Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61213141516171819 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 273
  1. #226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    A divorce he made over his wife's objections and became a worse person for it as everyone in-universe from Miles to Aunt May acknowledges. It's a good point that a married Spider-Man fits the character more than a divorced or single one does.



    In the case of Reed and Sue, not all the cartoons had them married. The three live-action films -- the Tim Story FF and the Josh Trank one -- had them as broken-up exes at the start of FF1, while the wedding is something we see at the end of FF2:Rise of Silver Surfer. The Josh Trank one had teenage versions of the FF. But you know, a superhero-superheroine marriage is pretty conventional for Marvel.

    Spider-Man and MJ are the only superhero/civilian marriage in Marvel, which is more common in DC, so that makes it more unique and exceptional, and so worthy to maintain.



    I think you are confusing or at least not separating, appearances by Mary Jane and stories with the marriage. In that list of 25 [which by the way is separate from an earlier CBR list with (https://www.cbr.com/50-greatest-spid...-stories-10-6/) stories] MJ is there in The Night Gwen Stacy Died, KLH, Spider-Man No More. She appears in those stories in top 10.

    Across the entire 25 in that list you put out, the following stories takes place during the marriage (KLH, Coming Home, The Conversation, Back in Black, Marvel Knights: Spider-Man, Venom, Maximum Carnage, Spider-Man Blue, Best of Enemies). That's 9. Spider-Verse is an ambiguous example since as a crossover with different AU Spider-Man, some of the Spiders we see did marry MJ. If you add in just MJ's appearances without marriage you have stories like (Night Gwen Stacy Died, Spider-Man No More, Spider-Island, The Hobgoblin Saga) from 616, with the one USM story (Death of Spider-Man) also featuring an AU version of her. So some 15 stories in that list feature MJ (both single and married). The stories that figure high in that list without her are mostly stuff that was written before her first real appearance (AF#15, ASM Annual #1, If this be my destiny).

    Across all of Spider-Man's publication history in 616, Spider-Man's most common recurring characters are Jameson and Mary Jane. That was true before the marriage as well. So yeah randomly you can find Spider-Man stories without MJ, but it's not the case that random is representative. Randomly you can find the Superman comic where he travelled back in time in the Silver Age and tricked the Natives into selling the land that became Metropolis.
    Was the divorce over his wife's objections, or was it over a fundamental disagreement neither was willing to budge on?

    As for some of the marriage stories, Coming Home was set while Peter and MJ were separated and most of Blue was set during the Lee/ Romita days.

  2. #227
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    MJ was far more popular than Gwen in that period to the point that MJ first appeared in the 1967 cartoon while Gwen was a no-show, and this when Gwen was alive.
    Mary Jane appeared in that single episode of the cartoon because it was an adaptation of Amazing Spider-Man #59, where she was part of the villain's plan.

  3. #228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Was the divorce over his wife's objections, or was it over a fundamental disagreement neither was willing to budge on?
    Peter B. says at the end, "I wasn't there for you when you needed me the most. I didn't even try." The shot of them signing the papers shows him signing first while she sits back and looks sadly, and he's the one trying to call her and then cutting off. So it's all done by him as part of his mid-life crisis spiral of self-destruction.

    As for some of the marriage stories, Coming Home was set while Peter and MJ were separated and most of Blue was set during the Lee/ Romita days.
    Both of them are stories set during the marriage. Coming Home definitely doesn't try and sell Peter as "young, single, and relatable" and so on. And Spider-Man: Blue is a nostalgia laden story about Gwen told from the perspective of a present where she died. And the final scene has Peter and MJ as a married couple. Any story set during the marriage status-quo belongs to it. And in either case, remove Coming Home (also the Conversation) and it's down from 15-13 stories on that CBR list in 2018 where MJ appears in "Best of Stories" set either before and during the marriage, and Post-OMD. The argument and context was on how essential MJ is to Spider-Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    Mary Jane appeared in that single episode of the cartoon because it was an adaptation of Amazing Spider-Man #59, where she was part of the villain's plan.
    They could have adapted a Gwen Stacy story too you know. At the end of the day, in the main cartoon series that aired when the books were young, Gwen didn't show up despite being alive in the books at the time, while MJ was introduced. That's a fact. Dodge that.

  4. #229
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    They could have adapted a Gwen Stacy story too you know. At the end of the day, in the main cartoon series that aired when the books were young, Gwen didn't show up despite being alive in the books at the time, while MJ was introduced. That's a fact. Dodge that.
    The cartoon didn't deal with subplots, or much of a supporting cast. It was all hero vs villain. Mary Jane was featured because she was part of the villain's plot in that story. That's why she didn't appear in any other episodes.

  5. #230
    All-New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    The cartoon didn't deal with subplots, or much of a supporting cast. It was all hero vs villain. Mary Jane was featured because she was part of the villain's plot in that story. That's why she didn't appear in any other episodes.
    I haven't properly watched the cartoon, but isn't the reason why Mary Jane was there instead of Gwen was because it's a nod to her immense popularity in the 60s? They even made her related to George Stacy when they could have just used Gwen and synergize with her place as the main girl in the comics but the cartoon seemingly erased her entirely.

  6. #231
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emmafrosting View Post
    I haven't properly watched the cartoon, but isn't the reason why Mary Jane was there instead of Gwen was because it's a nod to her immense popularity in the 60s? They even made her related to George Stacy when they could have just used Gwen and synergize with her place as the main girl in the comics but the cartoon seemingly erased her entirely.
    This is incredibly unlikely. For one thing, they'd have to know that Mary Jane was popular, and the only way they'd know that would be if Marvel actually communicated with them. If the idea was to boost the show by adding a popular cast member from the comics, she'd have been in more than one episode.

    Here's what Ralph Bakshi said about his time on the show: https://13thdimension.com/ralph-baks...-man-memories/

    “What I tried to do with those guys and my animators was to make it more realistic,” Bakshi, who took over the show in the second season, said in an interview that was reported by Geek. “I should also point out that my distaste for comic book publishers and editors rose vehemently at that point. Marvel Comics could care less what the guys on the coast were doing and they could care less what I was doing. In other words, they didn’t give a shit what I did with the show as long as they got their weekly stipend from ABC.”

    Bakshi didn’t stop there: “To me, it was utterly amazing in those days to get anything realistic. It was all such crap and Spider-Man to me was real. Marvel Comics, Simon and Kirby and Ditko were great. I broke my heart to do the show, which is why I was so angry at Marvel Comics because if they had been even a little helpful, the show would have been so much better.”

  7. #232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emmafrosting View Post
    I haven't properly watched the cartoon, but isn't the reason why Mary Jane was there instead of Gwen was because it's a nod to her immense popularity in the 60s? They even made her related to George Stacy when they could have just used Gwen and synergize with her place as the main girl in the comics but the cartoon seemingly erased her entirely.
    It's more likely to be that they preferred a redhead to a blonde in a one-episode appearance. Or maybe the guy who did the Fritz the Cat film liked the name Mary Jane.

  8. #233
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The other side
    Posts
    552

    Default

    I think it's a shame that some can't enjoy Spider-man without MJ being present. What does it say of Peter as a character if some will only accept him if he's attached to the hip with MJ. Shouldn't he be able to stand on his own and be his own character and carry his own book without having to rely on another character. Is he not the lead character and center of the spider-mythos, or do some see MJ as co-lead and co-center of the mythos? Doesn't making Peter so dependent on another weaken him as a character, regardless of the role she plays(wife/girlfriend/friend). I think it does Peter a great disservice to have him so tied to MJ that he's seen as less than if he's not with her. Aqua-man is dealing with this too in regards to Mera, and Tom King is doing it with Batman and Catwoman; making Bruce a pathetic sad sack because Selina stood him up. No character particularly leads of franchises should be so dependent on a supporting character to bolster them, regardless of what role they play. The idea that Spider-man as a title is only good if MJ is in speaks more to the readers being MJ fans than Peter fans.

  9. #234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The tall man View Post
    I think it's a shame that some can't enjoy Spider-man without MJ being present.
    The issue with the topic of this thread is "in spite of One More Day" and not "in spite of MJ". Mary Jane is still present in Spider-Man, and Marvel Comics titles, Post-OMD. So either case that's neither here nor there.

    What does it say of Peter as a character if some will only accept him if he's attached to the hip with MJ.
    It's more that people don't want one particular version of Peter after he had developed and grown up when he married Mary Jane. In story-telling you go from A to B to C to D where characters grow, change, and develop. Spider-Man is unusual among superhero comics for having a lot of growth and change, and for 20 years that status-quo lasted, sold very well (indeed the best-selling comics of the time). In the same way a lot of comments and posts across the board are not too happy with seeing the high school version of Peter all the time and want to see the college and grown-up version of the character. People who grow up reading a married Peter, would not want to read up about a single Peter.

    And once Peter got married to Mary Jane, she in-effect became the second most important character in the titles. So that's part of the territory.

    Doesn't making Peter so dependent on another weaken him as a character, regardless of the role she plays(wife/girlfriend/friend).
    Supporting characters enrich, deepen, and make the lead character more developed and rounded. The bigger the role they have in your titles, the more interesting and shaded is your character. The "strength" of a character isn't about their total lack of dependence on other characters. The Punisher for instance is not a character with a rich supporting cast, and you can tell the story of Punisher without a lot of them, but that's because Frank Castle is a fairly simple and one-dimensional character.

    I think it does Peter a great disservice to have him so tied to MJ that he's seen as less than if he's not with her.
    The issue with OMD is only them being married. In the Spider-Man titles after that, Mary Jane is still Peter's closest friend, confidant, and currently in Spencer's run, they're back together as a couple. It's not "with or without MJ" it's about them being married, or Spider-Man being married, and what are the issues some have with that.

    Aqua-man is dealing with this too in regards to Mera, and Tom King is doing it with Batman and Catwoman; making Bruce a pathetic sad sack because Selina stood him up. No character particularly leads of franchises should be so dependent on a supporting character to bolster them, regardless of what role they play.
    The stories you mention are about providing internal character drama and conflict to those respective characters and looking at their relationships is a compelling way for that to happen. Relationships deepen and make your characters more complex and interesting. The Peter Parker who married MJ for instance had an emotional depth and complexity that the Post-OMD Peter does not have, and can never have. Any good story needs to have characters who provide the emotional center of the story, especially when you are dealing with characters who have superpowers and other stuff. That's what supporting characters do, and it's the role the best supporting characters occupy in stories across the genre. You can tell the story of Harry Potter without say Ron Weasley, who isn't much use in the story. But emotionally, he's the most normal and everyman like of that group, and for Harry, Ron is his best friend, brother and connection to the only real family he had ever known.

  10. #235
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The tall man View Post
    I think it's a shame that some can't enjoy Spider-man without MJ being present. What does it say of Peter as a character if some will only accept him if he's attached to the hip with MJ. Shouldn't he be able to stand on his own and be his own character and carry his own book without having to rely on another character. Is he not the lead character and center of the spider-mythos, or do some see MJ as co-lead and co-center of the mythos? Doesn't making Peter so dependent on another weaken him as a character, regardless of the role she plays(wife/girlfriend/friend). I think it does Peter a great disservice to have him so tied to MJ that he's seen as less than if he's not with her. Aqua-man is dealing with this too in regards to Mera, and Tom King is doing it with Batman and Catwoman; making Bruce a pathetic sad sack because Selina stood him up. No character particularly leads of franchises should be so dependent on a supporting character to bolster them, regardless of what role they play. The idea that Spider-man as a title is only good if MJ is in speaks more to the readers being MJ fans than Peter fans.
    That makes quite a few assumptions, quite a few I know aren't true about everyone in the demographic.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  11. #236
    Mighty Member Zeitgeist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The tall man View Post
    I think it's a shame that some can't enjoy Spider-man without MJ being present. What does it say of Peter as a character if some will only accept him if he's attached to the hip with MJ. Shouldn't he be able to stand on his own and be his own character and carry his own book without having to rely on another character. Is he not the lead character and center of the spider-mythos, or do some see MJ as co-lead and co-center of the mythos?
    From your mouth to God's ears~
    ♪ღ♪*..* *..*♪ღ♪.* *..*♪ღ♪*

    ♪ღ♪░M░E░P░H░I░S░T░O░ W░A░S░ R░I░G░H░T░♪ღ♪

    *♪ღ♪*..* *..*♪.* *..*♪ღ♪

  12. #237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeitgeist View Post
    From your mouth to God's ears~
    I think you mean Mephisto.

  13. #238
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The tall man View Post
    I think it's a shame that some can't enjoy Spider-man without MJ being present. What does it say of Peter as a character if some will only accept him if he's attached to the hip with MJ. Shouldn't he be able to stand on his own and be his own character and carry his own book without having to rely on another character. Is he not the lead character and center of the spider-mythos, or do some see MJ as co-lead and co-center of the mythos? Doesn't making Peter so dependent on another weaken him as a character, regardless of the role she plays(wife/girlfriend/friend). I think it does Peter a great disservice to have him so tied to MJ that he's seen as less than if he's not with her. Aqua-man is dealing with this too in regards to Mera, and Tom King is doing it with Batman and Catwoman; making Bruce a pathetic sad sack because Selina stood him up. No character particularly leads of franchises should be so dependent on a supporting character to bolster them, regardless of what role they play. The idea that Spider-man as a title is only good if MJ is in speaks more to the readers being MJ fans than Peter fans.
    Wrong, wrong and yes wrong. Just because many of us ( myself included) prefer Pete with MJ does not mean we cannot appriciate a good story if it does not include MJ. That is like not watching the Super Bowl because our favorite team ( the Steelers for me) are not playing.What I do not like is seeing Peter acting like a frat boy unable to make decisions, hold a job or a woman, and constantly disrespected. Basically forgetting the Responsibility part of "With great power comes great responsibility." Which we usually saw Post-BND under Slott. I am happy to say Spencer actually gets this concept. The ending of Hunted proved it. Instead of having Pete kill Kraven and make him miserable, he lets Kraven essentially kill himself. I am expecting to see more happiness and victories for Pete ( although there will always be issues) and. being an ADULT and Married to MJ instead of acting like a child ( see Silk as Exhibit A as a big part if it.
    Last edited by NC_Yankee; 05-30-2019 at 07:05 AM.

  14. #239
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The other side
    Posts
    552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NC_Yankee View Post
    Wrong, wrong and yes wrong. Just because many of us ( myself included) prefer Pete with MJ does not mean we cannot appriciate a good story if it does not include MJ. That is like not watching the Super Bowl because our favorite team ( the Steelers for me) are not playing.What I do not like is seeing Peter acting like a frat boy unable to make decisions, hold a job or a woman, and constantly disrespected. Basically forgetting the Responsibility part of "With great power comes great responsibility." Which we usually saw Post-BND under Slott. I am happy to say Spencer actually gets this concept. The ending of Hunted proved it. Instead of having Pete kill Kraven and make him miserable, he lets Kraven essentially kill himself. I am expecting to see more happiness and victories for Pete ( although there will always be issues) and. being an ADULT and Married to MJ instead of acting like a child ( see Silk as Exhibit A as a big part if it.
    Peter is more than capable of being a non-frat boy functioning adult, making decisions, holding a steady job and relationship and being respected. He doesn't need MJ for any of that, the writers just have to portray it. And again saying he is not a responsible person because he's not married to MJ proves my point. Why is she needed for any of that when he is more that capable if allowed. And if he was all that you say he's currently not then I suspect that there would be something else wrong with his portrayal because he's no longer married. With the die-hards its marriage or nothing.

  15. #240
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The tall man View Post
    Peter is more than capable of being a non-frat boy functioning adult, making decisions, holding a steady job and relationship and being respected. He doesn't need MJ for any of that, the writers just have to portray it. And again saying he is not a responsible person because he's not married to MJ proves my point. Why is she needed for any of that when he is more that capable if allowed. And if he was all that you say he's currently not then I suspect that there would be something else wrong with his portrayal because he's no longer married. With the die-hards its marriage or nothing.
    Here is my question when is the last time Peter was allowed to be an adult without MJ? Maybe against Rhino when he unmasked to talk to him? With the rare exceptions of the Rhino story and the Master Planner Saga, it has not happened. Look at BND for example. Slott had a decade without the marriage to show Peter as an adult. Did he? The answer is obvious. But it is not just Slott. Marvel has had over half a century to do this. When will they?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •