How does Marvel feel about the character of MJ?

[Frontier]

Yeah that's what I was trying to state by my initial comment. That, with Spider-Gwen around, MJ and Gwen aren't seen as direct competitors as they had been traditionally.

Let alone friends either, it seems.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The nineties and the noughties (up until OMD) did a lot to establish MJ as Marvel's Lois Lane.

Honestly, I think Mary Jane has become her own thing in the same sense that Tony Stark is no longer simply "Marvel Bruce Wayne".

People forget this but Mary Jane married Peter in the main comics nearly 10 years before Lois did in the comics. Likewise, MJ learned Peter's identity and became his confidant about his double life in the '80s, when DC at the same time still run through Silver Age "loves Supes meh about Clark" thing. Post-Crisis Lois was the first ongoing version of the character to learn Superman's identity.

Lois has borrowed far more from MJ in a larger sense than vice-versa imo.

[Frontier]

Honestly, I think Mary Jane has become her own thing in the same sense that Tony Stark is no longer simply "Marvel Bruce Wayne".

People forget this but Mary Jane married Peter in the main comics nearly 10 years before Lois did in the comics. Likewise, MJ learned Peter's identity and became his confidant about his double life in the '80s, when DC at the same time still run through Silver Age "loves Supes meh about Clark" thing. Post-Crisis Lois was the first ongoing version of the character to learn Superman's identity.

Lois has borrowed far more from MJ in a larger sense than vice-versa imo.

I don't think it needs to be a competition. Both are probably one of the most iconic love interests of the entire genre and probably one of the most popular and recognizable civilian characters and both have made their mark in term of the potential for women in comic book stories.

[Spider-Tiger]

That's generally what I meant. That Mary Jane became Marvel's most iconic and most prominently featured love interest as Lois had been in DC comics for decades. Not necessarily that one borrowed characteristics from the other.

[Scott Taylor]

It's more that Brand New Day was promoted and sold as a kind of justification for One More Day. Quesada said that the marriage restricted stories and so on. A brassy title like "brand new day" (which implies that what happened before was 'yesterday' or old and so on...cheap marketing subtext and all that) was intended to sell that era as "new Spider-Man on the block" in the 'what up cool kids' sense.

BND was generally mediocre and in most cases rehashes of stuff that was done before, and in a large sense, it failed to make the case for OMD i.e. a) These stories needed to happen, b) They could only have happened without the marriag.e

-- When Spider-Man graduated and went to college...Lee-Ditko whipped up The Master Planner Saga, a story that could only ever have been told with a college age Peter.
-- When Spider-Man got married...DeMatteis-Zeck gave us Kraven's Last Hunt, which works the way it does because of the marriage.

Both the previous cases when you had a major status-quo change, you had an instant masterpiece. In the case of OMD...you didn't have that. No defender of BND will claim reasonably that any story in that run is on the level of the MP Saga and KLH. Is that a tall and unfair order, i.e. asking BND writers to do a KLH and MP level story? Sure, but then when you make a big change in the continuity, you do need to back it up.

BND's worst crime was that it sucked so hard right out of the gate. All those Freak fans loved it, I'm sure.

But you can basically ignore the entirely of BND and not have missed anything of any import whatsoever. In retrospect maybe Marvel was just intent on playing it really safe? They knew OMD was going to be controversial.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

But you can basically ignore the entirely of BND and not have missed anything of any import whatsoever.

That's basically true of any run on Spider-Man post-OMD. I mean if you read Back in Black, skipped OMD/BND, and Slott's entire run, and then read Spencer's first issue...you can pick up right where you left off and miss nothing. OMD is designed to set a permanent status-quo in that no story set after it will be as important and defining as it was on the continuity...so any story after it is not intended to be essential.

Not that I disagree with your take on BND, mind you.

In retrospect maybe Marvel was just intent on playing it really safe? They knew OMD was going to be controversial.

The comments made by Marvel people at that time was to the effect, "no matter what we do, people will hate us" so that I think made everyone hostile reflexively to criticism and go in with a siege mentality. So any criticism made was basically to go "they just like the marriage and they hate us" and so on and so forth.

In the defense of BND writers:

1) OMD is impossible to follow-on with the brief that Quesada gave them. OMD is a phenomenally demoralizing story in addition to being a bad story. The way OMD ended with the continuity shenanigans and so on, meant that readers and others were outright confused about what happened, and it took like 2 years before an even worse story like OMIT plugged holes. BND writers were given a brief to do Peter Parker as if he was back in the 80s in the Stern-Defalco era and do Spider-Man as if it's cheerful and upbeat but that basically created a whiplash after OMD since the writers had to pretend it didn't happen even if that story happening is the reason for BND.

2) The other thing is, that the BND writers are on record saying that they would have written Spider-Man -- marriage or no marriage (Mark Waid was the exception but he came in later). So the fact is that the writers behind BND didn't really have skin in the game for selling BND as a status-quo and making the case for it. So it came off as a bunch of writers doing professional gigs for a major title who had to be both defensive and apologetic at the same time and we never got any real conviction in the stories they did put out. Marc Guggenheim and Slott said, in that time, they are writing for fans who like Spider-Man with or without marriage...which is the kind of "middle-road" concept that never works. The romances they tried to sell as Post-MJ love interests were obviously placeholders not meant to last, and the fact that they themselves didn't buy it showed in the page.

Of course that raises the question...should BND have been written by people with actual conviction that "post-married Spider-Man will allow one to tell stories intrinsically better than married Spider-man"? Would that have been better than what we got? Because the issue is both at the same time. They are following a very demoralizing story and go about pretending said demoralizing story didn't happen, and then you have writers who basically are left holding the bag and writing while holding the bag at the same time.

[Lukmendes]

I think another thing is, whether people like admitting it or not, Spider-Gwen is starting to overtake regular Gwen Stacy in the public conscious.

Not that much of a challenge, she was only known as that girl who died, and then adaptations mostly avoided killing her, or even having her around, to avoid doing the obvious, Spider-Gwen has more **** to tell than "I died that one time" lol.

[WebLurker]

Why do people dislike Dan Slott? Think of this quote: “Attitude, not aptitude determines altitude.” ( Zig Ziglar). Basically his attitude sucked. Think of his snarky comments “Peter as Charlie Brown” or “No use for MJ.” He had to have known what the reaction would be. He also basically gave the finger to fans with stories like “Jackpot” which once again was designed to get a certain reaction. Personally speaking I can live with bad stories ( like I have tolerated bad hockey from my New York Islanders for decades), but giving me the finger? No way.

Like I said, I don't hold him in high regard, either as a writer or as a netizen. Still, I found it a bit beyond the pale how he was the go-to whipping boy for everything wrong with Spider-Man, claims that he lied about everything, and that he was apparently evil or something.

The comments made by Marvel people at that time was to the effect, "no matter what we do, people will hate us" so that I think made everyone hostile reflexively to criticism and go in with a siege mentality. So any criticism made was basically to go "they just like the marriage and they hate us" and so on and so forth.

Think that was true, to an extent; while I'm sure there readers who were okay with the retcon so long as they liked the stories that came next, a lot of the vocal fanbase who were unhappy where those who didn't want the marriage to end and nothing would've been an acceptable compromise on that.

Of course that raises the question...should BND have been written by people with actual conviction that "post-married Spider-Man will allow one to tell stories intrinsically better than married Spider-man"? Would that have been better than what we got? Because the issue is both at the same time. They are following a very demoralizing story and go about pretending said demoralizing story didn't happen, and then you have writers who basically are left holding the bag and writing while holding the bag at the same time.

Phoning it in rarely works, although I do have respect for people who are given a job they may not have a stake in and still carry it out. In a business where the inmates have been running the asylum for years and the consumers tend to have very strong opinions on the products (some of whom can and have grown up into the inmates in question), I think it's really hard to separate your personal preferences from what's objectively the best path forward or to commit yourself to a project that you disagree with.

[NC_Yankee]

Like I said, I don't hold him in high regard, either as a writer or as a netizen. Still, I found it a bit beyond the pale how he was the go-to whipping boy for everything wrong with Spider-Man, claims that he lied about everything, and that he was apparently evil or something.



Think that was true, to an extent; while I'm sure there readers who were okay with the retcon so long as they liked the stories that came next, a lot of the vocal fanbase who were unhappy where those who didn't want the marriage to end and nothing would've been an acceptable compromise on that.



Phoning it in rarely works, although I do have respect for people who are given a job they may not have a stake in and still carry it out. In a business where the inmates have been running the asylum for years and the consumers tend to have very strong opinions on the products (some of whom can and have grown up into the inmates in question), I think it's really hard to separate your personal preferences from what's objectively the best path forward or to commit yourself to a project that you disagree with.

I never said “Dan Slott is evil” that word should be reserved for people who are criminals. I have also not held him responsible for everything bad ( he did not create Clone Saga, The Other, Sins Past and OMD those happened before him), and Quesada bears responsibility as well. My problem with him was his snarky attitude and the realization that ASM cannot get better until he left the book ( As I said before Silk was the final straw). Did he do some good work? Yes RYV, and Spider Island to name two, but overall I consider his run to be a failure.

[Agent Z]

Why do people dislike Dan Slott? Think of this quote: “Attitude, not aptitude determines altitude.” ( Zig Ziglar). Basically his attitude sucked. Think of his snarky comments “Peter as Charlie Brown” or “No use for MJ.” He had to have known what the reaction would be. He also basically gave the finger to fans with stories like “Jackpot” which once again was designed to get a certain reaction. Personally speaking I can live with bad stories ( like I have tolerated bad hockey from my New York Islanders for decades), but giving me the finger? No way.

Does any of this really justify fans being so aggressive towards him including death threats over Superior Spider-Man? This is pretty harmless compared to what he received in return and I say this as someone who dislikes some of Slott's writing when it comes to Spider-Man.

[WebLurker]

I never said “Dan Slott is evil” that word should be reserved for people who are criminals. I have also not held him responsible for everything bad ( he did not create Clone Saga, The Other, Sins Past and OMD those happened before him), and Quesada bears responsibility as well. My problem with him was his snarky attitude and the realization that ASM cannot get better until he left the book ( As I said before Silk was the final straw). Did he do some good work? Yes RYV, and Spider Island to name two, but overall I consider his run to be a failure.

I was generalizing what I'd seen and heard overall. I mean, there was that blogger nutjob who spent pretty much most of Slott's run stalking and harassing him online just because he didn't like the guy's writing and personal beliefs and I saw other users on this forum that were pretty nasty to him, too. While I found Slott himself to be ill-mannered and kinda immature in how he dealt with fans (although I myself was never in a flame war with him for whatever reason -- and I made no secret that I didn't like his writing and thought that he the wrong choice for ASM), I think a lot of his critics who pushed back became the very thing they were fighting against.

[NC_Yankee]

I was generalizing what I'd seen and heard overall. I mean, there was that blogger nutjob who spent pretty much most of Slott's run stalking and harassing him online just because he didn't like the guy's writing and personal beliefs and I saw other users on this forum that were pretty nasty to him, too. While I found Slott himself to be ill-mannered and kinda immature in how he dealt with fans (although I myself was never in a flame war with him for whatever reason -- and I made no secret that I didn't like his writing and thought that he the wrong choice for ASM), I think a lot of his critics who pushed back became the very thing they were fighting against.

I certainly did not nor will I support death threats or violence against those I disagree with ( that applies to Slott, politicians or anyone else). The sad reality is there are crazy people out there who need to be locked up. The way to avoid stuff you do not like is to stop reading, batching, listening to or voting for the elements you do not care for. That is how I pushed back against Slott: Stopped reading the comic.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Think that was true, to an extent; while I'm sure there readers who were okay with the retcon so long as they liked the stories that came next, a lot of the vocal fanbase who were unhappy where those who didn't want the marriage to end and nothing would've been an acceptable compromise on that.

If there was a major story on the order of the MP Saga or KLH, that would have worked out. An essential Spider-Man story recognized as such by everyone. BND didn't really give that out of the gate.

Phoning it in rarely works, although I do have respect for people who are given a job they may not have a stake in and still carry it out. In a business where the inmates have been running the asylum for years and the consumers tend to have very strong opinions on the products (some of whom can and have grown up into the inmates in question), I think it's really hard to separate your personal preferences from what's objectively the best path forward or to commit yourself to a project that you disagree with.

If you are a writer and you get a chance to write ASM, then it's a gig that's hard to turn down. Amazing Spider-Man draws more eyes than any other Marvel title, more civilian eyes. The readership of Spider-Man more than any other Marvel title, includes people who will not go on and read other Marvel titles, or read other comics. It's often the introduction to the superhero genre for many people starting to read comics for the first time. For any writer who works on Spider-Man, that's the biggest readership they will ever have. It's a high from which you can never come down.

So again you have to feel for the BND writers in terms of the fact that they got a big gig and they have to do it in a period which no fault of their own, will always be the least charismatic, least loved, least read, and least revisited period in Spider-Man publication history.

[RD155]

If there was a major story on the order of the MP Saga or KLH, that would have worked out. An essential Spider-Man story recognized as such by everyone. BND didn't really give that out of the gate.



If you are a writer and you get a chance to write ASM, then it's a gig that's hard to turn down. Amazing Spider-Man draws more eyes than any other Marvel title, more civilian eyes. The readership of Spider-Man more than any other Marvel title, includes people who will not go on and read other Marvel titles, or read other comics. It's often the introduction to the superhero genre for many people starting to read comics for the first time. For any writer who works on Spider-Man, that's the biggest readership they will ever have. It's a high from which you can never come down.

So again you have to feel for the BND writers in terms of the fact that they got a big gig and they have to do it in a period which no fault of their own, will always be the least charismatic, least loved, least read, and least revisited period in Spider-Man publication history.

I understand what you are saying.

BND was never going to succeed based on what it was following regardless of how good the stories were. Another problem was that they tried to brainwash the fanbase in a sense by continuously stating things like "the marriage is holding us back"...."It limits him..." "It limits the stories we can tell". I'm still waiting for those amazing stories that can only be told through the eyes of an unmarried man child character. Slott did not have a good feel for the character. This is not to say that he doesn't know about Spider-man. Its obvious that the guy is a Spider nerd with endless knowledge on him. His skillset as a writer just never fit in well with the character. Personally I'm just not a fan of him as a person either and I've had back and forth conversations with him on a different website forum and his energy rubbed me completely the wrong way during those interactions as well.

[RD155]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CVwGMb6xGw

I remember listening to this interview years and years ago when OMD went down with Joey Q talking about MJ and the Marriage on Howard Stern. At the time of hearing this I never thought there would be a chance of MJ ever being a main star again or even talks of a marriage or ASM even being interesting to me again. Now there's a small little glimmer of hope. Maybe time does heal all wounds.