Would you like OMD to be undone?

[just another user]

I don't feel I can trust this poll as the poll starter has made the results anonymous. No transparency.

[MASTER-OF-SUPRISE]

I don't feel I can trust this poll as the poll starter has made the results anonymous. No transparency.

What do you mean?

[Coal Tiger]

What do you mean?

When you set up polls on CBR, you can set them so they show who voted for which option. This poll has that turned off, so we have no idea if either side is stacked with sockpuppet accounts. We all want the results to be trustworthy, right?

[5Eyes]

I doubt they will restore the marriage that those who want it restored in the way they want, Marvel has always had a distaste for Spider-man being married .. even from the start they thought it was a mistake .. they may restore the memory but the marriage I dont think they will, also as it seems people dont like another retcon but Marvel has done multiple retcon to correct issues... although not a wanted idea but IMO another retcon seems to be the way to go..

[Thinker4730]

Why isn't "I don't care" a choice?

"I don't care" isn't a choice because the point of this poll is to determine whether or not people want OMD undone and the marriage restored not for those who don't care to have a say in the matter.

Those who don't care take away votes from the whole point of the poll.

[Thinker4730]

OMD was already undone. OMIT needs to be undone, though.

Without OMD there would've never been an OMIT to begin with.

[Thinker4730]

I don't feel I can trust this poll as the poll starter has made the results anonymous. No transparency.

Anonymous?

I have no idea what you mean by that.

This is my first poll setup so if I did something wrong that makes you not trust it I would like to know how to make it not anonymous for future reference.

[Thinker4730]

When you set up polls on CBR, you can set them so they show who voted for which option. This poll has that turned off, so we have no idea if either side is stacked with sockpuppet accounts. We all want the results to be trustworthy, right?

This is my first poll setup and I didn't know it was going to be anonymous. Is there anyway I can fix it despite it being already setup the way it is?

[Pat Thomas]

I don't think they should go back and change a story from 5 or more years ago to satisfy a tiny contingent of internet fans. People who weren't reading at the time most likely
wouldn't know about it if it wasn't brought up in every other thread. It doesn't matter, especially the further away we move from the story. Are there people on here who are
still upset about things that happened in the 60's, 70's, or 80's because they read them then? And why would anybody care who wasn't reading them back then? Those stories
were just as new and important to the readers when they came out as OMD & OMIT are to this crowd, but they are ancient history and nobody gives a damn. That's exactly how
the next generation of readers will feel about these stories, because they only matter when readers refuse to let them go. OMD was in 2007- 7 years ago. That is 1 year short of
the time it takes for all of high school and a 4-year college curriculum. Isn't it time to let it go? Who is even the same person now that they were 7 years ago, anyway? That's a pretty
long time to be hung up on a comic book story.

[Pako]

A fun poll would be one on the demographics of the people who actually want the marriage back.

I bet its made up of mostly adults and the older demographic who grew up with the marriage.

[Vworp Vworp]

It happened. It sucked. It's been almost a decade. Most of us have moved on.

I don't think the time-scale and the moving on argument holds much water as a reason not to undo OMD.

After all, the marriage had been around for twice as long and clearly at least one man hadn't moved on from that. Unfortunately, he was the guy in charge.

[Vworp Vworp]

I don't think they should go back and change a story from 5 or more years ago to satisfy a tiny contingent of internet fans.

But isn't that exactly what OMD did?

[Phantom Roxas]

I doubt they will restore the marriage that those who want it restored in the way they want, Marvel has always had a distaste for Spider-man being married .. even from the start they thought it was a mistake .. they may restore the memory but the marriage I dont think they will, also as it seems people dont like another retcon but Marvel has done multiple retcon to correct issues... although not a wanted idea but IMO another retcon seems to be the way to go..

Where did you get the idea that everyone at Marvel thought it was a mistake as soon as it was made up? Roger Stern disagreed, yes, but that's only one writer. If you're going to make a generalization like that, you should back it up.

I don't think the time-scale and the moving on argument holds much water as a reason not to undo OMD.

After all, the marriage had been around for twice as long and clearly at least one man hadn't moved on from that. Unfortunately, he was the guy in charge.

But isn't that exactly what OMD did?

The whole "Two wrongs don't make a right" logic apparently extends this far. It's weird that OMD did something wrong, but apparently if enough time passes, criticisms of a work should become invalidated. However, say there's a series that has been over for quite some time, or a movie that's old and hasn't had any form of continuation, since that movie told a complete story. I could accept that, since those stories have finished, it would be weird to demand that the story should take a certain direction. Those stories have finished. Why should they be brought back to have this development occur?

Where One More Day fails in that argument is that, not only is it an arc in a story that is still ongoing, but as Vegeta pointed out, even Joe Quesada views OMD and OMIT as the first two parts of a trilogy. Will we ever see that third part? Have his plans changed? Does he even think it's appropriate to explore that third part anymore? I don't know. The point is, even when One More Day got a follow-up, the one who created it thought that there was something more to the story. I do not believe that it would have been about restoring the marriage, because if Quesada's intent was to break up the marriage, there is no way he would end the "trilogy" with something that would restore it.

Now, say Quesada were to actually write that story. The story would almost definitely be in Amazing Spider-Man. However, when would that happen? After Spider-Verse, does Slott take a "break" for a bit as Quesada writes this third story? Doubtful. Does he write it once Slott ends his run? Possibly, but that depends on the kind of transition Marvel would want when going from Slott to whoever the next writer would be. But regardless of if or when he writes the story, I guess the next question is, does it reset some kind of "counter"? If people are going to insist on this whole "It's been _ years!" argument, did OMIT reset that counter so now the argument is "It's only been four years!"? No, because people in this thread have cited the amount of time that has passed since OMD, so while I think it would be unfair to put words into their mouth, that does suggest that OMIT's existence didn't create some idea of "resetting the counter", which means that, if Quesada wrote the "third act", it would be weird if that affected this hypothetical "counter".

Putting that all aside, here is why the whole "It's been _ years!" argument is a load of crap: It can be undone. The series is still going. People love to say that no one at Marvel is interested in revisiting the story, but that doesn't consider that the writing staff at Marvel changes, or that someone could potentially make a pitch to Marvel that makes Marvel see value in the marriage. The idea that "no one cares" only makes sense if no one is allowed to care. People point to the idea that it's editorial who needs to change. The only reason people say that is that, after OMD, comments made from people like Tom Brevoort are seen as people by evidence that no one cares. However, it shouldn't just be Tom Brevoort people rely on as a source. Yes, he is in a position where he has a heavy influence, but the fewer people you use as a source, the harder it is to make a generalization about who is and who isn't a favor of a certain idea. Dan Slott? Alright, he's the writer, I get that. However, what if editorial tells him "We think it's time to get Peter and Mary Jane back together." Then people point to Tom Brevoort as saying that editorial wouldn't do that. But Brevoort, for all his authority in the company, still doesn't entirely represent all of editorial. This isn't like some government or secular structure, and Brevoort isn't The Grand Poobah Of All That Is And All That Shall Be At Marvel. Look at something more specific, like Nick Lowe, who is in charge of the Spider-Man books. Look even higher to Axel Alonso, who outranks Brevoort. Yes, I like to think that because Alonso was the senior editor of the Spider-Man books at the time of One More Day, he carries over Quesada's intentions, but I will also admit that that is pure paranoia. It's unfair to limit him to this idea that he's a "plant" that was chosen to replace Quesada because Quesada wanted to leave Marvel in the hands of someone who wouldn't undo what he did.

Of course, then you could say that, if Joe Quesada is the Chief Creative Officer, he doesn't need that assurance, because he could presumedly keep everything as he likes it all on his own. However, even that may not be true. He has said how he approaches his role as CCO differently from being the editor-in-chief, and given how the thing I linked to is from three years ago, that's bound to be outdated. He may be even less involved in the story details, which may his hurt chances of writing his "third act", or he could have changed over the years and could have found a way to make time to oversee the stories. Either way, though, I think he does have a position where, if you said "Peter should be married again", he'd reject that in a heartbeat.

You have Joe Quesada, Axel Alonso, Tom Brevoort, Nick Lowe, and Dan Slott as the people who could be opposed to the marriage to the marriage coming back. While I do think Quesada and Slott would definitely be opposed to the idea, I'm going to keep myself at a distance and concede to the possibility that they're not like Quesada and Slott. Slott's run on the book isn't eternal, though Quesada's time as EiC is a bit more difficult to predict in regards to when or if he'll leave, or if he actually could stop the marriage from happening. When he became EiC, he had three goals. Aside from the marriage, he also supported Civil War to make things unpredictable, and House of M cut down the number of mutants. I think the idea of Marvel being more "unpredictable" has become a standard for Marvel, ironically, with AXIS shaping up to be the next big proof of that. However, over the years, the number of mutants have gone back to increasing, so in terms of Quesada's goals, his most broad goal (Civil War) has become a standard, while a more specific one (House of M) has been reversed, yet Inhumanity seems to be trying to provide something similar to the "unique" feel of the X-Men. With One More Day also being more specific, the ideas are whether it's possible for its consequences to be seen as a "standard" like Civil War's intent did, or if it can be reversed, or if there's some alternative like, say, Peter gets married to someone else.

[Phantom Roxas]

Had to make two posts because I exceeded the character limit, which probably doesn't reflect well on the argument I'm trying to make, but honestly, I don't care.

Even in spite of all of that, if we had to speak in general terms, I think it's less that people aren't interested in telling that story, it's that people are afraid of suggesting that story. Yes, I believe people there are genuinely opposed to the marriage, but what about people who either don't mind it, or even support it? What if they think that it would be completely pointless in suggesting the story? What if they understand that Marvel wouldn't publish that story? What if they've already pitched a story, but editorial rejected it? Even if they've thought about a pitch that could win editorial over, Marvel still has to look at the "value" of this pitch compared to Slott's run. If Slott's run was winding down, then of course they would be preparing for the next writer, and if the pro-marriage pitch is the most enticing pitch to Marvel, then they'd go with that writer. However, Slott intends to have his run go on for a bit longer, so Marvel would be in a position where they would have to cut Slott's run short in favor of a new writer. However, that's extremely unlikely, to the point I might as well say it's impossible. They would have to compare the appeal of a married Spider-Man to how successful Slott's run is, and if they think that Slott's run is doing better for them, they're going to keep Slott around.

There are so many possibilities of how the creative, editorial, and marketing processes work, and I'm sure there are some I didn't even think to consider. But saying "It's been seven years, and everyone who has worked at Marvel and is working at Marvel right now doesn't want the marriage anyway, so you might as well get over it" is not only a sweeping judgment across everyone affiliated with Marvel, but also completely disrespects the feelings and opinions of others. People can be upset with something. We find it to be a mistake, but rather than trying to make a compromise with fans of the marriage, comments telling people to "get over it" are effectively saying that we are not allowed to show criticism. If we're pointing out these criticisms, why should be "get over it" because a story other stories are flawed? Yes, other stories are not flawed, but I'm not going to barge into a topic and say "Well, you may think that the symbiotes are characters that have had too much spotlight, and Carnage should stop having minis, but let me tell you about why I think the newest episode of Gravity Falls was awesome." It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I'm not bringing something out of left field to prove a point. I am not saying that, because I hold opinions of one story, I should be talking about one story.

So the question this raises is that, if people do see flaws with other Spider-Man stories, why is One More Day the one people seem to talk about the most? Because people do find it to be relevant. One More Day represents a point where they jumped off the book. Other bad stories could have happened that made them leave the book, but a later, good story could have brought them back, and since they would have gone back to the book, what point would there be to talk about the the story that made them leave to begin with? People don't like the Clone Saga or the 90's reboot, but they could have come back during JMS's run, and if OMD made them drop the book again, that's effectively adding salt to the wound. To those people, JMS was the writer who got them back into Spider-Man, and OMD was the story that alienated him. Because of that, they find OMD to be an insult to the very run that revived their interest. If someone didn't mind the book, and then dropped it at the time of Superior, it's Superior they hold the grudge against. And yet, Superior is done, so the people who just wanted a story with Peter as the main character got him back.

That's why people are so bitter about One More Day. Even if they were driven away before, something could have happened that, to them, makes up for that. What does Slott offer to these people that fills the void left by One More Day? Does the quality of his work allow people to accept that they are reading about a Peter Parker who was not married to Mary Jane? If a story drove people away from the character, and the stories are written in a way that practically celebrates the only reason One More Day could possibly be "justified" (Giving Peter as many love interests as possible, yet having Peter and Mary Jane be shown as better off without one another), then what the stories are telling those people is that "Hey, you know that story you really, really hated? Yeah, everything that's happening right now proves that story was totally the right choice to make." That doesn't automatically prove that the stories are better because of One More Day, it just says that One More Day informed how future stories can work. If the stories are not good, or if they cannot give people some hope, no matter how vain, that things can get better, then people aren't going to care what happens.

Those who oppose the marriage do so because they think that being a bachelor is core to Peter's character, and those who like the marriage do so because they think they hold Peter's relationship with Mary Jane as a vital part of his story. To the latter, cutting out that relationship - not just the marriage, the relationship in general - is telling those people that something they valued in the character doesn't really "matter". And yet, you get people saying that marriage fans are "entitled" because they want Peter to age, meaning they want Peter to be ruined. And yet, I mostly see the claims of self-entitlement on the side of people who are against the marriage. People who can't accept that the marriage was a "mistake" are the people who need to "get over it", but people who oppose the marriage seem immune to similar ideas. The marriage is gone, so they have their preferred status quo. They have no "demands" that need to be met, unlike the marriage fans. Because of that, they're able to avoid coming across as "selfish" because they're not asking for anything. However, when it comes to marriage fans, they're effectively demonized, as though they're selfish monsters who are "stealing" from the fans who don't like the marriage. However, isn't that hypocritical? If the idea of Peter being single is a concept that can be "stolen" from you as a fan, doesn't that mean that you have given value to it? Why is Peter being single an acceptable concept that you can prize as a possession, as you are "sharing" it with "future fans", but marriage fans are treated like some selfish cult who "don't care" about future fans? Is it because, if they did care about future fans, they're ruining the franchise because they want future fans to be introduced to a married Peter? That's still the marriage fans wanting to share something with future fans. How is sharing a single Peter with future fans preserving the franchise, yet sharing a married Peter with future fans is ruining the franchise?

If you want marriage fans to "get over it", maybe you should stop acting like people wanting the marriage to come back is a threat to what you value in the franchise.

[5Eyes]

Where did you get the idea that everyone at Marvel thought it was a mistake as soon as it was made up? Roger Stern disagreed, yes, but that's only one writer. If you're going to make a generalization like that, you should back it up.

Gee a little bit too much caffeine... and second I didn't say everyone you made that generalization ... Marvel as a general consensus and I thought it was pretty common knowledge to the nerd-herd group (and I mean that affectionately) but guess I was wrong.. David Michelinie who was one of the writers of the story even before the 1st Wedding issue came out stated that I believe we made a mistake, but from your tone that wont be enough, then think back Spider-man history they tried to kill of Mary-Jane which they wanted to make permanent but too much fan-rage , the wanted to replace Peter Parker with a clone which was also to be permanent but also too many fan rage.. I'm also sure if I put any real effort I can find multiple interviews that state my argument but in my circle that is common knowledge and I'm not in the mood to do something so tedious for common knowledge just to argue with someone who likes to vent ...

But I'll give you this just so you don't totally think I'm making my comment up

http://www.spidermanreviews.com/2012...ers-hated.html