15th anniversary of Brand New Day. Hooray?

[Daibhidh]

If Wells' run ends with Peter and MJ still separated (and possibly with MJ still having the kids), it's going to be interesting if the next writer can ignore it in a flash the way Wells ignored Spencer, or if they'll have to work to undo the status quo.

Well, one of the strengths of the Peter/MJ relationship is that pro-Peter/MJ writers have never written it like it's the predestined one true romance. Only Quesada and Slott have written it that way. It's evolved as being two people who've grown together. So while anti-Peter/MJ writers have felt free to revert MJ's characterisation as necessary to break them up, pro-Peter/MJ writers have generally wanted to write them as growing back together organically.

Really, it's telling that Wells thinks that giving MJ kids (biological or not biological) may not be a permanent thing because the next writer can just undo it. There's no way that you can take the Peter/MJ relationship seriously and treat it as a thing where one of them having children is just something that they draw a line under and forget about.

[PCN24454]

I know it's the nature of these things to do sequels, but nobody was going to pull off a sequel to Nothing Can Stop The Juggernaut that lived up to the original. Not even the writer of the original story.

Ehh, the original wasn’t that great either since it mostly only seemed to exist to put Madame Web on ice. Otherwise it’s a really predictable story.

[Matt Rat]

Ehh, the original wasn’t that great either since it mostly only seemed to exist to put Madame Web on ice. Otherwise it’s a really predictable story.

Is there any classic story you like?

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Well, one of the strengths of the Peter/MJ relationship is that pro-Peter/MJ writers have never written it like it's the predestined one true romance. Only Quesada and Slott have written it that way. It's evolved as being two people who've grown together. So while anti-Peter/MJ writers have felt free to revert MJ's characterisation as necessary to break them up, pro-Peter/MJ writers have generally wanted to write them as growing back together organically.

Really, it's telling that Wells thinks that giving MJ kids (biological or not biological) may not be a permanent thing because the next writer can just undo it. There's no way that you can take the Peter/MJ relationship seriously and treat it as a thing where one of them having children is just something that they draw a line under and forget about.

Writing Peter and MJ growing back together organically is a story with diminishing returns, though. You can only do that so many times before it gets redundant at best and silly at worst. If someone tells that story after Wells, it would be the fourth time someone told a story of Peter and MJ reuniting and why they're inseparable (first time was DeFalco, second was JMS, third was Spencer). The last two of those were written in the last 20 years, and are still very contemporary and memorable.

Only way I can see an organic reunion work is if they build on Spencer's idea of Mephisto keeping them apart, but Marvel doesn't want to go there.

Agreed that Wells isn't taking the relationship seriously and hasn't thought things through.

[Matt Rat]

Only way I can see an organic reunion work is if they build on Spencer's idea of Mephisto keeping them apart, but Marvel doesn't want to go there..

That's very much the meta reason Peter and MJ are kept apart, something for the readers to know, not the characters, so that they can keep them invested with the will they/won't thet dynamic

This is still a reality brought about by devil magic, you don't know how much of this is Peter and MJ acting of their volition, or if they're being controlled/corrupted somehow. Any time something like Spencer's run happens could be interpreted as Peter and MJ occasionally having the inner strength to resist the spell for a time, but ultimately they are still affected by that spell and are vulnerable to it.

[Mister Mets]

One thing I wonder about the multi-verse films (which includes No Way Home) is that they may lead to a different impression of what Spider-Man is.

One argument is that the movies show that Peter Parker will always end up with MJ.

But you could also look at it as Peter Parker having a main love interest. The Tobey Maguire Peter Parker was in love with a redhead aspiring actress. The Andrew Garfield Peter Parker was in love with a blonde who liked science. The Tom Holland Peter Parker was in love with a cynical artistic biracial girl.

For the comments that Zendaya's MJ is the same character as the Mary Jane Watson of the comics, what attributes are unique to the MJ of the comics that also apply to the MCU's Michelle Jones?

Ultimate Mary Jane seemed quite different from the Mary Jane of the comics.

Correct, and that is part of why voting with your wallet is a myth.



Well, Superman and Wally are married with kids, and Batman has a kid too. It was a clear success, especially in Superman's case. And Marvel still hasn't budged. They could have at least restored the marriage. They didn't even do the bare minimum and keep Peter and MJ together. Instead, they let Wells do BND 2.0.

Voting with your wallet wouldn't be a myth if there are people looking at sales data (and related material like the most popular comics on Marvel's Digital Unlimited service) who don't care about the spider-marriage, and just want to do what makes money.

No, the first film was very clearly meant to be the start of a saga. Webb deliberately picked Gwen as a character knowing he would kill her off, and he had Shailene film scenes as MJ but cut them in favor of introducing MJ in the third film. They even set the release date for the third film for Juy 19, 2016.

The Sinister Six film would have featured Harry as the main character. It wasn't completely disconnected to the ASM films.



Sure. Dramas, focused on character, do it all the time. But comic book films are action driven.

Spider-Man films should focus on Peter Parker as well. The Raimi and Watts films did a decent job of it.

Wells sounds so salty when talking about his run these days.

I fully expect the next ASM run to be the safest run imaginable.

What would the safest run possible look like?

[Kevinroc]

One thing I wonder about the multi-verse films (which includes No Way Home) is that they may lead to a different impression of what Spider-Man is.

One argument is that the movies show that Peter Parker will always end up with MJ.

But you could also look at it as Peter Parker having a main love interest. The Tobey Maguire Peter Parker was in love with a redhead aspiring actress. The Andrew Garfield Peter Parker was in love with a blonde who liked science. The Tom Holland Peter Parker was in love with a cynical artistic biracial girl.

For the comments that Zendaya's MJ is the same character as the Mary Jane Watson of the comics, what attributes are unique to the MJ of the comics that also apply to the MCU's Michelle Jones?

Ultimate Mary Jane seemed quite different from the Mary Jane of the comics.

I don't understand why you are putting so much emphasis on trying to fight the idea of Peter x MJ. Do you have something against the pairing?

What would the safest run possible look like?

Probably something like the first year or so of the Spencer run.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

One thing I wonder about the multi-verse films (which includes No Way Home) is that they may lead to a different impression of what Spider-Man is.

One argument is that the movies show that Peter Parker will always end up with MJ.

But you could also look at it as Peter Parker having a main love interest. The Tobey Maguire Peter Parker was in love with a redhead aspiring actress. The Andrew Garfield Peter Parker was in love with a blonde who liked science. The Tom Holland Peter Parker was in love with a cynical artistic biracial girl.

For the comments that Zendaya's MJ is the same character as the Mary Jane Watson of the comics, what attributes are unique to the MJ of the comics that also apply to the MCU's Michelle Jones?

Ultimate Mary Jane seemed quite different from the Mary Jane of the comics.

Zendaya's MJ has a bad home life, is sassy, and hides her real emotions from others. Also she's into civil rights and protesting.

It's not exactly a 1:1 adaptarion, but still closer to 616 MJ than MCU Peter was to 616 Peter. If someone is going to die on the hill that the mutation that was Iron Man Jr is somehow 616 accurate, it's only fair to count MCU MJ as as a valid MJ too.

Voting with your wallet wouldn't be a myth if there are people looking at sales data (and related material like the most popular comics on Marvel's Digital Unlimited service) who don't care about the spider-marriage, and just want to do what makes money.

If there were people doing that, sure. (They would be smarter than current Editorial). But there aren't.

[WebLurker]

One thing I wonder about the multi-verse films (which includes No Way Home) is that they may lead to a different impression of what Spider-Man is.

They arguably do have more impact than comic books. (Case in point, it's the cartoons, not the comics, that established how Venom works.)

One argument is that the movies show that Peter Parker will always end up with MJ.

Kinda like how Transformers media is about morphing robots fighting each other for resources. Weird, ain't it?

But you could also look at it as Peter Parker having a main love interest. The Tobey Maguire Peter Parker was in love with a redhead aspiring actress. The Andrew Garfield Peter Parker was in love with a blonde who liked science. The Tom Holland Peter Parker was in love with a cynical artistic biracial girl.

For the comments that Zendaya's MJ is the same character as the Mary Jane Watson of the comics, what attributes are unique to the MJ of the comics that also apply to the MCU's Michelle Jones?

Ultimate Mary Jane seemed quite different from the Mary Jane of the comics.

Red herrings. (All things considered, I think the more interesting question is why the main comics are the abnormality of the franchise on this point.)

[Mister Mets]

I don't understand why you are putting so much emphasis on trying to fight the idea of Peter x MJ. Do you have something against the pairing?



Probably something like the first year or so of the Spencer run.

I have nothing against the pairing. Some of the fans go overboard, and I argue with that on occasion.

My main objection to the marriage in the comics was that I don't think it worked in the long-term in the specific context of a Spider-Man whose adventures are expected to be published indefinitely.

There was a video against Star Wars Episode 1 I saw years ago that did make a point about how you should be able to distinguish characters by things that aren't related to the profession or appearance. And that got me thinking about how Ultimate MJ was pretty different from the original Mary Jane Watson, and that later Zendaya was different from both of them. And that got me wondering if this argument isn't about Mary Jane being special, but about her being established as the endgame, which is a different argument than the one we usually have.

[Kevinroc]

I have nothing against the pairing. Some of the fans go overboard, and I argue with that on occasion.

My main objection to the marriage in the comics was that I don't think it worked in the long-term in the specific context of a Spider-Man whose adventures are expected to be published indefinitely.

There was a video against Star Wars Episode 1 I saw years ago that did make a point about how you should be able to distinguish characters by things that aren't related to the profession or appearance. And that got me thinking about how Ultimate MJ was pretty different from the original Mary Jane Watson, and that later Zendaya was different from both of them. And that got me wondering if this argument isn't about Mary Jane being special, but about her being established as the endgame, which is a different argument than the one we usually have.

I don't think you can look at MJ in those terms. Because MJ wasn't created to be the love interest. She was created to be a comic relief side-character. She became the love interest because of a particular set of circumstances that nobody could account for. This makes adaptations interesting because they come in with the intention that MJ is THE love interest for Peter. Even The Amazing Spider-Man films intended to depict the couple before they were cancelled.

[TinkerSpider]

My main objection to the marriage in the comics was that I don't think it worked in the long-term in the specific context of a Spider-Man whose adventures are expected to be published indefinitely.

Why? No, seriously, people keep parroting this phrase but I don’t think they know why they parrot it.

Decades ago, there was a thing in television called “The Moonlighting Curse.” It was conventional wisdom that if you ever let the two leads consummate their relationship, the series would die.

But it turned out: there’s no such thing as a Moonlighting Curse. Shows don’t die when characters are together. If anything, the Moonlighting Curse coincided with the natural life cycle of a television series and the show was on the downside of the curve, anyway.

So to me: this is the comics version of the Moonlighting Curse. A bunch of middle aged men stood around and told themselves this was the truth, based on nothing but something they felt.

Because the sales were strong during the marriage. Yes, sales were strong for all of comics but ASM outsold them all right after the marriage. ASM was even the Batman at the time, the one book whose sales were so solid and dependable, all the other comics were measured against it.

Sales fell in half during the Clone Saga. Part of that is the market was changing and speculators were leaving and comics everywhere crashed. Part of that was they kept the story going for too long and kept moving the end zone and kept vacillating on “Pete’s the real deal! No, it’s Ben! No, it’s Pete! No, it’s Ben! No, it’s Pete!” And part of it was that people were angry they even tried to replace Peter and get rid of the marriage and those readers left - and then the Byrne era drove a bunch more away.

But JMS brought the readers back, and sales were good. Which goes to show it’s not the status quo. It’s the creative team.

But since OMD sales have fallen, while Batman’s grew and then remained constant. As of 2020, last time we had reliable numbers, Batman was outselling ASM 3 to 2. And now Batman is the Batman of comic sales, not ASM.

So again: why?

There was a video against Star Wars Episode 1 I saw years ago that did make a point about how you should be able to distinguish characters by things that aren't related to the profession or appearance. And that got me thinking about how Ultimate MJ was pretty different from the original Mary Jane Watson, and that later Zendaya was different from both of them. And that got me wondering if this argument isn't about Mary Jane being special, but about her being established as the endgame, which is a different argument than the one we usually have.

MJ is empathetic and a has higher EQ than Peter. She’s smart and quick witted. She’s brave and keeps her head in dangerous situations. She’s witty but it’s a drier sense of humor than Peter’s. She can be cutting on occasion. She’s career driven/passionate about her interests. She is staunchly loyal to the people she cares about. She doesn’t like taking no for an answer and will go after what she wants. Her feelings for Peter are so big and complicated, they can scare her. She doesn’t easily let others see her real self and is less trusting of people than Peter. She doesn’t like being condescended to and being judged by her appearance - although she will use her appearance as a mask to keep others off guard. She keeps Peter’s secret tight and doesn’t let it slip; she’s trustworthy and one of the few Peter is happy to trust. She grew up with a less than happy home life. She doesn’t come from money.

She’s surprisingly consistent in many ways. Her variance is no greater than Peter’s, who has swung - no pun intended - greatly from adaptation to adaption as well.

[Blunt Guy]

I'll have to remember to check for the 20th, 25th, and 30th anniversary threads over the next 15 years to see how many of the same posters from the past 15 years are still waiting for the marriage to be re-instated. I honestly hope that number is zero by 2038 (but wouldn't be too surprised to see the same names).

[TinkerSpider]

I'll have to remember to check for the 20th, 25th, and 30th anniversary threads over the next 15 years to see how many of the same posters from the past 15 years are still waiting for the marriage to be re-instated. I honestly hope that number is zero by 2038 (but wouldn't be too surprised to see the same names).

That’s sweet, thinking this message board will still be here, much less that comics will still exist in their current form 15 years from now. Not to mention many names have pretty recent joining dates next to them.

But you do that. It’s good to have something to look forward to. There might as well be one thing on that calendar.

[Blunt Guy]

15 years isn't as long as you might think, and comics don't change much anyway. Don't know if this place will still be around, though. Me either.