can only be resolved by more retcons and so on.

As such, it's not as easy for fans to get over.

Yeah, I guess expecting the people who don't read a book, haven't for years, and hate everything about it to eventually decide to stop talking about it and move on is a bit much to ask. I mean, what's left for them if they can't wallow in their own bitterness and their self deluded sense that their opinion is the only one that could possibly matter?

FYI, I actually dropped ASM and stopped reading for the entirety of Slott's run. I didn't even post here for much of that time. Check my join date next to my profile. I did get over it, I read other comics, mostly non-superhero, I lived life and so on. I got back into it after the Spider-Man game, returned to comics and gave Slott a second chance and I still hated it. So I did give OMD-BND a fair shake and a wide berth, and my feelings about it haven't lessened by time nor have I been won over.

A lot of Slott's critics came from the simple fact that he was the first one to write Spider-man after OMD.

Also Marc Guggenheim, Mark Waid, Zeb Wells, Bob Gale, Fred van Lente.

[Alan2099]

In the case of Marvel, there's a total commitment to maintaining the active continuity of 616 Marvel at all costs.

Not really. Retcons happen all the time. Major parts of characters backstory get changed and removed. Originally Captain America wasn't even frozen at the end of World War II. At one point he was frozen by his own government. Then later we were told that didn't happen either.

The country that Tony Stark was in when he got captured and became Ironman has been altered a few times.

Emma Frost has actually gotten younger than when she first appeared. Her entire backstory was changed and give to her sister instead.

You know those couple of stories about Dr. Doom and Thanos? Clever duplicates.

Wolverine appeared in his own book for months before it was changed into not being him at all.

Do you know how many times Xaviered recruit the "first" X-man?

Did you know Dr. Strange and Blade have aged in real-time? Yeah they year they first appeared in comics is the year they actually first started their hero careers. Which due to the sliding timescale means they encountered heroes decades before those heroes even got their powers. ... and in other stories Blade and Dr. Strange have only been at the hero gig as long as the rest of the marvel heroes have.

Then we have Bucky. Every single story we've had with Bucky was revealed to be a lie when he was recreated as the Winter Soldier.

There's also Green Goblin being not dead when he was actually dead.

How about Thor and the Asgardians cycle of Ragnarok and revival, which has never made sense to anyone

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Not really. Retcons happen all the time. Major parts of characters backstory get changed and removed.

Changes to the actual continuity and not an actual continuity reboot that is distinct from all earlier versions. The latter is what DC has done continuously but which Marvel doesn't.

Stuff like sliding timescale where characters are aged and de-aged. Where small things here and there are touched and sanded off and chipped and so on, or in the case of Cap being de-thawed in the 60s, then 70s, and now in the Obama era and so on. In that case the past comes forward and the present recedes but in all situations the stories originate from the 60s Marvel era.

[Alan2099]

Changes to the actual continuity and not an actual continuity reboot that is distinct from all earlier versions. The latter is what DC has done continuously but which Marvel doesn't.

Stuff like sliding timescale where characters are aged and de-aged. Where small things here and there are touched and sanded off and chipped and so on, or in the case of Cap being de-thawed in the 60s, then 70s, and now in the Obama era and so on. In that case the past comes forward and the present recedes but in all situations the stories originate from the 60s Marvel era.

I'm not seeing how what was done in OMD is any different. The same stuff happened except they weren't married. That's a fairly minor change compared to, just asn an example, Bucky wasn't a happy go-lucky kid sidekic. He was a trained black ops assassin assigned to do Captain America's dirty work.

[The Negative Zone]

If you let a bad storyline completely ruin your enjoyment of a character, that's your own personal problem.

[Miles To Go]

If you let a bad storyline completely ruin your enjoyment of a character, that's your own personal problem.

Or a wake up call to a company if it's consensus.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I'm not seeing how what was done in OMD is any different.

By that logic removing Uncle Ben from the story and having Peter be raised by a single mother Aunt May and Peter becoming Spider-Man without being responsible for his uncle's killer would hypothetically be the same as a timeline reset and justifiable for the same reason. Any small retcon for the sake of convenience, setting and so on, does not by itself justify a large or big retcon.

The same stuff happened except they weren't married.

If you can't tell the difference between being married and being in a single long-term committed relationship, then there's not much to say. It varies from couple to couple, but in general it's different and most people would admit that to be the case. Among actual Spider-Man stories, Kraven's Last Hunt by J.M. DeMatteis simply doesn't work without the marriage as the author himself pointed out multiple times. The emotional logic of that story depends a lot on that. The entirety of the JMS era is definitely about marriage being its own thing different from other relationships.

Among other things, well for example the following dialogue cannot be cited in Post-OMD:
“Maybe the rest of the world thinks marriage is something people do between other marriages, but it means something to me. You’re my partner and my husband and I love you.”
— Mary Jane Watson, "To Have and to Hold", (Sensational Spider-Man Annual #1), written by Matt Fraction

Similar other dialogues in many other comics don't hold up with the retcon. You can say that the dialogues and words can be easily changed and substituted. Doing so would basically be anointing yourself a wordsmith who can improve on Matt Fraction.

That's a fairly minor change compared to, just asn an example, Bucky wasn't a happy go-lucky kid sidekic. He was a trained black ops assassin assigned to do Captain America's dirty work.

OMD is more precisely comparable to Hydra Cap except without the obvious and inevitable retcon undoing it at the end of the series.

[Kevinroc]

I'm not seeing how what was done in OMD is any different. The same stuff happened except they weren't married. That's a fairly minor change compared to, just asn an example, Bucky wasn't a happy go-lucky kid sidekic. He was a trained black ops assassin assigned to do Captain America's dirty work.

Did the Pregnancy still happen?

[Miles To Go]

Did the Pregnancy still happen?

According to Quesada, no. Brevoort disagrees, but he's not in charge.

[Mister Mets]

On the question of whether MJ's pregnancy was canon, are you guys really happier with the idea that Spider-Man and MJ had a stillbirth?

[Kevinroc]

On the question of whether MJ's pregnancy was canon, are you guys really happier with the idea that Spider-Man and MJ had a stillbirth?

The question gets at the heart of the argument.

Either everything happened as depicted except they weren't married, or it didn't.

There are no ifs, ands, or buts here. Did the pregnancy happen or not?

[WebSlingWonder]

On the question of whether MJ's pregnancy was canon, are you guys really happier with the idea that Spider-Man and MJ had a stillbirth?

The consequences of that event were felt for a while (albeit not enough) in pages of ASM and SPEC by DeMatteis. So saying "those events all happened" but without the pregnancy retcons a whole heck of a lot.

[WebSlingWonder]

The question gets at the heart of the argument.

Either everything happened as depicted except they weren't married, or it didn't.

There are no ifs, ands, or buts here. Did the pregnancy happen or not?

Exactly what I was trying to say, yes. This pick and choosing thing that Marvel is doing isn't a good look as it's just confusing and meddlesome on a practical level.

[Mister Mets]

The question gets at the heart of the argument.

Either everything happened as depicted except they weren't married, or it didn't.

There are no ifs, ands, or buts here. Did the pregnancy happen or not?

The in-canon answer is based on Marvel decisions that haven't been made yet.

Either answer makes sense.

[Mister Mets]

The consequences of that event were felt for a while (albeit not enough) in pages of ASM and SPEC by DeMatteis. So saying "those events all happened" but without the pregnancy retcons a whole heck of a lot.

Not a heck of a lot. The stillbirth wasn't mentioned that often, and it wasn't a particularly remarkable era of the title.