Undoing One More Day - Consequences?

[CrimsonEchidna]

There's got to be a point coming up soon, maybe about 5 years from now, where a good section of regular Spidey readers are people who have come in after One More Day and absolutely do not care about any of this or the Spider-Marriage. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Marvel are banking on it.

That's the thing, I think Marvel is going to ultimately have their cake and eat it too. Where even if they break Mephisto's deal or "hold" on Peter's soul, it still won't end with Peter and MJ getting remarried.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

All else being equal... the younger someone is, the more I would trust them with undoing OMD.

I say this for several reasons:

1. Millenials and Zoomers are more likely to think of MJ as Peter's one and only true love due to their early exposure to the Raimi films, Spider-Man TAS, Bendis, and the recent resurgence in Peter/MJ content (ITSV, the Insomniac game, etc.).

2. Millenials and Zoomers are more likely to view age as just a number due to the higher need for constant education and the lack of opportunities from their younger years. Someone from this generation is less likely to have a problem with a grown-up Spider-Man or to perceive his story as "over".

3. Millenials and Zoomers are less likely to buy into gender stereotypes that contributed to OMD, like the belief that men can't be monogamous.

[Somecrazyaussie]

May Parker was already stillborn at the end of the Clone Saga. Judging by RYV, the daughter they would have had if OMD hadn't happened would be their second child, Anna-May "Annie" Parker. That said, if undoing OMD gives Peter and Mary Jane the chance to start a family . . . so much the better.

They never showed the body. Remember that nurse working for Norman slipped MJ something to induce the pregnancy before she could go full term. It was never addressed (apart from Spider-Girl) in the main book proper.

In saying that, undoing OMD likely wouldn't bring the child back. Heck, it won't even bring the pregnancy back. It will just be addressed and overcome. Peter and MJ will then have a opportunity to remarry down the line (provided Marvel allows it).

[Somecrazyaussie]

There's got to be a point coming up soon, maybe about 5 years from now, where a good section of regular Spidey readers are people who have come in after One More Day and absolutely do not care about any of this or the Spider-Marriage. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Marvel are banking on it.

Yes, but Peter and MJ are the "couple" in other mediums. So the pairing has mileage with audiences outside the comics. She is Peter's main love interest and has been longer than Gwen or Felicia ever were. So I wouldn't count that factor out. Not in current shipping culture where people absolutely want characters to end up together "happily ever after."

[Somecrazyaussie]

I'm still uncomfortable with Mephisto having that type of time warp/reality warp power to begin with. (in other words, why hasn't he done it elsewhere with other heroes/villains?)

I'm not interested in "restoring" the marriage.. and I'm also not interested in killing aunt may.. Get Strange involved, Loki, whoever it takes..

What I can't get is why they used Mephisto in the first place. All he did was time travel back to before the wedding and changed a certain instance so the marriage didn't happen. Strange has time travelled, Doom has a sound time travel machine. That's where the story comes apart for me and is a glaring plot hole. The only reason why others didn't pursue that option is from fear of changing the timeline.

[PCN24454]

What I can't get is why they used Mephisto in the first place. All he did was time travel back to before the wedding and changed a certain instance so the marriage didn't happen. Strange has time travelled, Doom has a sound time travel machine. That's where the story comes apart for me and is a glaring plot hole. The only reason why others didn't pursue that option is from fear of changing the timeline.

They thought Mephisto would be cooler.

[Huntsman Spider]

They thought Mephisto would be cooler.

Should've been Loki. He (technically she, at the time) owed Spidey a favor for saving his/her mortal daughter from being body-jacked by an ancient witch and that favor could've been used, albeit with Loki as his/her trickster self twisting the terms of that favor (and the timeline) so Peter never got married, thinking s/he was doing him a solid.

[PCN24454]

Should've been Loki. He (technically she, at the time) owed Spidey a favor for saving his/her mortal daughter from being body-jacked by an ancient witch and that favor could've been used, albeit with Loki as his/her trickster self twisting the terms of that favor (and the timeline) so Peter never got married, thinking s/he was doing him a solid.

That would've been too obvious. They like surprising readers.

[Zeitgeist]

2) Readers who read the JMS run are in fact young millennials who came in to the comics from the Raimi movies and came to love and accept the Spider-Marriage. And that readership given that they were 10-12 or younger than that when the marriage went away, essentially meant that Marvel Comics formed a blood vendetta with the Spider-Man Millennial generation, and that generation has passed on that vendetta to the Zoomer and Zilennial generation.

The JMS run was 20 years ago, Raimi's Spider-Man 19 - that's about a generation, right there. There's been two large reboots since then, the most recent MCU version being the one that is absolutely dominating the public consciousness, which is the iteration your zoomers care about most: a young, fledgling, unmarried Spider-man. If you're championing JMS and Raimi as your tentpole Spidey, I'd say you're in danger of being a man out of time here, Cap. Zoomers don't care about that, they're too busy making J-Pop soundtracked Tik Toks of Tom Holland and jake Gyllenhaal bro-ing out.

3) Several of Spider-Man's best selling comics -- Kraven's Last Hunt, the Wedding, Todd MacFarlane's collaboration with Michelinie featured a married Spider-Man, which means historically the married Spider-Man is forever.

It means he was married at a point in time. Some of the most popular Spidey comics are his early adventures from the 60's, but of course you wouldn't say that means historically the teenage Spider-Man is forever, despite that actually being the bigger cross-media precedent than him being married.
Actually now that I think about it, yes, teenage Spider-Man is more forever.

The fact is that a small percentage of consumers of Spider-Man in other media (merchandise -- the number one media of Spider-Man by far, movies, cartoons, games) will come to read comics. And of the lot, only a smaller subset become hardcore 616 Spider-Man fans. The ones who become 616 Spider-Man fans will care about continuity, legacy, look up classic stories. And the minute they peruse the "Best-Of" lists and find KLH and other JMS era in that collection, they will learn about the marriage.

And they'll learn about the Spider-Buggy. And Peter's robot parents.

So the fact is the marriage is forever. It's an immovable and it's not ever going to be gotten over.

Ben Reilly is forever but that doesn't mean he's going to become Spider-Man again someday. I'd say "Gwen Stacy was forever and now look at her", but she's actually had a resurgence. Maybe in 40 years something will happen again? Never say never I guess, though you have to wait for something to be old to be new again. What I want to know is where is the "blood vendetta" for all those Gwen Stacy stans who came to love and accept her during the Amazing films, cause there's something I'll actually blood vendetta for

Spider-man was married for twenty years (not counting various times MJ was written out of the book). One More Day is now 15 years old. I remember one of the big reasons people used to say that they couldn't get rid of the marriage was because it was such a big portion of Spider-man's history. Anybody that still uses that argument is lying to you.

That's exactly the thing - the more time moves on, the more that window moves away, and the more the real estate of that portion minimises.

Yes, but Peter and MJ are the "couple" in other mediums. So the pairing has mileage with audiences outside the comics. She is Peter's main love interest and has been longer than Gwen or Felicia ever were. So I wouldn't count that factor out. Not in current shipping culture where people absolutely want characters to end up together "happily ever after."

True, but look at recent big media tentpoles of note: Amazing Spider-Man films focused on Gwen Stacy. While she was a part of schmuck Spidey's backstory, MJ was relegated to a cameo in Into The Spider-Verse. MCU films focus on a "MJ" that's a MJ in name only (which is fine with me, I love Zendaya's Michelle Jones). The only thing that cares about Peter and MJ as a couple was Spider-Man PS4 (and even that made her a reporter to try and bring a fresh spin). The reason why is because like Bruce's parents being murdered or Uncle Ben being shot, some stories have just been told already. Why portray them as "one true loves UwU" once again when you can flip the script and portray Peter as being out of shape and depressed over them being on the rocks? Doesn't mean they as a OTP won't be touched on again, but creative forces usually look for more fertile soil to mine. You can mine soil, right

[Tendrin]

Whoops! /10char

[Kaitou D. Kid]

The JMS run was 20 years ago, Raimi's Spider-Man 19 - that's about a generation, right there. There's been two large reboots since then, the most recent MCU version being the one that is absolutely dominating the public consciousness, which is the iteration your zoomers care about most: a young, fledgling, unmarried Spider-man. If you're championing JMS and Raimi as your tentpole Spidey, I'd say you're in danger of being a man out of time here, Cap. Zoomers don't care about that, they're too busy making J-Pop soundtracked Tik Toks of Tom Holland and jake Gyllenhaal bro-ing out.

Holland's version is also still in high school and a lot of its newest fans are also in high school. The older that character gets (which Feige has already said he wants to eventually grow older like the Harry Potter films), and the older Holland's younger fans will get, the more they'll care about marriage and other adult aspects of Spider-Man. We saw a similar pattern with the Millenials who were introduced to Spider-Man via Bendis and then went on to reading JMS.

It means he was married at a point in time. Some of the most popular Spidey comics are his early adventures from the 60's, but of course you wouldn't say that means historically the teenage Spider-Man is forever, despite that actually being the bigger cross-media precedent than him being married.
Actually now that I think about it, yes, teenage Spider-Man is more forever.

The difference is that you can enjoy high school Spider-Man while knowing he has to eventually grow up. I was 11 when I got into High School Spider-Man but even then I still knew he couldn't stay there forever. There is practically no one who enjoys the marriage that wants him to eventually be single again.

Ben Reilly is forever but that doesn't mean he's going to become Spider-Man again someday. I'd say "Gwen Stacy was forever and now look at her", but she's actually had a resurgence. Maybe in 40 years something will happen again? Never say never I guess, though you have to wait for something to be old to be new again. What I want to know is where is the "blood vendetta" for all those Gwen Stacy stans who came to love and accept her during the Amazing films, cause there's something I'll actually blood vendetta for

You are correct that there has been a Gwen Stacy resurgence in recent years, but a lot of it is with Spider-Gwen who is portrayed as younger than Peter and is never played up as his love interest (to the extent she is anyone's love interest, it's usually Miles').

The Emma Stone version was also very popular, but that version was also marketed as someone meant to die and not someone who Peter could be with long-term. All my non-comic-reading friends at the time referred to her as "the bitch who dies" because that's all they knew about her. I'm sure she increased interest in Gwen over MJ for some people, but I doubt it was as much as the BND crew would think. Even then, that was almost a decade ago. Peter is back with MJ (or "a" MJ) in every medium.

That's exactly the thing - the more time moves on, the more that window moves away, and the more the real estate of that portion minimises.

Real time by itself isn't the only factor in what sticks in people's minds and what doesn't. To use your earlier example, high school Spider-Man is very memorable and left a huge cultural impact in spite of being in high school for only two years in the real world.

Time would have had more of a factor if the Slott era was more critically acclaimed than what came before, but for the most part it hasn't been. That's not even counting what Nick Spencer is doing, who is relying heavily on Spider-nostalgia and has teased the marriage on multiple occasions. When you have all that going on, it's practically impossible for a New New fan to 616 Spider-Man to disconnect himself from pre-OMD Spider-Man.

True, but look at recent big media tentpoles of note: Amazing Spider-Man films focused on Gwen Stacy. While she was a part of schmuck Spidey's backstory, MJ was relegated to a cameo in Into The Spider-Verse. MCU films focus on a "MJ" that's a MJ in name only (which is fine with me, I love Zendaya's Michelle Jones). The only thing that cares about Peter and MJ as a couple was Spider-Man PS4 (and even that made her a reporter to try and bring a fresh spin). The reason why is because like Bruce's parents being murdered or Uncle Ben being shot, some stories have just been told already. Why portray them as "one true loves UwU" once again when you can flip the script and portray Peter as being out of shape and depressed over them being on the rocks? Doesn't mean they as a OTP won't be touched on again, but creative forces usually look for more fertile soil to mine. You can mine soil, right

The MJ from the PS4 game didn't take that many more creative liberties from Raimi's MJ or Bendis'. So far the only version of MJ to be like the 616 version was Spectacular Spider-Man's. Still, that didn't stop those who grew up with Raimi and Bendis' versions from loving MJ and wanting to see her and Peter married.

As for ITSV, Peter B. Parker is the second main character of that film and his story and character arc revolves heavily around his relationship with MJ. I don't know if someone can watch ITSV and not think of MJ.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The JMS run was 20 years ago,

It lasted from 2001-2007, so it was 15 years ago. We usually date the full run and not when it begins. When it ends is when we count away from.

Raimi's Spider-Man 19

Spider-Man was released in 2002 and not in the 90s, lol.

It's actually celebrating its 20th Anniversary next year. The only Spider-Man movie to crack $400mn domestic ($629mn adjusted for inflation). Far ahead of any live-action Spidey after it.

There's been two large reboots since then, the most recent MCU version being the one that is absolutely dominating the public consciousness,

Iron man and the MCU sure, since MCU spidey is an IM-subfranchise after all.

In either case it doesn't matter. Movies aren't the first point of contact between consumers and Spider-Man. It's toys and kids merch. The merchandise ensures that people are introduced to Spider-Man long before they meet Peter Parker or care about what age he's in.

I'd say you're in danger of being a man out of time here, Cap. Zoomers don't care about that,

My advice don't be the one speaking on behalf of zoomers. Talk to some real ones, and take care not to spout marketing doctrine.

Some of the most popular Spidey comics are his early adventures from the 60's,

Not at all. Spider-Man's comics sales increased by a quantum when he went to college. Lee-Romita's Spider-Man outsold the Lee-Ditko one. You might have a better case with Ultimate Spider-Man released in 2000.

Actually now that I think about it, yes, teenage Spider-Man is more forever.

First Spider-Man cartoon with him as teenager came out in 2008, USM came out in 2000. Majority of Spider-Man in 616 features him as an older superhero.

What I want to know is where is the "blood vendetta" for all those Gwen Stacy stans who came to love and accept her during the Amazing films, cause there's something I'll actually blood vendetta for.

Those movies didn't make as much money as the Raimi ones. And besides whatever people liked about Emma Gwen is there in Spider-Gwen and the better for it.

That's exactly the thing - the more time moves on, the more that window moves away, and the more the real estate of that portion minimises.

Far more eyeballs have read the married era than have read the OMD era and that number will increase and not contract as time passes. Spider-Man's marriage happened after all on the character's 25th Anniversary (in 1987).

While she was a part of schmuck Spidey's backstory, MJ was relegated to a cameo in Into The Spider-Verse.

I recommend actually seeeing the movie rather than posting about it. There are two MJs in that movie. And the other MJ gives the defining speech of the film, "We are all Spider-Man."

[Kevinroc]

Insomnaic's Spider-Man game sold over 20 million units. Why is it being so undervalued in this thread?

(I'd also like to add that they cast Zoe Kravitz to play MJ in Into The Spider-Verse.)

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Insomnaic's Spider-Man game sold over 20 million units. Why is it being so undervalued in this thread?

(I'd also like to add that they cast Zoe Kravitz to play MJ in Into The Spider-Verse.)

There is a reason why Quesada always uses "future generations" as a justification for OMD instead of actual sales numbers. It's because no evidence of his assertion exists.

Quesada and the BND crew know this, so we are constantly told that "someday" a grown-up and/or married Spider-Man will cease to sell.

Over a decade since OMD and we're still waiting for the prophecy to come true...

[Kevinroc]

There is a reason why Quesada always uses "future generations" as a justification for OMD instead of actual sales numbers. It's because no evidence of his assertion exists.

There is never any justification for such a bad story. They just didn't care.