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

[WebLurker]

It has nothing to do with how I feel about it….it’s a creative dead end because it limits the choices of writers and artists. You put Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man’s body, you can reverse it before the new creative team takes over, or they can reverse it or keep it. You have Peter fired from the Daily Bugle, the next creative team can keep him in a new job or have him return to the Daily Bugle.
You marry him to Mary Jane, that’s it. The next creative team is stuck with that choice. And that’s what actually happened in 1987…the editor in chief wanted to do it, got fired a month later, and then all the creators who had argued against it were stuck with that status quo, and the attempts to undo it led to a lot of really terrible storylines.

Right now it seems we have the perfect situation; Nick Spencer did a 75+ issue run where Mary Jane and Peter were together and she served as an emotional support for him. Zeb Wells is writing a story where they aren’t together. Eventually somebody else will come along and want them together again.

"Dead ends" is just a nice way to say "lazy writer." Every status quo "limits" choices. Period. Even your "perfect situation" creates limits that bind all writers to its premise. Conversely, all stats quos open doors for different kinds of stories that can be told. It's just about what kind of stories the Powers That Be want or what kind the reader wants to consume. Frankly, I'd rather the writers invest in one relationship arch and develop it rather than just cycling through filler flings, but, hey, that's the kind of story I want to buy. Fair enough if you think otherwise, but let's table the "dead end" myth.

[RJT]

It is unfinished business. They couldn't just let Peter and Mary Jane divorce or otherwise split up like a normal married couple with "irreconcilable differences," they had to get the damned Devil --- or the closest equivalent thereof in Mephisto --- to break them up with a literal Faustian pact for Aunt May's life. The marriage did not fizzle out under natural and understandable or relatable circumstances; it was retconned out by a literal deal with a literal devil, who even admitted to their faces that he was doing it to spite The One Above All (God) by eliminating their marriage and the memory of it from the Marvel Universe at large, and that was the price they had to pay to keep Aunt May alive. Ironically, that makes the case for the love between Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson(-Parker) even stronger, because if you have to have the Devil (or the closest in-universe equivalent) break them up . . . that says a lot.

ItÂ’s also just a comic book story. If I had a crystal ball that saw a thousand years into the future and I told you definitely that Marvel never addresses the ramifications of OMD, they just pile it on the heap of bad story ideas they chose to ignore never bothered to even retcon, how would that news hit you?
I don’t mean this dismissively, but I read these things every week because they bring me pleasure. I don’t love every single comic I read, but none of them torture me this way. Maybe the problem is that Marvel has had no qualms about raising your hopes so you’ll continue to buy the series but the likelihood is they just have no interest in “finishing” this story, because it wasn’t even really a story to begin with. It was a last ditch effort to undo a status quo they weren’t interested in pursuing anymore. OMD is bad bad comics, but if they were going to undo the marriage, at least this time they did it quick, instead of the two overly long and ultimately unsuccessful attempts before (in 94/95 and 00/01.)
But you and Marvel view this differently: you see it as unfinished business and they see it as housecleaning. They most likely have no long term plan to have Peter go to hell and defeat Mephisto in order to restore his marriage because the undoing of the marriage was the whole point for them—the Mephisto angle was just the means they used to get there.
That’s why I say it’s not about reading about a married Spider-man—it’s about restoring something you felt was taken from you. Marvel could create a “Spider-Man Forever” style book (like they did with Claremont and the X-Men) written by David Micheline or JM DeMatteis or Tom DeFalco that picks up right where the continuity left off in 1993 and it would be a mid-range seller at best.
The opposite of unfinished business would be finished business, and Marvel doesnÂ’t want Spider-ManÂ’s story to be finished. TheyÂ’re planning on publishing his stories in perpetuity. That means they canÂ’t alter his status quo permanently (like marrying him or having him have a child) because a character thatÂ’s been in over a thousand comics over sixty years canÂ’t change that much.
The period of 86-94 was kind of unique period for Marvel/DC where the first generation of creators who had been brought up in the Silver Age were in charge and they did a lot of things—like marrying Peter and MJ, or killing Jason Todd, or allowing Wally West to take over as Flash—that made it seem like these universes were capable of radical changes. But they quickly realized that it would eventually spiral out to the point where there would eventually be nothing left of the original characters at all if they kept going in that direction. So there was a retreat and now most everything is more in the line of “the illusion of change” that Stan Lee is credited with coining. Things change, become radically different but there’s always a back door to a reset.
Maybe the stigma around divorce is lessened now and Marvel might let Peter and MJ get married figuring they can just divorce them later, but it seems so much easier just to have them dating when they want them to, because why go through all the hassle, especially if they have the sense that a lot of the proponents of the marriage are really just looking for a conclusion to a storyline theyÂ’d rather just forget?

[Kevinroc]

Stan Lee was going to marry Peter and MJ in the newspaper strip. Marvel couldn't stop him. What do you do in that situation?

And let's be honest. Spider-Man Editorial at the time was a mess. All you have to do is look at the Hobgoblin story.

[wleakr]

Stan Lee was going to marry Peter and MJ in the newspaper strip. Marvel couldn't stop him. What do you do in that situation?

And let's be honest. Spider-Man Editorial at the time was a mess. All you have to do is look at the Hobgoblin story.

I think the whole reason Stan even did it was to get some attention to the strip. You REALLY had to be a fan to follow that strip. A years worth doesn't even give you one issue of a complete comic.

In actual comic publishing time, they were probably only married for 24 issues!

[Mister Mets]

It's not Cebulski, Brevoort or Slott's decision to make. Remarrying Spider-Man would need to get corporate approval. It goes above Marvel Comics' writers, editors and editor-in-chief. It's a matter of brand management for Marvel Entertainment's flagship character.

If C B Cebulski woke up tomorrow morning and decided he wanted to remarry Peter and MJ, in the core present day Marvel universe comics, it would get blocked by higher-ups.



I wasn't' talking about Cebulski. I'll rephrase: Would you prefer it if Dan Slott had said it's not happening in our lifetimes? Or that there's a sub 0.01% chance of it happening in our lifetimes?

Yeah, I think there's too much of a meaningless side argument about whether Slott is wrong if there's a small chance the marriage might be restored.

Structurally, we know that there are a lot of barriers to it. Even if this is something that could occur if the stars align, discussing the possibility requires knowing what those circumstances are.

A complicating factor is how hard someone would push for a particular result. If a Disney higher-up has a strong preference, he'll use different levers than if he doesn't see it as a big deal.

We can see with DC's Generations fiasco that these ambitious plans can collapse, especially if there are worries from higher-ups about the vision for the series.

What is nonsense is believing that corporations never change their policies and that a decision made in 2007 will still be set in stone in 2037 or 2057. That’s not how companies work. That’s not how the world works. That’s not how life works.

Disney has changed its mind multiple time. DC has changed its mind. Marvel even changed its mind in unmarrying Peter and MJ after deciding to marry them.

And Marvel HAS authorized a married Peter! Even a divorced Peter! And the film won an Oscar! But you seem to conveniently ignore these facts.

You can keep quoting from the Book of Dan Slott all you want, but Dan is not God and his word is not infallible. Repeating something over and over again does not make it true. I have no doubt Dan believed what he said, but Dan is, I repeat, not God nor Madame Web. He has no idea what will happen ten, fifteen, twenty years from now. When DiDio wiped out Lois and Clark’s marriage, that was “forever.” He meant it, too. He believed it. If you asked him at the time if the marriage would be restored, he would have said a resounding no.

It was restored. Because plans change, policies change, the marketplace changes.

You kept insisting there is no one who can make the decision, and you are factually wrong. Cebulski’s job is to make those decisions. By continuing to say he can’t, you are saying he isn’t trusted to do his job. That’s rather disrespectful to him IMO. And there are others with the authority: Feige, Alan Bergman and Bob Chapek.

If Bob Chapek wanted Spider-Man to be a purple alien because he believed that would make Disney more money, guess what. He’d be a purple alien tomorrow.

Slott will one day not be employed by Marvel. Brevoort will be gone. Cebulski too. They are middle aged men closer to retirement age than they are to Peter Parker’s age. They will retire or be removed from their position or quit. New people will come in. They will make whatever decisions they need to make to make money. That’s how companies in a capitalist system work. No successful company has set in stone policies that never change because that stops them from being nimble and responsive to the market. Again, you can buy alcohol in Disneyland now. And no alcohol sales for the general public (Club 33 members were an exception) was an unbreakable rule for decades. Things change.

Do I think they will remarry Peter? No. Not as long as the current power clique is there. Do I think policies can and will change and we don’t know what will happen in the long term future? Yes.

I mean, we’re getting a new miniseries set when Peter and MJ are explicitly married, and according to JMD Marvel approached him with the idea. Five, ten years ago that would have been unheard of.

What do you think needs to happen for the marriage to be restored? Do you think it's just a matter of lucking into a clique that agrees with you?

One underappreciated aspect of this argument is that it's not just about whether people at Marvel are pro spider-marriage or anti, since that assumes a balance that could tip the other way.

But it seems it's harder to change things than it is to keep the current status quo. When Quesada pushed through One More Day, the stars aligned in that an EIC felt strongly about a direction, the assistant editors agreed, they got creative teams that were on-board and there wasn't corporate pushback. Even if there was an EIC passionate about bringing back the marriage, a lot of things would need to go their way.

[Mister Mets]

Too bad this fan’s argument is based on the belief that Marvel is “wrong”.

We all have preferences. They are not always going to align with the direction of this book.

Also mentions he is “right” based on the applause he received on the question. You look can be applauded and it does not mean the majority agrees with you! The world applauds most things just because someone else does.

It’s said all the time: vote with your wallet. Or sit back and enjoy the show!

Fan applause isn't always for things that are in the best interests of keeping a series going after most of those fans lose interest.

It seems you are missing my point. Or at least not addressing it.

In “never-long form, sequential superhero stories” every introduced aspect beyond the very core premise is a creative dead end if we are stuck with the factory reset button. Betty is introduced. We know they can’t marry, have kids or anything that ages or limits the character. Betty is as much a creative dead end as the marriage is because it limits the stories being possibly told. In the marriage you see doors closing but with the factory reset these doors are forever closed even before Betty is introduced. In that aspect how does the restrictions of never be able to progressive beyond a certain point with any character differ from the same limits you see a marriage introduce?

Oh and being Spider-Man didn’t make his life worse. That is just focusing on the drama every situation adds. It made his life better in some ways and worse in others. The key lesson was always that his decision made it worse by letting Bens murder get away. Responsibility. Would he have got together with MJ without that bite? Gwen? Harry? Bullying by Flash and so on.

Sure Spider-Man wasn’t pure escapism like DC and other comics where doing. When I was reading those early stories(reprints) when I was young the escapism part played in that Spider-Man allowed him to have this life but it also limited him. We didn’t just want to swing and fight like Spider-Man we also wanted that life of being young and having exciting friends and beautiful girls.

Let’s also add that this ongoing story is very much a theoretical concept so all arguments on the creative possibilities and limitations are purely abstract since imigination is supposedly limitless. In that sense all talk about creative dead ends are just a way of saying difficult speed bumps.
The reality is that even if marvel would in some way manage to keep copyrights for centuries. And also publish comics regularly we will never see anything but a story intended to be ever ending who has to end due to real life practicality. In the sense that stories will be recycled. Characters will repeat cycles of behavior and remixes of old patterns. All this instead of some more or less uninterrupted flow of original stories. This will shape the story as a ever ending story must either shed its readers in cycles or keep the cycles in the stories different enough that readers stay on. The second is what many would argue to be in the realm of impossibility with a exponential difficulty factor the longer the story runs.

Carlie Cooper? I did not count that as a long term relationship but that itself would probably warrant a different post entirely devoted to her.

The marriage was not marital discord for me but often little pauses in the drama of Peters life. A chance to breath for him. I miss that and very much so now when the story has gone in the direction that everything in Peters life is a mess.

The clone saga and blowing up MJ is great examples of Marvel being obtuse. They are people who realize they have locked themselves out(by going by your view) and instead of calling a locksmith, janitor or trying to find the key they call the zoo and rent a rhino to try to ram the door open.

I get your point on dead ends, although this is true of a lot of elements of the book.

We know that Peter Parker isn't going to quit forever. He's not going to die. He's unlikely to do anything taboo. He's not going to be part of the MAGA crowd.

But they can still do a story with Spider-Man getting his ass kicked by the Vulture, even if we know he'll survive.

I mean, the issue of Amazing before he proposed to MJ, he was hooking up with Felicia. And the writers of the books at the time say that it was sprung on them. You can like the marriage all you want but you can’t deny it was editorially mandated.

The execution was ridiculous.

Peter and MJ also told Aunt May and Aunt Anna about the wedding in the same issue in which it happened.

It seems absurd that Marvel just skipped the engagement.

[Matt Rat]

The execution was ridiculous.

Peter and MJ also told Aunt May and Aunt Anna about the wedding in the same issue in which it happened.

It seems absurd that Marvel just skipped the engagement.

Read the newspaper strip version, Peter and MJ eloped within 24 hours, and you didn't even see MJ accept Peter's proposal on-panel in the newspaper version either, Peter simply narrates and says "btw, she said yes", Peter wanted MJ to marry him after she saw him kiss another blonde in the previous story and stormed off.

Both weddings were rushed, but it didn't matter.

[TinkerSpider]

We can see with DC's Generations fiasco that these ambitious plans can collapse, especially if there are worries from higher-ups about the vision for the series.

The cancellation had nothing to do with "worries from higher-ups about the vision for the series" and everything to do with Dan DiDio being abruptly fired (and not for editorial reasons). DiDio was the champion of Generations, and when he left, so did the enthusiasm for it.

In fact, this is a perfect example of everything I've been saying: all it takes is for people to turn over at a company for policies to change.

What do you think needs to happen for the marriage to be restored? Do you think it's just a matter of lucking into a clique that agrees with you?

What clique? Are you referring to my use of power clique to refer to the current exec team at Marvel? That's just a factual description of the current situation.

I've said nothing about my personal preferences in this thread. In fact, while I think OMD broke the very foundation of "with great power there must also come great responsibilty" by Peter putting his very selfish personal desires over his responsibilty to the greater good of the entire universe by giving the Devil/evil what he wants and dealing a blow to The One Above All/good, I'm fine if Peter and MJ remain in love with each other without marriage. My issue with OMD is that it broke the character of Peter Parker.

Instead, I am solely discussing how large media corporations act in the 21st century in the United States of America and I've written the equivalent of a novel explaining this in great detail. I have explained the circumstances it would take, in fact, in my very first post on this subject. If you have questions about what I wrote or if I can clarify in any way, I would happy to do so. However, you might want to read my posts first.

One underappreciated aspect of this argument is that it's not just about whether people at Marvel are pro spider-marriage or anti, since that assumes a balance that could tip the other way.

But it seems it's harder to change things than it is to keep the current status quo. When Quesada pushed through One More Day, the stars aligned in that an EIC felt strongly about a direction, the assistant editors agreed, they got creative teams that were on-board and there wasn't corporate pushback. Even if there was an EIC passionate about bringing back the marriage, a lot of things would need to go their way.

Again, Cebulski reports to Feige who reports to Bergman who reports to Chapek. Cebulski would probably need a deck explaining the potential uplift impact on revenue from a status change, and an outline of the marketing and sales plans to support the change to give to Feige and whatever cross divisional Disney heads (marketing, PR, erc) who may be asked to weigh in on the plan's merits. That's it. But Disney cares so much about Marvel Comics, they made them the centerpiece of their earnings call today--

Oh. Wait. Marvel Comics wasn't mentioned at all in their earnings call today. The only mention Marvel got was producing more original MCU content for Disney+, which IS a business that is core to Disney.

Disney brass honestly do not care about what is in the comics and keeping the brand "safe" for kids for generations to come. If Disney micromanaged Spider-Man's image, then Superior would never have been allowed to see print. Peter and Silk would not have been allowed to screw every chance they got because "pheromones." Blood would not be flying when Tombstone beats up Peter. They trust Marvel to make the best decisions for its audience that will hit the performance metrics set for them.

And one underappreciated aspect of this argument is that it isn't about personal preferences at all.

Corporations like Disney make decisions based on projected profit. Marvel is now part of Disney - they were bought in 2009, or two years after OMD - and Disney is one of the most data driven companies on this planet, which means Marvel is now beholden to the same army of Excel spreadsheet warriors as the rest of the company.

If Marvel/Disney decides it is more profitable to create a big sales event because the comic book market is fading into obscurity - and manga currently outsells monthly floppies - and they decide to appeal to Gen X/Millennials, as Gen Z shows little interest in comic books, by appealing to audiences who are nostalgic for stories from the 90s/early 00s (which they are already doing to some extent with titles like Michelinie's Venom and JMD's Ben Reilly/Lost Hunt) - and a Spider-Man wedding is seen as a way to buy some splashy global publicity and big bucks not only from the comics but other tie-ins and merchandise and TV special and maybe it's tied to a TV series or film:

They will do it.

Or whatever other circumstance in which changing Spider-Man's status will create profits and/or publicity and/or fulfill a key metric.

My point is that no matter how passionate Dan Slott was in 2017, he doesn't have a crystal ball. People leave companies and are replaced all the time. Corporate policies change all the time. Insisting some rule is set in stone "forever" is irrational and ignores the basic reality of how businesses work.

[The BaRoN]

Remember the issue that came right after OMD, Peter making out with some chick at a RAVE. LMFAO.

This has been a mess for 15 years and we’ve been shut up with renew your vows, OMIT, and Spencer’s early run.

I’ll not fall for it anymore, now the main anti marriage instigator is gone we shouldn’t have this but instead we’ve gone to back to OMD Peter who’s a complete buffoon and jerk.

[Lee]

So you agreed they can change their minds. Argument closed.

We've been explicitly told that keeping Spider-Man unmarried is something that Marvel Entertainment is committed to as a company, and that remarrying them would go above the Marvel Comics EIC.

That wasn't the case for keeping Colossus dead.

I am citing reality how corporations in 21st century United States work. If you want to receive your MBA to better understand my souce of reality, I can point you to some very good programs. I'm sorry reality isn't a good enough answer for you, and you failed to answer if you have ever worked for a corporation, much less held a management posiiton, so you might lack the experience/knowledge to grasp this is indeed reality, but it is reality nonetheless.

Would you talk to someone like this in person? I'm not giving out details of my personal life to a stranger, certainly not on a Spider-Man forum.

No, it's not. Just because you want to label it as irrelevant to avoid the cold hard facts that Disney approves multiple status quos for Spider-Man that are seen by audiences that VASTLY outnumber who picks up a comic book, doesn't make it so. Do you understand the differences in audience size?

The comic book is read by a very small audience. it does not drive the brand. The trademark Spider-Man that is printed on birthday cards drives the visual brand, but consumers looking at the image on a birthday card have no idea if he is single, married, dating a gorilla, taken over by a genocidal mass murderer. The versions in the films and TV shows drive ticket sales and ancillary merchandise sales and Disney+ subscriptions, which is all Disney truly cares about.

That's the way things are in corporate America. Again, that's reality.

You're saying that the higher ups don't care whether the comic book version of Spider-Man is married or not. We have been told by someone who writes Spider-Man comics that the higher ups do care.

No, Quesada said OMIT/OMD changed the canon.

You said: "And MJ was never pregnant, according to Quesada."

I said: "Quesada only ever said that MJ never having been pregnant in the revised timeline was his own personal interpretation, he was very clear about that. It was never canon."

Joe Quesada said: The funny thing about the pregnancy issue is that Marvel at the time scrambled to derail the story as quickly as possible. I don't know exactly how that story got as far as it did, but they ultimately realized it was a huge mistake. So, taking that into consideration, I personally feel that that's one that didn't happen, chiefly because Peter and MJ now not having been married, would have taken proper precaution to avoid getting in the family way in the first place.

"I personally feel that that's one that didn't happen".

https://www.cbr.com/the-one-more-day...sada-the-fans/

As far as Spider-Man: The Lost Hunt goes, it's moot. That mini-series is set in the married timeline, not the unmarried timeline.

My point is that no matter how passionate Dan Slott was in 2017, he doesn't have a crystal ball.

Peter Parker will never have a poop emoji tattooed on his forehead as the long-term status quo of the character.

Even though I do not have a crystal ball, I am confident that Peter Parker will not have a poop emoji tattooed on his forehead for 200 consecutive issues of Amazing Spider-Man.

Technically, I could be proven wrong about this. Someone could call me out for using the word "never". The laws of science allow for a universe in which Peter Parker has a poop emoji tattooed on his forehead for 200 issues of Amazing Spider-Man. But I do not need to crystal ball to conclude that the likelihood of this is low.

A comic book writer with a long run on Spider-Man in the post-marriage era has determined, from their experience working on the property in multiple mediums, that the long-term likelihood of the character being remarried is so low that they would use the word "never".

As fans on the outside, we can argue the semantics of the word "never" ("What about when Spider-Man and Mary Jane become public domain?!"), or we can keep the intent of this information in mind when speculating about the future of the series.

[RJT]

Remember the issue that came right after OMD, Peter making out with some chick at a RAVE. LMFAO.
.

I mean, that’s not what happened. A girl accosted him because he was hanging with Harry Osborn and she wanted to be part of that entourage for the social ramifications.

[RJT]

l

As fans on the outside, we can argue the semantics of the word "never" ("What about when Spider-Man and Mary Jane become public domain?!"), or we can keep the intent of this information in mind when speculating about the future of the series.

I think this is the thing that sticks with me from these discussions—if your enjoyment of Spider-Man hinges on a very specific series of pretty unlikely event all happening in a very specific order, why do that to yourself? If I only liked Law & Order when Jerry Orbach was on it, I wouldn’t keep watching each week hoping that it turns out the actor faked his death, or that they put him in a cryogenic tank and have now revived him, or that the ratings of the series is now so low that they’ve utilized the most advanced AI and CGI technology to recreate his character….I’d either watch the new episodes for what they were or just quit and watch old episodes instead.
That’s why I keep coming back to the feeling that this isn’t about reading married Spider-Man comics at all—it’s about grievance.

[Matt Rat]

As far as Spider-Man: The Lost Hunt goes, it's moot. That mini-series is set in the married timeline, not the unmarried timeline..

It's not moot. It contradicts Cebulski's statements. He says a non-married Spidey is more relatable, yet they are promoting an in-canon, pro-marriage, pro-parenthood Spider-Man series which will run for five months concurrent with Dark Web. Why are they saying one thing and doing another? Because they love playing psy-ops with the fans.

That’s why I keep coming back to the feeling that this isn’t about reading married Spider-Man comics at all—it’s about grievance.

No, it's about being able to read the room

[RJT]

It's not moot. It contradicts Cebulski's statements. He says a non-married Spidey is more relatable, yet they are promoting an in-canon, pro-marriage, pro-parenthood Spider-Man series which will run for five months concurrent with Dark Web. Why are they saying one thing and doing another? Because they love playing psy-ops with the fans.

“Psy-ops”? You folks have been caterwauling about married Spider-Man for 14 years and Marvel gives you what you want and it’s a “psy-ops”?
Marvel doesn’t publish books to mess with you psychologically. They publish books hoping you’ll buy them and make them money.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

The issue has always been that it's simply not believable at this point for 616 Peter and MJ to break up. It wasn't believable in '07 and it still wasn't after Spencer. Any writer that values even a loose sense of continuity and consistency - which Marvel always prided itself on, even during the Quesada years - would keep them together for that reason.

Therefore if someone truly believes that a single Peter is a "fresher" status quo, what they're really arguing is for Marvel to reboot Spider-Man after every writer the way DC does. By their own logic, that would be the "best" way to go.

That argument also has nothing to do with the nature of Peter's love life. You can make that argument about literally any Marvel character that has 50 years of continuity... so literally most Marvel characters.