Would you like OMD to be undone?

[emac1790]

Ah, so now you're belittling the risks taken by those men and women? Or the only risks that count in your argument are those caused by super-powered villains? You can't have it both ways. The basis for your argument was that Spidey risking his life if he had a family at home would be irresponsible. But you can't pick and choose what risks are 'legitimate' and which ones aren't just to prove a point.

And you can't fall back on the "Well, this is all fictional" argument, cos the basis of the point of you've made is still fundamentally about something that happens in the real world. Every single day. No, it doesn't happen with guys on flying gliders and with six arms, but that doesn't make the risks people in certain jobs take any less real.

And don't confuse responsibility with guilt. That's just a mistake/trope that's been used by various Spidey writers over the years.... including the very story we're talking about now. Responsible Peter is the hero who does what he can to help people. Guilty Peter is the whiny man-child who is willing to let an all-powerful being reshape reality to serve his own needy ends.

Wow, you really take this way too serious. We're talking about a comic book character. But I'm now "belittling the risks taken by those men and women" because I think a responsible Peter Parker would retire being Spider-Man after starting a family. Wow.

Also, what Spider-Man comics have you been reading. He fights crime because he feels guilt over Uncle Ben's death.

[Metamorphosis]

Let's get to the real reason OMD is so deservedly reviled and offensive. It's a massive storytelling cheat.

It's a lazy storytelling approach that really started with bringing Norman back. Now, bringing him back was intriguing, and it's led to some interesting stories. But bringing back a dead character, one where we SAW the dead body, was something that really hadn't been done in Spider-man before (any symbiotes or clones notwithstanding). Funny enough, it was all an editorial edict to solve a massive story in the Clone Sage that was meant to get back to a single Spider-man in Ben Reilly. How funny. At the very least, there was a lot of work done to explain how someone like Norman could cheat death, so it wasn't a total handwave.

The next sort of cheat was bringing back Aunt May, who hadn't been dead 5 years at that point. This one was quite a bit more ridiculous and hard to swallow. Once again, please note that this was once again EDITORIALLY MANDATED by then editor Bob Harras.

And next we have the splitting up of Peter and Mary Jane. Done by a villain with which Peter's had little to no interaction with. Despite how they've tried to spin it, it was Peter's decision to go through with the deal. To the devil. From this, we got Harry Osborn magically back in the books after being dead (that explanation seemed like a cheap copy of how Norman returned--apparently, no one who has ingested the Goblin serum can ever die which means we're eternally stuck with Carlie Cooper it seems). OMD led to what Peter David called "anything-can-happen day", and I know what he means. They stopped respecting their own continuity, and took the lazy way out. It's insulting not simply because they dissolved a marriage between two fictional characters in a disgusting way, which is bad enough. But it really was the end of Spider-man continuity as readers knew it. Like someone else here said, any story thread can now be waved away as "it's magic". It's really lame, and it's not something I think any self-respecting Marvel editor would've let writers get away with a while back. They really would've been better off starting Peter Parker's story over.

So Queseda, Breevort, Slott, everyone who had some part in OMD (even JMS gets a little tainted by this though he had the good sense to defect), engaged in some really lazy, cynical storytelling to regain some perceived status quo that was supposed to make the character magically better and raise sales.

It's very telling also, that the only real noteworthy story told since OMD is something like Superior, which involved a villain hijacking Peter's life and identity. This is the kind of crap that they split the marriage up for?

So OMD supporters, you can carp all day that it didn't matter, or "they're just fictional characters" (which is a profoundly stupid argument because: why should we ever care about any story that Marvel comes up with then, and moreover, why are you even here??). But it really marked a line in the sand about decision-makers at Marvel not really respecting the character, the character's rich, ongoing comic history, or the fans themselves. It matters, and it will continue to matter.

I hope people never stop bringing it up, because it's exceptionally bad storytelling, and the message should be sent that Marvel can't crap out stories like that without backlash.

[Goggindowner]

A generic divorced man is older than a generic married man, simply due to the added experience.

Deals with the devil don't change your perceived age.

Except that it doesn't. Not really. I'm thirty, but I got married when I was twenty one. I have friends who got married at the same age or younger and have been divorced since they were in their early twenties. Most of those cases are chalked up to two people who got married before they really understood what that meant. Which means that if the angle were played properly, you could have a divorced Peter Parker who is realistically still in his early twenties and his marriage ended BECAUSE he is so young.

The deal with the devil just turns him into a selfish, irresponsible man-child who opted out of a situation instead of learning anything from it. Which flies in the face of exactly why Peter became Spiderman in the first place.

[Mister Mets]

Let's get to the real reason OMD is so deservedly reviled and offensive. It's a massive storytelling cheat.

It's a lazy storytelling approach that really started with bringing Norman back. Now, bringing him back was intriguing, and it's led to some interesting stories. But bringing back a dead character, one where we SAW the dead body, was something that really hadn't been done in Spider-man before (any symbiotes or clones notwithstanding). Funny enough, it was all an editorial edict to solve a massive story in the Clone Sage that was meant to get back to a single Spider-man in Ben Reilly. How funny. At the very least, there was a lot of work done to explain how someone like Norman could cheat death, so it wasn't a total handwave.

The next sort of cheat was bringing back Aunt May, who hadn't been dead 5 years at that point. This one was quite a bit more ridiculous and hard to swallow. Once again, please note that this was once again EDITORIALLY MANDATED by then editor Bob Harras.

And next we have the splitting up of Peter and Mary Jane. Done by a villain with which Peter's had little to no interaction with. Despite how they've tried to spin it, it was Peter's decision to go through with the deal. To the devil. From this, we got Harry Osborn magically back in the books after being dead (that explanation seemed like a cheap copy of how Norman returned--apparently, no one who has ingested the Goblin serum can ever die which means we're eternally stuck with Carlie Cooper it seems). OMD led to what Peter David called "anything-can-happen day", and I know what he means. They stopped respecting their own continuity, and took the lazy way out. It's insulting not simply because they dissolved a marriage between two fictional characters in a disgusting way, which is bad enough. But it really was the end of Spider-man continuity as readers knew it. Like someone else here said, any story thread can now be waved away as "it's magic". It's really lame, and it's not something I think any self-respecting Marvel editor would've let writers get away with a while back. They really would've been better off starting Peter Parker's story over.

So Queseda, Breevort, Slott, everyone who had some part in OMD (even JMS gets a little tainted by this though he had the good sense to defect), engaged in some really lazy, cynical storytelling to regain some perceived status quo that was supposed to make the character magically better and raise sales.

It's very telling also, that the only real noteworthy story told since OMD is something like Superior, which involved a villain hijacking Peter's life and identity. This is the kind of crap that they split the marriage up for?

So OMD supporters, you can carp all day that it didn't matter, or "they're just fictional characters" (which is a profoundly stupid argument because: why should we ever care about any story that Marvel comes up with then, and moreover, why are you even here??). But it really marked a line in the sand about decision-makers at Marvel not really respecting the character, the character's rich, ongoing comic history, or the fans themselves. It matters, and it will continue to matter.

I hope people never stop bringing it up, because it's exceptionally bad storytelling, and the message should be sent that Marvel can't crap out stories like that without backlash.

I disagree with a lot of what you say.

There were plenty of noteworthy stories since One More Day. You could argue that Peter being single didn't change Spider Island or New Ways to Die much. but that would suggest that a story with MJ's presence is the same with her absence.

Storytelling cheats often occur because of poor decisions earlier. The Clone Saga made three major mistakes thanks to writers who did not have a long-term plan. They gave Peter a daughter, killed off Aunt May and revealed that the Peter Parker in the books since ASM 150 was just a clone. There were reasons to reverse each decision, and Osborn's resurrection occurred because Marvel felt they needed a big enough mastermind for all of it.

There had been plenty of reversals earlier, as well as times when elements of the book were rapidly jettisoned.

Hell One More Day wasn't the first time a four part storyline with heavy editorial involvement changed elements of Peter Parker's status quo and marital status. The wedding issues did the same thing. Peter didn't make a deal with a villain to save anyone's life. He just got married in the same issue in which he told Aunt May about his engagement. And the visual shorthand convinced some readers that Mary Jane had an affair with Batman.

[Mister Mets]

Except that it doesn't. Not really. I'm thirty, but I got married when I was twenty one. I have friends who got married at the same age or younger and have been divorced since they were in their early twenties. Most of those cases are chalked up to two people who got married before they really understood what that meant. Which means that if the angle were played properly, you could have a divorced Peter Parker who is realistically still in his early twenties and his marriage ended BECAUSE he is so young.

The deal with the devil just turns him into a selfish, irresponsible man-child who opted out of a situation instead of learning anything from it. Which flies in the face of exactly why Peter became Spiderman in the first place.

It doesn't happen all the time, but the median/ average/ generic divorced man is still older than the media/ average/ generic married man.

A person needs to be married to be divorced. A person does not need to be divorced to be married.

If a version of Peter Parker is willing to die to save Aunt May (see Ultimate Spider-Man), it would stand to reason that he considers sacrificing his marriage to be preferable to death.

[RyanParkerMan]

I can't believe you guys are still discussing this all these years later.

[Goggindowner]

It doesn't happen all the time, but the median/ average/ generic divorced man is still older than the media/ average/ generic married man.

A person needs to be married to be divorced. A person does not need to be divorced to be married.

If a version of Peter Parker is willing to die to save Aunt May (see Ultimate Spider-Man), it would stand to reason that he considers sacrificing his marriage to be preferable to death.

Maybe, but it comes across as he would rather undo large portions of his life than live with the poor decisions he had been making. While he was at it, why didn't he have Maphisto go all the way back and save Uncle Ben? I mean, we're getting a blank check here, right? Fixing our poor decisions? So go back and stop the robber at the wrestling show. Yay! Uncle Ben's back!

[Phantom Roxas]

It doesn't happen all the time, but the median/ average/ generic divorced man is still older than the media/ average/ generic married man.

A person needs to be married to be divorced. A person does not need to be divorced to be married.

If a version of Peter Parker is willing to die to save Aunt May (see Ultimate Spider-Man), it would stand to reason that he considers sacrificing his marriage to be preferable to death.

But what about the reasons for getting divorced? Aren't those good enough, or do they not make a difference because all that matters is that Peter got divorced?

That one version of Peter was willing to die does not say that he would prefer to sacrifice his marriage over giving up his own life. In both cases, Peter is giving up his chance at happiness to save Aunt May's own. Your example doesn't prove that one method of such a sacrifice is inherently preferable to the other. One More Day's sacrifice was not the "better" option than Death of Spider-Man, and in fact, don't people prefer Death of Spider-Man over Dying Wish, namely on the grounds that Bendis doesn't portray Peter as pathetic? Granted, those are two separate Peters, but it's still about approaching the idea of Peter Parker a certain way.

Neither are ideal sacrifices, nor is there an actual point of comparison saying that one is preferable to the other. I do think people would rather give up their marriage, as you could get that back, whereas if you're dead, you're dead, but that's not the point here. Your argument operates on the same logic as "apples objectively taste better than oranges."

I can't believe you guys are still discussing this all these years later.

We'll debate it until people stop trying to ignore how it portrays Peter as a selfish coward and how the story is an insult to both fans of the marriage and the ideals that Peter Parker represents, and we'll keep criticizing those at Marvel who agreed with the story until Peter and MJ are allowed to confront the consequences of their actions.

[comicscollector]

Long Time Reader of Spider-Man comics,and i do not want OMD undone.
First -because the married status quo lasted for twenty years,more that enough stories in that SQ,so a new direction to the spidey stories was something necessary to the stories.
Second- any comic book that does not undergone significant changes gets boring.Plain and simple as that so changing Peter life to being a bachelor again,was a smart move.
Third -After the long run of JMS in ASM a change in the creative team of that series was cool,and to help the change in the title a significant change in Peter SQ was a good idea,because it provided a real sense of change that the series needed.

[comicscollector]

I can't believe you guys are still discussing this all these years later.

It gets actually a bit ironic,because the discussion of this theme is done more by people that did not like the story!
It makes as much sense ,as me still complaining about how i did not like Secret Wars 2 for example.

[Goggindowner]

Long Time Reader of Spider-Man comics,and i do not want OMD undone.
First -because the married status quo lasted for twenty years,more that enough stories in that SQ,so a new direction to the spidey stories was something necessary to the stories.
Second- any comic book that does not undergone significant changes gets boring.Plain and simple as that so changing Peter life to being a bachelor again,was a smart move.
Third -After the long run of JMS in ASM a change in the creative team of that series was cool,and to help the change in the title a significant change in Peter SQ was a good idea,because it provided a real sense of change that the series needed.

So even a change that regresses the character to a previous status quo is okay? You say a story gets boring if it doesn't undergo significant change, but how is backwards momentum any better. The bachelor stories were already told. If you wanted to read them, go get the back issues.

[theshow07]

no it been 6 years let it go jms version would be way worse

[RD!]

He just got married in the same issue in which he told Aunt May about his engagement. And the visual shorthand convinced some readers that Mary Jane had an affair with Batman.

I don't believe any fan truly thinks that, it's a cheeky factoid that supporters of OMD pull out to justify the story.

Long Time Reader of Spider-Man comics,and i do not want OMD undone.
First -because the married status quo lasted for twenty years,more that enough stories in that SQ,so a new direction to the spidey stories was something necessary to the stories.
Second- any comic book that does not undergone significant changes gets boring.Plain and simple as that so changing Peter life to being a bachelor again,was a smart move.
Third -After the long run of JMS in ASM a change in the creative team of that series was cool,and to help the change in the title a significant change in Peter SQ was a good idea,because it provided a real sense of change that the series needed.

1- But there were also 20 years of bachelor stories
2-As above.
3-You can get a new creative team without unmarrying the protagonist.

My opinion: OMD should be undone. It was a cheap way to get to where they wanted, which was also weird. There's no reason why Peter can't be married other than he was single when the current fanboys-in-charge were just readers. Even if you want him single, to devil it away was a bit insulting to long term readers who supported the book through unpopular periods and popular periods alike, as was the way the unmasking was undone. Very disappointing that such a strong era came to such an insulting and abrupt end.

If OMD just undid the marriage, that would be one (bad) thing but it did a lot more damage. For continuity buffs, a lot of stories now never happened or aren't remembered depending on your point-of-view, a lot of characters regressed (May, FELICIA!!!!!) or changed personalities (MJ, FELICIA!!!!!) and a lot of the good stuff from the 70s an 80s was repeated. I know these are never-ending serials and some of these things will happen over time, but never to this extent. It's sad that Marvel is in such a strong position, but their flagship character is burdened with this rubbish storyline still hanging over him. I think that OMD needs to be addressed a final time, with at least one character remembering the marriage and the way things happened.

A good idea I have is that somehow May remembers. She realizes Peter and MJ sold their marriage for her, and is burdened with that guilt knowing she can't do anything about it. She'll also remember that Peter is Spider-Man, but have to pretend she doesn't know. I think it would be a good direction for the character to take and that way the status quo remains stagnant (that was a bit facetious of me) but anti-OMD'ers get their little scrap.

[comicscollector]

So even a change that regresses the character to a previous status quo is okay? You say a story gets boring if it doesn't undergo significant change, but how is backwards momentum any better. The bachelor stories were already told. If you wanted to read them, go get the back issues.

Except i dont agree with the premesis of your reply to what i have said.
Saying that the bachelor stories were already told does not make much sense to me.
About 90% of all characters happens to be bachelors that does not mean that all the stories with those characters are similiar.
None of the stories post BND looked similiar to the stories i have read of Spider-Man before Amazing Spider-Man Annual#21.
Diferents visions,directions,creative teams and so on provides plenty of types of stories,even if the SQ returns to one that was used in the past.

[Thinker4730]

Maybe, but it comes across as he would rather undo large portions of his life than live with the poor decisions he had been making. While he was at it, why didn't he have Maphisto go all the way back and save Uncle Ben? I mean, we're getting a blank check here, right? Fixing our poor decisions? So go back and stop the robber at the wrestling show. Yay! Uncle Ben's back!

Actually if that happened there was a slight possibility that Peter would've become a criminal rather than a hero.

He did allow that thief to get away to get revenge and his attitude about becoming a hero wasn't even in play until after Uncle Ben was killed.