The C2E2 Spider-man 60th Panel, some interesting things been said.

[Morgoth]

What possible stories could they tell with Peter that would really necessitate him not being married? The only ones I can think of are generally related to his dating/love/sex life, and in all honestly, while I could take or leave some of them, him playing the field is played out at this point.

Absolutely no idea, it's just what seems to be their way of thinking.
Just my guess - I think at the very least writers actually have different preferences for who the main love interest is, and many of them just don't see MJ the way fans do, and that's the biggest problem here actually. Someone prefers Felicia, someone wants to use their character in this role (in particular, Slott did it with Carlie and Silk), someone probably thinks that Peter should not have a permanent love interest at all, etc. I guess it was Wells or Slott, who complained, that he doesn't know how to write her and made that remark about MJ just watching Peter from the window or something like that. Anyway, at least some part of writers really have issues with MJ and ways to write her in their stories.

It's a bit dangerous to suggest that sales would do well no matter what Marvel does. Brands have collapsed before.

Yeah, but we're talking about what's going on currently. Brand might collapse at some point, of course.

[TinkerSpider]

Maybe that was the source of Slott's infamous "the marriage will never come back and it would be impossible to happen" posts all those years ago? He didn't believe that the people who needed to sign off on it ever would if proposed and that all their successors would follow suite?

Dan Slott can believe whatever he likes.

It is irrational and illogical, however, to believe that executive suites don’t change over and attitudes don’t change with the time and especially the market. Since Slott wrote that, there have been multiple changes at both Marvel and Disney.

Lost Hunt is an excellent example of attitudes shifting. Under Quesada, no 616 story mentioned the marriage or the pregnancy post OMD (OMIT was the only exception). The prose novel adopting Kraven’s Last Hunt changed Peter and MJ to dating.

Now Marvel is actively appealing to 90s/00s nostalgia with untold tales miniseries set in 616 during that period. Michelinie’s Venom, Peter David’s New Fantastic Four, Genis-Vell and upcoming Joe Fixit, and JMD’s Ben Reilly series and Lost Hunt. And acknowledging Peter and MJ were once married is now in 616 set books.

[Mister Mets]

Good point. Honestly, as long as you're doing a story set in 616, there is just no believable reason why Peter and MJ would break up. At least not at this point. It wasn't believable in '07 and it still wasn't after Spencer.

Really the only way you can separate them out of the blue is if you ignore continuity, which is an argument that frankly has nothing to do with Peter's love life. At that point, you're arguing for Marvel to reboot Spider-Man after every writer the way DC does... a weird argument given that Marvel always prided itself on its ongoing continuity, including in the Quesada era and current era.

In the real world, people who have been through a lot together sometimes break up.

DiDio was fired abruptly. There was no official reason given but credible rumors are it was for fostering an abusive workplace; when media companies get rid of someone that quickly when he was presumably still under contract, it usually does point to an HR issue instead of a performance issue, and the lack of a reason backs that up (media companies usually say "left to pursue other opportunities" when it is a more graceful exit). He was in the middle of writing a miniseries himself. None of the rumors attribute it to Generations; I doubt Pamela Lifford at Warner Bros., who was DiDio's boss, cared much one way or another and left it to the team that remained to decide what to do with it. And DiDio was Generations's champion; when he left, the enthusiasm within DC left.

Cool. You don't have to be persuaded because it's not really an argument, it's how corporations in the United States in the twenty first century operate.



No, that's not how most successfully publicly traded companies work.

The board of directors of publicly traded companies have fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders and investors. Chief among those responsibilities is to enhance shareholder value by increasing the company's worth. That is what drives companies. Period.

If analysis comes back that Disney would make more money by embracing, say, Gay Days at the theme parks which used to be a very unofficial event and one Disney staff turned a blind eye to because condoning it was felt to upset their more traditional, conservative base - then Disney would embrace them and create an entire Pride Month of programming and sell rainbow Mickey merchandise prominently in all their parks. And that is what Disney currently does, because the uplift from attracting new people to the parks and being seen as inclusive is greater than any loss from upset fan, even though there are people at Disney whose personal preference would be not to have official sanctioning.

It has nothing to do with personal preference and execs who rule by personal preference are often out of a job if they don't also align their interests with the market.

If an argument is made that a sales event/promotion/publicity stunt with, say, Florida oranges will bring in additional dollars that can't be ignored, then anyone who says, "I hate oranges, I won't sign off on this" would be heavily side eyed and would probably be eased out of their job sooner rather than later.

That is just how business works.



Wall Street is run by short term. The only thing that matters are your quarterly numbers. Is it a great strategy for corporations to mostly worry about their short term numbers? Not really IMO. Is it reality? Yes. Are short term decisions without materially worrying about their long range implications made all the time? Yes.

And does Disney really care? A resounding no. They couldn't care less what happens in the comics, just as Warner Bros. couldn't care less about DC. They just don't want the comics to lose money, they don't want anything that would cause a big #cancel outcry, and they do want to take advantage of any synergies they can.



See, this is where I know we are speaking from two very different experiences, because decks are absolutely the distillation of how corporate decisions are made. I'm simplifying and leaving out a lot of nuance and steps, but a deck is the first stage and the final stage. Disney bought Fox because of a deck. Disney bought Lucasfilm because of a deck. Disney bought Marvel because of a deck.

We may be talking past one another on some stuff.

Presentations are important, but the goalpost of "One guy with a slideshow is not going to be enough to change the permanent status quo of a major franchise" isn't a proxy for whether a deck is meaningful, but about whether that's all you need. Presumably it would help to have facts on your side. If one guy with a slideshow is going to be enough to change the permanent status quo of a major franchise, that would suggest any change is possible which is nonsense.

Disney has been taking its time with introducing queer representation to their stories, so the people pushing internally against it certainly got their way for a while. Any changes are more likely due to outside circumstances (increasing public approval of gay marriage, a change in policy about the importance of appealing to China.)

People in charge of major policy at significant companies are probably better at arguing than just admitting personal preferences. In the oranges situation, a stakeholder who hates oranges so much that he would try to scuttle a promotion wouldn't say that's his reason. He'd offer different explanations (IE- Is the company they're partnering with reliable? Does it potentially alienate a bigger business partner? Are they overly reliant on consistent weather?) He might not get his way, but the argument is going to go beyond his feelings on oranges. In many cases it's going to be motivated reasoning so he's going to be inclined to support the business strategies that match his preferences.

Companies make poor decisions for short term reasons all the time, but sometimes they don't live down to your expectations. It's a bad thing, and we should avoid giving them moral permission to do so.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

In the real world, people who have been through a lot together sometimes break up.

Emphasis on "sometimes".

Also, even when it happens in real life, there is usually a reason for it. The issue is that OMD and post-OMD comics have failed to provide a believable reason why an in-character Peter and MJ would break up. "Marvel said so" isn't good enough.

[Matt Rat]

Emphasis on "sometimes".

Also, even when it happens in real life, there is usually a reason for it. The issue is that OMD and post-OMD comics have failed to provide a believable reason why an in-character Peter and MJ would break up. "Marvel said so" isn't good enough.

Exactly. Peter and MJ 'broke up' after an ordeal with a supernatural entity, and MJ is all too aware in OMD that whatever she and Peter will go through afterwards is through the influence of the devil. MJ promised Peter that no matter what happened, they would overcome it eventually and get back together. Ten years later, that finally happened.

The next time we see Peter and MJ broken up, it comes shortly after an encounter in Beyond's climax with....someone supernatural. Again.

There is no believable break-up between the two other than Life Story, and even there, Peter and MJ reconciled and grew old together after a ten year break in between their relationship.

[WebLurker]

Cebulski is saying one thing, and the company is publishing another. Creators have lied before about these things at panels. Slott himself on this forum has said 'creators lie'. Quesada lied about not using magic to undo the marriage at one panel also in 2007, right before they did it.

Sure doesn't seem like they're lying now.

Lost Hunt isn't an AU story.

Being set in an erased timeline is close enough. I mean, if the anything from it gets referenced onward, they're not going to depict Peter and MJ has having been married in that timeframe, right?

Sadly, that segment of the fan base didn't follow the Spider-Girl fandom's example.

A group of enthusiastic Spider-Girl fans spent years working hard to spread the word and increase sales of their favorite comic. They were smart, organized, ran a positive campaign, and put their money where their mouth was.

As Tom Brevoort once said (regarding Omega Flight): https://tombrevoort.com/2020/12/26/b...st-be-stopped/

The Spider-Girl fans also organised a "Spider-Girl Media Blitz" campaign: https://www.spider-girl.com/

The idea was to encourage magazines/newspapers to write articles about the comic and its fascinating history while the "Spider-Man 2" movie was a hot topic. They put in a lot of hard work, and a handful of magazines did end up running articles.

They also bought multiple issues of Spider-Girl to donate to children's hospitals, youth groups etc, got an ad in Previews magazine, and so on.

Spider-Girl fans worked all angles.

Unfortunately, there was no such campaign for Renew Your Vows.

Interesting, never knew that.

Yeah, he said as much over several posts in that thread.

Some people thanked him for the info, others asked questions about the hows and whys, others told him that he was wrong. The ones who told him he was wrong were all heavily invested in Peter and Mary Jane remarrying.

I guess the part that tripped me up was his insistence that the decision could never be reversed, even if the staffing completely changed and everyone in charge thought it was a good idea for whatever reason (and that's assuming that he wasn't using hyperbole; Slott did love his hyperbole when it came to his comics). Fair enough if it's not in the cards then or now, but I still don't understand why Slott seemed to think that Marvel was forbidden from ever making a change like that. I mean, what kind of structure would prevent the people in charge from controlling what they're supposed to control (and, if there is one, why the heck would the Power That Be have even bothered set it up in the first place). Does that make any sense?

Dan Slott can believe whatever he likes.

It is irrational and illogical, however, to believe that executive suites don’t change over and attitudes don’t change with the time and especially the market. Since Slott wrote that, there have been multiple changes at both Marvel and Disney.

Lost Hunt is an excellent example of attitudes shifting. Under Quesada, no 616 story mentioned the marriage or the pregnancy post OMD (OMIT was the only exception). The prose novel adopting Kraven’s Last Hunt changed Peter and MJ to dating.

Now Marvel is actively appealing to 90s/00s nostalgia with untold tales miniseries set in 616 during that period. Michelinie’s Venom, Peter David’s New Fantastic Four, Genis-Vell and upcoming Joe Fixit, and JMD’s Ben Reilly series and Lost Hunt. And acknowledging Peter and MJ were once married is now in 616 set books.

Since Slott never explained why Marvel couldn't undo it if ever desired, we are technically operating with incomplete information. While it doesn't sound logical in and of itself, knowing the specifics would make it easier to understand what the heck we was taking about. He didn't have to explain himself, obviously, but still. (All that said, I did find a lot of the pushback and uncharitable accusations at Slott for maintaining this position got out of hand. Whether or not he was right or wrong, it's not like it was his decision or anything; he had to work within the guidelines he was given and all that.)

[TinkerSpider]

We may be talking past one another on some stuff.

Presentations are important, but the goalpost of "One guy with a slideshow is not going to be enough to change the permanent status quo of a major franchise" isn't a proxy for whether a deck is meaningful, but about whether that's all you need. Presumably it would help to have facts on your side.

I'm not sure what you think a deck is, because a deck is a presentation of the facts and logical, well-supported projections based on the facts.

Sincere question: have you ever sat in a corporate boardroom and presented a plan to sr. management? I have. That may be the source of the disconnect.

Disney has been taking its time with introducing queer representation to their stories, so the people pushing internally against it certainly got their way for a while.

In other words, this is an example that corporate attitudes are not set in stone and do change, which has been my point since post one.

Any changes are more likely due to outside circumstances (increasing public approval of gay marriage, a change in policy about the importance of appealing to China.)

Those changes are solely down to money. Money, money, money. Companies make decisions based on what will increase their value to shareholders. Ensuring they remain in step with social attitudes is one way; also the LGBTQ+ audience has money to spend. Ensuring they don't ignore one of the largest audiences on the planet that now has disposable income to spend on their products is another.

People in charge of major policy at significant companies are probably better at arguing than just admitting personal preferences. In the oranges situation, a stakeholder who hates oranges so much that he would try to scuttle a promotion wouldn't say that's his reason. He'd offer different explanations (IE- Is the company they're partnering with reliable? Does it potentially alienate a bigger business partner? Are they overly reliant on consistent weather?) He might not get his way, but the argument is going to go beyond his feelings on oranges. In many cases it's going to be motivated reasoning so he's going to be inclined to support the business strategies that match his preferences.

You shifted the goalposts. The issue at hand was personal preference. Refusing to authorize something or putting something into motion based SOLELY on personal preferences is a good way to find yourself out of a job/lose the company.

Also, people aren't stupid. They see through transparently personally motivated arguments all. the. time. You better base your reasoning solely on the measurable facts and figures if you want to stay employed.

Companies make poor decisions for short term reasons all the time, but sometimes they don't live down to your expectations. It's a bad thing, and we should avoid giving them moral permission to do so.

You shifted goalposts again. You can think it's immoral all you want. But it's how Wall Street works and thus how the world works, and unless the entire planet decides to boycott every publicly traded company for an impactful measure of time, it's how the world is going to continue to work.

And again, companies have fidiciary responsibility to their investors. That means they have a legal and moral responsibility to do their best to increase the value of their company or at the least not lose money and make the company less valuable. That means appealing to Wall Street analysts and institutional investors such as Vanguard and Black Rock who hold the bulk of Disney's shares. And institutional investors have no emotional ties to the companies whose shares they hold because they are trying to maximize the value of their funds for their investors. So what Wall Street thinks matters to them.

Sure doesn't seem like they're lying now.

I agree. But no one knows what the next year, five years, ten years may bring.

Being set in an erased timeline is close enough. I mean, if the anything from it gets referenced onward, they're not going to depict Peter and MJ has having been married in that timeframe, right?

Zeb Wells wrote an issue back in BND, don't remember which one, in which he depicted Peter climbing from the grave in Kraven's Last Hunt because of Uncle Ben :roll eyes. Then as I've mentioned, they changed Peter and MJ to dating in the KLH prose novel.

But since then, Marvel seems to have relaxed their stance. First, in Joe Kelly's Deadpool/Spider-Man series, Mephisto overtly references taking something from Peter and leaving a hole in his soul.

Then there were all the teases in Spencer's run.

Now, DeMatteis was able to explicitly mention Peter and MJ being married and expecting a baby in his Ben Reilly miniseries, even though Marvel's position has been the marriage never ever happened, those stories took place but Peter and MJ were just dating, and she was never pregnant.

And now in Lost Hunt we're supposedly going to see a married Peter and MJ who are expecting.

So who knows what may shift next?

I still don't understand why Slott seemed to think that Marvel was forbidden from ever making a change like that. I mean, what kind of structure would prevent the people in charge from controlling what they're supposed to control (and, if there is one, why the heck would the Power That Be have even bothered set it up in the first place). Does that make any sense?

There isn't any kind of structure. Doesn't exist. Sounded like either wishful thinking or he misheard/miscomprehended something told to him.

[Mister Mets]

What do you think a deck is?!

Sincere question: have you ever sat in a corporate boardroom and presented a plan to sr. management asking for increased investment/change in direction? I have. That may be the source of the disconnect.



Thank you for the example that corporate attitudes are not set in stone and do change, which has been my point since post one. I appreciate it!



Those changes are solely down to money. Money, money, money. Companies make decisions based on what will increase their value to shareholders. Ensuring they remain in step with social attitudes is one way; also the LGBTQ+ audience has money to spend. Ensuring they don't ignore one of the largest audiences on the planet that now has disposable income to spend on their products is another.



You shifted the goalposts. The issue at hand was personal preference. Refusing to authorize something or putting something into motion based SOLELY on personal preferences is a good way to find yourself out of a job/lose the company.

Also, people aren't stupid. They see through transparently personally motivated arguments all. the. time. You better base your reasoning solely on the measurable facts and figures if you want to stay employed.



You shifted goalposts again. You can think it's immoral all you want. But it's how Wall Street works and thus how the world works, and unless the entire planet decides to boycott every publicly traded company for an impactful measure of time, it's how the world is going to continue to work.

And again, companies had fidiciary responsibility to their shareholders. That means they have a legal and moral responsibility to do their best to increase the value of their company or at the least not lose money and make the company less valuable. That means appealing to Wall Street analysts and institutional investors such as Vanguard and Black Rock who hold the bulk of Disney's shares. And institutional investors have no emotional ties to the companies whose shares they hold because they are trying to maximize the value of their funds for their investors. So what Wall Street thinks matters to them.

I know what a deck is. They made fun of it on South Park.

Is there anything I've said that suggests a lack of familiarity with the role of decks in the workplace, and its application to Marvel decisions?

For corporate attitudes to change on the spider-marriage the same way they changed on queer representation, it would help for there to be some kind of outside change.

I don't think it's changing goalposts to consider the likelihood at people in the decision chain in Spider-Man comics are smart enough to justify their preferences with facts, figures and interpretations. That is relevant to any consideration of what's going on behind the scenes.

What goalpost is changed with the comment that it's a bad idea to chase short-term profits without considering long-term implications, and that we should not give anyone moral permission to do so. They may end up doing it, but it should be something the public looks down on.

Edit- To your response to Weblurker, did Zeb Wells ever write a Kraven story? Joe Kelly wrote Grim Hunt. Marc Guggenheim wrote the Ana Kraven story.

There is a scene in Grim Hunt where Peter climbs out of the grave, but there's no reference to Uncle Ben.

[Matt Rat]

Sure doesn't seem like they're lying now.

Lost Hunt. Proves. They. Are. Lying.

Being set in an erased timeline is close enough. I mean, if the anything from it gets referenced onward, they're not going to depict Peter and MJ has having been married in that timeframe, right?

Nick Spencer's run specifically reprinted Harry and MJ's conversation on the bridge from Spetacular#200 where Harry explicitly refers to Peter as MJ's husband.

[Kanos]

Edit- To your response to Weblurker, did Zeb Wells ever write a Kraven story? Joe Kelly wrote Grim Hunt. Marc Guggenheim wrote the Ana Kraven story.

There is a scene in Grim Hunt where Peter climbs out of the grave, but there's no reference to Uncle Ben.

It was in Avenging Spider-Man #11.

[Lee]

Lost Hunt. Proves. They. Are. Lying.

Do you think they are currently planning to remarry Peter and MJ in the present day, core continuity Marvel Comics?

That's what they were talking about.

[TinkerSpider]

I know what a deck is. They made fun of it on South Park.

A satire on South Park is not reality.

Is there anything I've said that suggests a lack of familiarity with the role of decks in the workplace, and its application to Marvel decisions?

You suggested they don't include facts, for one. Apologies if that's not what "Presumably it would help to have facts on your side" meant, but that's how it read to me. Also, a deck isn't "one guy," it's usually the work of an entire team who has done extensive number crunching and research for weeks, sometimes months. It's not one person's fanfiction.

For corporate attitudes to change on the spider-marriage the same way they changed on queer representation, it would help for there to be some kind of outside change.

Marriage is highly traditional, so doubtful.

What it would take is for the team to show that a big stunt involving the marriage of Spider-Man, perhaps tied to a film or TV series, perhaps tied to a touring live event of some kind, perhaps tied to some other big company/general zeitgeist event, would make them measurable additional ancillary revenue that they would otherwise be leaving on the table if they didn't change the status.

And that could also be tied to demographics shifting such as their audiences is aging as Gen Z is not that interested in superheroes comic books and appealing to nostalgia may sell much better than trying to appeal to the mythical new reader than may never appear, or shifting to a more manga-inspired style of storytelling in which material change, not the illusion of change, occurs in the characters' lives as manga is currently dominating the marketplace and indeed is what helping comic book stores to stay afloat.

Again, I doubt monthly comic books will still exist in their current format within the next fifteen years, but I admit this one statement is only my opinion.

I don't think it's changing goalposts to consider the likelihood at people in the decision chain in Spider-Man comics are smart enough to justify their preferences with facts, figures and interpretations. That is relevant to any consideration of what's going on behind the scenes.

Yes, that's what a deck is.

The goal post shifting was this started as "Something that someone believes would be profitable generally fits their personal preference."

That's not true. People believe things are profitable that do not fit their personal preferences all the time. A track record of refusing to support things that would be profitable based solely on personal preference is a good way to get fired.

What goalpost is changed with the comment that it's a bad idea to chase short-term profits without considering long-term implications, and that we should not give anyone moral permission to do so. They may end up doing it, but it should be something the public looks down on.

Doesn't change the fact that's how Wall Street and the world works and will continue to work as long as the United States has a market driven capitalist economy (simplifying, but still). *shrug*

There is a scene in Grim Hunt where Peter climbs out of the grave, but there's no reference to Uncle Ben.

tumblr_oi4p28wa4g1svvfjzo1_1280.png.jpg

[your_name_here]

The Spencer comment certainly seems like there’s more there than what’s being said. What a shame.

[NC_Yankee]

A satire on South Park is not reality.



You suggested they don't include facts, for one. Apologies if that not what "Presumably it would help to have facts on your side" meant, but that's how it read to me. Also, a deck isn't "one guy," it's usually the work of an entire team who has done extensive number crunching and research for weeks, sometimes months. It's not one person's fanfiction.



Marriage is highly traditional, so doubtful.

What it would take is for the team to show that a big stunt involving the marriage of Spider-Man, perhaps tied to a film or TV series, perhaps tied to a touring live event of some kind, perhaps tied to some other big company/general zeitgeist event, would make them measurable additional ancillary revenue that they would otherwise be leaving on the table if they didn't change the status.

And that could also be tied to demographics shifting such as their audiences is aging as Gen Z is not that interested in superheroes comic books and appealing to nostalgia may sell much better than trying to appeal to the mythical new reader than may never appear, or shifting to a more manga-inspired style of storytelling in which material change, not the illusion of change, occurs in the characters' lives as manga is currently dominating the marketplace and indeed is what helping comic book stores to stay afloat.

Again, I doubt monthly comic books will still exist in their current format within the next fifteen years, but I admit this one statement is only my opinion.



Yes, that's what a deck is.

The goal post shifting was this started as "Something that someone believes would be profitable generally fits their personal preference."

That's not true. People believe things are profitable that do not fit their personal preferences at all the time. A track record of refusing to support somehting that would be profitable based solely on personal preference is a good way to get fired.



Doesn't change the fact that's how Wall Street and the world works. *shrug*



tumblr_oi4p28wa4g1svvfjzo1_1280.png.jpg

Mets: I have made the demographic point before, as it relates to Miles compared to Peter. With an increasing larger minority population ( not to mention globalism) having a Spider-Man that “Looks like readers” makes economic sense, and that fits Miles better then Peter ( we are seeing other Spider characters like Miguel, Cindy and Gwen ( in addition to Miles) to meet that need). I have felt the best compromise is use Miles as the teenage Spider-Man ( including in movies and cartoons), and have Peter with MJ for more adult stories and romance for the older fans who prefer that ( think along the lines of Batman). When can this happen? What about after Amazing 1000? I would like to hear your opinion on that?

[WebLurker]

I agree. But no one knows what the next year, five years, ten years may bring.

Maybe.

Zeb Wells wrote an issue back in BND, don't remember which one, in which he depicted Peter climbing from the grave in Kraven's Last Hunt because of Uncle Ben :roll eyes. Then as I've mentioned, they changed Peter and MJ to dating in the KLH prose novel.

But since then, Marvel seems to have relaxed their stance. First, in Joe Kelly's Deadpool/Spider-Man series, Mephisto overtly references taking something from Peter and leaving a hole in his soul.

Then there were all the teases in Spencer's run.

Now, DeMatteis was able to explicitly mention Peter and MJ being married and expecting a baby in his Ben Reilly miniseries, even though Marvel's position has been the marriage never ever happened, those stories took place but Peter and MJ were just dating, and she was never pregnant.

And now in Lost Hunt we're supposedly going to see a married Peter and MJ who are expecting.

So who knows what may shift next?

That remains to be seen.

There isn't any kind of structure. Doesn't exist. Sounded like either wishful thinking or he misheard/miscomprehended something told to him.

Could be, but without further details, who knows what he was talking about.

Lost Hunt. Proves. They. Are. Lying.

No, it just proves they'll sell a story about it, nothing more, nothing less.