Should Aunt May die for good?

[Kevinroc]

It's the version that's firmly embedded in the pop culture collective though. From the old Bixby TV series, multiple cartoons and even a majority of MCU Avengers and the Thor Ragnarok films. A muscular monosyllabic violent rage monster who's catch phrase is "HULK SMASH!" My personal preference for Joe Fixit or even the recent "Immortal" status quo in comics doesn't negate that.

And that version was not in Avengers Endgame, aka the biggest MCU film ever made. Does that make Endgame a weaker MCU film?

[Lee]

So what is your argument here? That tying the book to the then current status quo weakened it?

Yes. That's what we're talking about. Mets brought it up earlier in the thread.

And that version was not in Avengers Endgame, aka the biggest MCU film ever made. Does that make Endgame a weaker MCU film?

It makes it a weaker introduction to Hulk as a character, a weaker introduction to the Marvel universe and a weaker stand-alone film. It was a the movie equivalent of a season finale. I wouldn't recommend anyone start off with it or watch it in isolation.

[Kevinroc]

Yes. That's what we're talking about. Mets brought it up earlier in the thread.

It's part and parcel with the entire industry.

It makes it a weaker introduction to Hulk as a character, a weaker introduction to the Marvel universe and a weaker stand-alone film. It was a the movie equivalent of a season finale. I wouldn't recommend anyone start off with it or watch it in isolation.

And yet I'm sure there are people who did considering it had a higher box office gross than Avengers: Infinity War.

There are also people who only saw No Way Home because it featured actors returning from the Raimi and Webb films. And so their possible first exposure to Holland's Spider-Man is seeing a film in which Aunt May dies.

[Mister Mets]

I still love that Roger Stern's brilliant Superman vs Hulk one-shot in the late 90s actually 'fit' into continuity and referenced events from the close of Peter David's original run.

To be fair, the close of Peter David's Hulk run was some good comics.

It might be different to have a crossover that dealt with the close of Bruce Jones' Hulk run.

There may be some cases where a writer does something clever with a disparaged status quo. Grant Morrison and Howard Porter had some good moments in JLA with the electric Superman (although I'm still not sure it was worth it.)

[Kevinroc]

To be fair, the close of Peter David's Hulk run was some good comics.

It might be different to have a crossover that dealt with the close of Bruce Jones' Hulk run.

There may be some cases where a writer does something clever with a disparaged status quo. Grant Morrison and Howard Porter had some good moments in JLA with the electric Superman (although I'm still not sure it was worth it.)

It's part of the business of serialized super hero comics. The Dark Phoenix saga happened while Beast was a member of The Avengers. Trying to say a story is lesser because it continues into another story feels like a weird point when Marvel is built on such things.

[Lee]

It's part and parcel with the entire industry.

It was a bad decision. Precedent doesn't make it less of a bad decision.

[Kevinroc]

It was a bad decision. Precedent doesn't make it less of a bad decision.

Just because you think it was a bad decision doesn't mean everybody does.

[Lee]

I'm sure some people think it was a good decision.

I'm also confident that most people would prefer that a once in a lifetime DC vs Marvel story featured Spider-Man, rather than Spider-Man's clone.

[Matt Rat]

It might be different to have a crossover that dealt with the close of Bruce Jones' Hulk run

That also reminds me, there was a filler Hulk/Peter crossover in Amazing in the 90s, shortly before Lifetheft, that went on to be decanonised over in Peter David's Hulk run as a dream of some sorts because he didn't think it 'fit', and likewise he retconned Jones' run also when he came back to the Hulk books. It wasn't simply a case of ignoring the continuity, it was to outright strike it from the record.

[Ursalink]

As much as it would help Peter to "evolve", I'm afraid I can't say yes. It makes me feel as I'm saying my grandmother must die, and that is horrible.

[Matt Rat]

It's doubly frustrating In Peter's case, he had three whole years to evolve without May and Marvel scarcely committed to it after they took away baby may. Mary Jane got a lot of evolution at the time just coping with her daughter's stillbirth, questioning how old you have to be to have a healthy marriage, and exploring a course in psychology, but Peter didn't really budge.

[PCN24454]

I don’t understand how having your loved ones dies counts as evolution.

While Peter does need to stop using “responsibility” as an excuse, I don’t see why Aunt May has to die to do it.

[MajorHoy]

Writers who don't want to deal with Aunt May can just not use her in their stories; there's no need to kill her off.

While you're at it, do you think they should kill off Mary Jane Watson? Man, that would take care of all the debate/heartache about whether to bring back the marriage! Plus, it would give Marvel a chance to introduce the faux-MJ from the movies into the comic book stories!

[Matt Rat]

While you're at it, do you think they should kill off Mary Jane Watson? Man, that would take care of all the debate/heartache about whether to bring back the marriage! Plus, it would give Marvel a chance to introduce the faux-MJ from the movies into the comic book stories!

They've tried to off Mary Jane in the past while they were still officially married, but it didn't stick (and it was one of those "you didn't see the body"type deaths so it was easy to fix).

As proven with the subject of this very thread, they tried everything they could to make May's death believable, and for it to stick, only to just dismiss all that as being the work of a committed actress. If MJ were to die, she'd just come back too and the marriage debates would rage on.

[Kevinroc]

Writers who don't want to deal with Aunt May can just not use her in their stories; there's no need to kill her off.

While you're at it, do you think they should kill off Mary Jane Watson? Man, that would take care of all the debate/heartache about whether to bring back the marriage! Plus, it would give Marvel a chance to introduce the faux-MJ from the movies into the comic book stories!

You know there are people in this thread who posted in other threads that they should separate MCU MJ (who is called "MJ" almost exclusively and even had her surname retconned as "Watson" so she could be referred to as "MJ Watson") from the character of Mary Jane because of the movies. And now when the movies (and video games) do something like kill Aunt May, they act like doing such a thing would be a sacrilege.

Makes no sense to me.