Mary Jane Watson-Parker Appreciation 2023

[Venomous Mask]

I just came across this today:

[Rzerox21xx]

Have you read Tom Breevort blog substack, he mention this

https://tombrevoort.substack.com/p/5...medium=reader2

Chris Sutcliffe

I first heard your name when it came attached to a manifesto about who Spider-Man should be post-One More Day, and what the core of his character is. I believe this was you then working as editor for this run.

I'd love for you to talk on that, how you feel about what you said now, in hindsight, especially seeing how fixated on One More Day some fans have become. Do you agree with past-you's approach?

But more specifically, I'd love to know more about the writer's room approach you mentioned.

So many writers struggle writing Amazing Spider-Man because of the bi-weekly schedule and your approach seems like a good way to fix that. I know that a Spidey Brain Trust happened, so I'd love to know what worked well about that approach and why it ended up back as a single writer.

Well, Chris, I haven’t looked at that document in many years, but I don’t think that many of my opinions regarding Spider-Man and what the strip’s narrative engines are all about have changed much in that time. There might be other things that I would highlight today, some elements that I might position differently a little bit, but by-and-large, I still hold to what I laid out back then. I completely get that certain fans are fixated on the events of One More Day, as we knew some of them would be. But especially after seeing DC blink after having undone the Superman & Lois marriage and restored it, I certainly wouldn’t change things now or going forward. It was a painful thing to do, one that Joe Quesada bore much of the brunt of—but now that it’s been accomplished, it would be the height of foolishness to turn around and go back down into that hole again. In terms of the Spider-Man Braintrust/Web-Heads, first off all, while I wrote up that position paper, it was actually editor Stephen Wacker who directly edited AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and the other Spidey books during this period. So anything that worked there—and there was a bunch of it—should really be attributed to him. And in practical terms, it was a difficult thing to do, juggling a team of writers over the course of a few years to put out three consecutive issues of the same series every month, containing subplots and rising actions and coordinated casts and get everybody’s ideas and points of view represented. But Steve was extremely good at it. He’d had experience from having worked on DC’s 52 which I think helped—he wasn’t beginning from the absolute ground floor. All that said, it was tough. So tough that at a certain point, the decision was made to go down to only two issues being released every month and bringing in a single writer for all of it, which turned out to be Dan Slott. And that’s more or less how it’s been ever since, excepting the recent period where Nick Lowe did the SPIDER-MAN BEYOND storyline and again utilized a team of writers to produce storylines in tandem. Nick did it for a much shorter time than Steve did, and he seemed to have some success with it. But it’s definitely harder to work that way than it is with just a single writer (even if you occasionally need to bring in somebody else to do an issue or two, as Joe Kelly did recently.)

[Xenon]

Have you read Tom Breevort blog substack, he mention this

https://tombrevoort.substack.com/p/5...medium=reader2

Chris Sutcliffe

I first heard your name when it came attached to a manifesto about who Spider-Man should be post-One More Day, and what the core of his character is. I believe this was you then working as editor for this run.

I'd love for you to talk on that, how you feel about what you said now, in hindsight, especially seeing how fixated on One More Day some fans have become. Do you agree with past-you's approach?

But more specifically, I'd love to know more about the writer's room approach you mentioned.

So many writers struggle writing Amazing Spider-Man because of the bi-weekly schedule and your approach seems like a good way to fix that. I know that a Spidey Brain Trust happened, so I'd love to know what worked well about that approach and why it ended up back as a single writer.

Well, Chris, I haven’t looked at that document in many years, but I don’t think that many of my opinions regarding Spider-Man and what the strip’s narrative engines are all about have changed much in that time. There might be other things that I would highlight today, some elements that I might position differently a little bit, but by-and-large, I still hold to what I laid out back then. I completely get that certain fans are fixated on the events of One More Day, as we knew some of them would be. But especially after seeing DC blink after having undone the Superman & Lois marriage and restored it, I certainly wouldn’t change things now or going forward. It was a painful thing to do, one that Joe Quesada bore much of the brunt of—but now that it’s been accomplished, it would be the height of foolishness to turn around and go back down into that hole again. In terms of the Spider-Man Braintrust/Web-Heads, first off all, while I wrote up that position paper, it was actually editor Stephen Wacker who directly edited AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and the other Spidey books during this period. So anything that worked there—and there was a bunch of it—should really be attributed to him. And in practical terms, it was a difficult thing to do, juggling a team of writers over the course of a few years to put out three consecutive issues of the same series every month, containing subplots and rising actions and coordinated casts and get everybody’s ideas and points of view represented. But Steve was extremely good at it. He’d had experience from having worked on DC’s 52 which I think helped—he wasn’t beginning from the absolute ground floor. All that said, it was tough. So tough that at a certain point, the decision was made to go down to only two issues being released every month and bringing in a single writer for all of it, which turned out to be Dan Slott. And that’s more or less how it’s been ever since, excepting the recent period where Nick Lowe did the SPIDER-MAN BEYOND storyline and again utilized a team of writers to produce storylines in tandem. Nick did it for a much shorter time than Steve did, and he seemed to have some success with it. But it’s definitely harder to work that way than it is with just a single writer (even if you occasionally need to bring in somebody else to do an issue or two, as Joe Kelly did recently.)

Boy does he need to go. Imagine seeing the DC reaction and going "no, it's the children who are wrong". Hoo boy. I'm holding back what I actually want to say because it is definitely not respectful.

Emergency Spider-Man couple picture to counteract that toxin.

[Garlador]

Boy does he need to go. Imagine seeing the DC reaction and going "no, it's the children who are wrong". Hoo boy. I'm holding back what I actually want to say because it is definitely not respectful.

Emergency Spider-Man couple picture to counteract that toxin.

Yeah… I’ll continue to ignore Spider-Man main book. Saying DC “blinked” on Superman and Lois’s marriage like it’s a bad thing… The book got the shot in the arm it needed and received universal PRAISE.

It’s still an “us vs readers” mindset at Marvel, and so long as the people who wanted OMD in the first place are in charge, they will never admit it was a mistake.

This made the comic BETTER.

[Rzerox21xx]

I guess I can't help but feel like OMD and OMIT were disrespectful to deceased fashion designer Willie Smith who design MJ wedding dress back in 87 for the Wedding issue. he died due to AIDS. the same year that Annual came out.

[Venomsaurus]

While that quote is very frustrating, I'm doing my best to stay positive. It's important to remember Brevoort is just one voice at Marvel. Yes, one of the more prominent voices, but his word is hardly law. Nor would it remain law for eternity. He speaks of it never being undone, but Spencer's run came pretty damn close. Be it in the next few years, or a decade plus from now, it feels like an inevitability to me that OMD will be undone in one fashion or another. A change of guard and fresh blood is what Spider-man needs, and I like to think younger minds would agree Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson belong together. So I'll keep hope that this is just another bump in the road to them crazy kids getting back together.

[clonegeek]

While that quote is very frustrating, I'm doing my best to stay positive. It's important to remember Brevoort is just one voice at Marvel. Yes, one of the more prominent voices, but his word is hardly law. Nor would it remain law for eternity. He speaks of it never being undone, but Spencer's run came pretty damn close. Be it in the next few years, or a decade plus from now, it feels like an inevitability to me that OMD will be undone in one fashion or another. A change of guard and fresh blood is what Spider-man needs, and I like to think younger minds would agree Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson belong together. So I'll keep hope that this is just another bump in the road to them crazy kids getting back together.

What would be the best question to ask him that also slyly debunks him?

[Spider-Tiger]

I mean I don't imagine any of the people that fought so hard to make OMD and BND a thing to ever change those opinions. To do so they'd have to swallow that they potentially made a mistake and screwed with the book unnecessarily. This wasn't just one story, but years of stories and years of arguing against all of the backlash. There's too much ego at play here. Ultimately, the direction of the book is out of Brevoort's control at this point.

[clonegeek]

I mean I don't imagine any of the people that fought so hard to make OMD and BND a thing to ever change those opinions. To do so they'd have to swallow that they potentially made a mistake and screwed with the book unnecessarily. This wasn't just one story, but years of stories and years of arguing against all of the backlash. There's too much ego at play here. Ultimately, the direction of the book is out of Brevoort's control at this point.

Well pay them enough money and then they would change their tune

[Huntsman Spider]

Well pay them enough money and then they would change their tune

True, although frankly, the money should go to the actual creative talent that makes these characters work as well as they have over the years. I mean, Marvel's part of a multibillion-dollar megacorporation, so it's not like they don't have the money at this stage to pay the creatives better wages, especially with all the money the film and TV adaptations have brought.

[Venomsaurus]

What would be the best question to ask him that also slyly debunks him?

I don't know if it would really be worth it to get him to slip up and admit it could be undone. Sure, it would be nice to have some kind of confirmation from such a big name but at the same time I wouldn't really expect it. Brevoort has always been a sticks to his guns kinda guy.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I actually want to know what the hell Brevoort is talking about when he says Superman's marriage was mistake. Or why he's even comparing it to Peter and MJ's in the first place. It makes no sense even by his own logic.

I mean, Spider-Man did start out a teenager. And he did have multiple girlfriends.

Superman started out as an adult, and always had only one main love interest (Lana Lang is less memorable than Betty Brant and Wonder Woman happened only recent (and was a fail)).

So the reasons Brevoort gave for OMD are completely non-applicable to Superman. They fail even if we put our OMD thinking hats on.

It sounds like Brevoort just doesn't like superheroes getting married period.

[clonegeek]

I actually want to know what the hell Brevoort is talking about when he says Superman's marriage was mistake. Or why he's even comparing it to Peter and MJ's in the first place. It makes no sense even by his own logic.

I mean, Spider-Man did start out a teenager. And he did have multiple girlfriends.

Superman started out as an adult, and always had only one main love interest (Lana Lang is less memorable than Betty Brant and Wonder Woman happened only recent (and was a fail)).

So the reasons Brevoort gave for OMD are completely non-applicable to Superman. They fail even if we put our OMD thinking hats on.

It sounds like Brevoort just doesn't like superheroes getting married period.

Brevoort has an archaic view of comics it feels

[Xenon]

What would be the best question to ask him that also slyly debunks him?

It's best to pay him the attention his opinions deserve, which is none.

There is no "debunking" a man who can say that sixteen years later. They either don't care, are stuck in pride, or lack the basic functioning intelligence to understand logic. Or all three. I won't say any more.

I mean I don't imagine any of the people that fought so hard to make OMD and BND a thing to ever change those opinions. To do so they'd have to swallow that they potentially made a mistake and screwed with the book unnecessarily. This wasn't just one story, but years of stories and years of arguing against all of the backlash. There's too much ego at play here. Ultimately, the direction of the book is out of Brevoort's control at this point.

I generally agree with this which is why I'd feel comfortable if those people were just gone, but I'll say this. You can be wrong forever or you can be wrong in the past. To let yourself be wrong forever because you were foolish enough to make a mistake is to make that mistake continuously.

[Spider-Tiger]

I generally agree with this which is why I'd feel comfortable if those people were just gone, but I'll say this. You can be wrong forever or you can be wrong in the past. To let yourself be wrong forever because you were foolish enough to make a mistake is to make that mistake continuously.

They could reinstate the marriage tomorrow to huge financial success and fanfare, and I'm sure Brevoort and a few others would still call it a mistake unfortunately.

I actually want to know what the hell Brevoort is talking about when he says Superman's marriage was mistake. Or why he's even comparing it to Peter and MJ's in the first place. It makes no sense even by his own logic.

I mean, Spider-Man did start out a teenager. And he did have multiple girlfriends.

Superman started out as an adult, and always had only one main love interest (Lana Lang is less memorable than Betty Brant and Wonder Woman happened only recent (and was a fail)).

So the reasons Brevoort gave for OMD are completely non-applicable to Superman. They fail even if we put our OMD thinking hats on.

It sounds like Brevoort just doesn't like superheroes getting married period.

I think Brevoort's opinion is probably that Supes' original status quo wasn't married and so he shouldn't be married. Sure his main love from the beginning was Lois, but the status quo was a "will they, won't they" for decades. Once Lois Lane is caught, the conflict is over and the story becomes boring. (Or something along those lines.)

And he likely disagrees with writers and editors capitulating to the desires of the fandom. He strikes me as someone who believes in the slippery slope of letting fans dictate the story.