When do you expect One More Day will be undone?

[Spider-Tiger]

Okay. Let's play your game them.

Why can't you?

? I answered this in the following:

The audience knows this as the reason why the characters arent wedded, but the characters themselves are forced to play stupid.

[PCN24454]

? I answered this in the following:

Ehh, romance stories do it all the time.

[WebLurker]

The thing about new readers is they tend to accept what's already there when they start.

Spider-man was married now he's not just becomes another page in the characters history, like he used to have an alien suit, now he doesn't or he used to have six arms. He used to have an award winning book. He used to live with the Avengers. There's a lot of stuff that happened back in the day.

At most it'll get brought up for somebody's "10 Strangest things to happen to Marvel heroes" and makes the list somewhere around Wolverine loosing his nose and that time Tony Stark was replaced by a teenager.

Dunno; can only speak for myself, but a lot of the Marvel/DC comics I ever got into was because of adaptations (movies, cartoons, what have you). It was thanks to that that, when I started actually getting Spider-Man comic collections for myself, I avoided the post-OMD stuff like the plague; my gateway was the original Raimi movies, which depicted the Peter/MJ relationship as being a key factor in the story. Heck, I gravitated to the old Ultimate comics first and foremost because, unlike current ASM, they aligned on that point.

Obviously, everyone comes to comics differently and has different expectations and all that. That said, the majority of the adaptations, like the movies or the PS2 video game -- the stuff that reaches a wider audience than any of the comics ever do -- generally have the Peter/MJ romance as a key factor in things. Heck, the wildly successful Spider-Verse movie was as pro-marriage a story as you can get, there's a new YA novel trilogy with the selling point of being a "romcom" between a teenage variant of the couple, and the Venom expansion pack of the Marvel Villainous board game depicts the marriage as part of its "generic" take on the Spider-Man world.

What do we really think is going to shape new readers' expectations on what "Spider-Man" is, the comic they've started reading or the wider franchise installments they were exposed to going in?

[RJT]

Dunno; can only speak for myself, but a lot of the Marvel/DC comics I ever got into was because of adaptations (movies, cartoons, what have you). It was thanks to that that, when I started actually getting Spider-Man comic collections for myself, I avoided the post-OMD stuff like the plague; my gateway was the original Raimi movies, which depicted the Peter/MJ relationship as being a key factor in the story. Heck, I gravitated to the old Ultimate comics first and foremost because, unlike current ASM, they aligned on that point.

Obviously, everyone comes to comics differently and has different expectations and all that. That said, the majority of the adaptations, like the movies or the PS2 video game -- the stuff that reaches a wider audience than any of the comics ever do -- generally have the Peter/MJ romance as a key factor in things. Heck, the wildly successful Spider-Verse movie was as pro-marriage a story as you can get, there's a new YA novel trilogy with the selling point of being a "romcom" between a teenage variant of the couple, and the Venom expansion pack of the Marvel Villainous board game depicts the marriage as part of its "generic" take on the Spider-Man world.

What do we really think is going to shape new readers' expectations on what "Spider-Man" is, the comic they've started reading or the wider franchise installments they were exposed to going in?

Fascinating that with the exception of "ITSV"--which is a Miles Morales movie with an older, over-the-hill Peter as his mentor--none of those wider franchise installments you mention feature Peter and MJ as a married couple.
So, welcome to Team "Nobody outside of these boards cares about the marriage", I guess!

[marhawkman]

Dunno; can only speak for myself, but a lot of the Marvel/DC comics I ever got into was because of adaptations (movies, cartoons, what have you). It was thanks to that that, when I started actually getting Spider-Man comic collections for myself, I avoided the post-OMD stuff like the plague; my gateway was the original Raimi movies, which depicted the Peter/MJ relationship as being a key factor in the story. Heck, I gravitated to the old Ultimate comics first and foremost because, unlike current ASM, they aligned on that point.

Obviously, everyone comes to comics differently and has different expectations and all that. That said, the majority of the adaptations, like the movies or the PS2 video game -- the stuff that reaches a wider audience than any of the comics ever do -- generally have the Peter/MJ romance as a key factor in things. Heck, the wildly successful Spider-Verse movie was as pro-marriage a story as you can get, there's a new YA novel trilogy with the selling point of being a "romcom" between a teenage variant of the couple, and the Venom expansion pack of the Marvel Villainous board game depicts the marriage as part of its "generic" take on the Spider-Man world.

What do we really think is going to shape new readers' expectations on what "Spider-Man" is, the comic they've started reading or the wider franchise installments they were exposed to going in?

I personally had SM: TAS as my introduction... and also that show where he hung out with Iceman and Firestar.

I watched a lot of superhero cartoons as a kid.

[Alan2099]

? I answered this in the following:

That's not an answer.

The audience also knows Batman will never clean up crime in Gotham, but so what? There are lots of things the audience knows that the characters don't know.

[Spider-Tiger]

Dunno; can only speak for myself, but a lot of the Marvel/DC comics I ever got into was because of adaptations (movies, cartoons, what have you). It was thanks to that that, when I started actually getting Spider-Man comic collections for myself, I avoided the post-OMD stuff like the plague; my gateway was the original Raimi movies, which depicted the Peter/MJ relationship as being a key factor in the story. Heck, I gravitated to the old Ultimate comics first and foremost because, unlike current ASM, they aligned on that point.

Obviously, everyone comes to comics differently and has different expectations and all that. That said, the majority of the adaptations, like the movies or the PS2 video game -- the stuff that reaches a wider audience than any of the comics ever do -- generally have the Peter/MJ romance as a key factor in things. Heck, the wildly successful Spider-Verse movie was as pro-marriage a story as you can get, there's a new YA novel trilogy with the selling point of being a "romcom" between a teenage variant of the couple, and the Venom expansion pack of the Marvel Villainous board game depicts the marriage as part of its "generic" take on the Spider-Man world.

What do we really think is going to shape new readers' expectations on what "Spider-Man" is, the comic they've started reading or the wider franchise installments they were exposed to going in?

I too was first exposed to Spiderman via the Raimi films and the 90s show re-runs. I loved MJ in the 90s show (I guess I had a thing for redheads because I was also obsessed with Jean Grey and Mystique over in X-Men evolution) but I wasn't particularly taken by her in the Raimi Trilogy. I had a variety of Spidey comics growing up: some tpbs of ultimate and 60s stuff, a Night Gwen Stacy Died comic that I got from a Marvel Legends Green Goblin, and finally a really awesome CD that had decades of Amazing back issues up to the Back in Black Era. (Did not include OMD, but I knew about it.)

I was first subscribed to Marvel Adventures Spider-man. I wasn't fully subscribed to ASM until I was a pre-teen in the BND era. And I read and collected those issues. I was subscribed up through the end of Superior before dropping the book. Now I follow whats happening in the book, but mainly pick up whatever stories interest me.

As a reader, not knowing the behind the scenes story of OMD, I just always expected the couple to be reunited in marriage at some point with a follow up to that story. Didn't become involved in the online discussion until 2013/14, when I learned that was apparently a big no-no.

Wasn't there also a mandate that Jean was never to return? That was another thing that I remember wanting to see when I was first introduced to comics.

[Vegan]

So, you're theoretical example is that a person gets into Spider-man, is interested enough to read up on the backstory of Spider-man, and that one story is enough to put them back off the character for life.

How many people read about the clone Saga 15 years after it happened and decided that they didn't want to read about Spider-man anymore because in some old back issue he hit his wife once and another time he tried to commit genocide during one of the most infamous storylines ever? Do you think that ever happened to anyone?

Nobody is going to pick up a title and then stop reading it because a decade and a half ago there was a bad story that never gets referenced anymore.

If you guys are going to write fanfic about what hypothetical new readers will do, you shouldn’t get so whiny when someone else does it.

Also your analogies don’t work, because those stories were, rightly, swept under the rug almost immediately.

[Spider-Tiger]

That's not an answer.

The audience also knows Batman will never clean up crime in Gotham, but so what? There are lots of things the audience knows that the characters don't know.

That's a faulty analogy. Batman does clean up crime as a vigilante. He certainly doesn't prevent all crime from occuring, but that's just an expectation of all ongoing superhero books. Whereas Spider-man remaining unmarried is not likely to be an expectation that a reader uninvolved in this discussion would have. "Batman will never clean up gotham" is also not an example of a past event or character relationships that only the audience is privy to in the same way that OMD is.

Regardless, here we have a weird scenario because the audience is aware of a major continuity shifting event and cast dynamics that the main characters are not. It's almost like a dramatic irony that adds an underlying tension to the story where the reader is left to wonder "Will Peter and MJ ever find out what happened? What would be the result of that? etc." Especially if the reader does not know about the behind the scenes mandate. This is what I mean by an elephant in the room that won't be resolved until it's addressed or the continuity is completely disposed of. That's why the continued frustration and criticism (even among 20-something year olds today who would have been children when this happened) should be of no surprise to anyone.

[WebLurker]

Fascinating that with the exception of "ITSV"--which is a Miles Morales movie with an older, over-the-hill Peter as his mentor--none of those wider franchise installments you mention feature Peter and MJ as a married couple.

Not exactly.

Whether or not Miles was the principle character in Spider-Verse is irrelevant to how the movie depicts the Peter/MJ relationship (and, to reiterate, the marriage is shown to be an aspect of the Chris Pine Spidey who got everything right and Peter B. and MJ's marriage falling apart is depicted as a tragedy that neither of them truly wanted and the happy ending shows them taking the first step to reconciling -- Mayday appearing in the sequel strongly suggesting that it worked out).

They don't get married in the Raimi movies, but Peter at least wants to in SM3 and, in the theatrical cut, at least, it's indicated that that's what's going to happen when after they are able to reconcile and heal from their falling out. On top of that, while neither the M-word or rings are brought up, it is confirmed in No Way Home that Raimi-verse Peter and MJ were able to fix their relationship, so, semantics aside, the Raimi series does end with them in a permanent relationship. (For that matter, it was the primary inspiration for Peter Spideys seen in the Spider-Verse movie, which, as pointed out, takes it as a given that they belong together).

The Ultimate comics have them repeatedly express the wish to get married when they're old enough (including more than one suggestion that they're practically married already) and, for all intents and purposes, the last we see of them in the main series is them eloping. If the through line of Peter's romantic prospects in the series is that these crazy kids are truly in love and are going to be spending the rest of their lives together and we see last see of them is them driving off to find a new life together, then arguing that it's not a good example for the marriage is, at best, splitting hairs.

If you want to get down to the brass tacks, the point is that, on the whole, Peter and MJ being in a stable relationship is the franchise norm overall (I'd make the case that her being Peter's only viable love interest at this point -- e.g. them being the Superman/Lois Lane of Marvel, if that makes any sense) and them being torn apart in the ASM comics is not. So, what point is the OMD retcon, given how off brand it is and it's main purpose (to let Spider-Man date other characters) isn't viable anymore?

(Fine if you disagree, but can you at least follow why some people, when looking at the bigger picture, see the marriage as being more compatible than not?)

So, welcome to Team "Nobody outside of these boards cares about the marriage", I guess!

No, I'm more like Team "Marriage fits the franchise's overall brand, OMD does not." If nothing else, I think it's a more interesting question at this point.

I personally had SM: TAS as my introduction... and also that show where he hung out with Iceman and Firestar.

I watched a lot of superhero cartoons as a kid.

Saw a bit of that one. A little random, but fun.

I too was first exposed to Spiderman via the Raimi films and the 90s show re-runs. I loved MJ in the 90s show (I guess I had a thing for redheads because I was also obsessed with Jean Grey and Mystique over in X-Men evolution) but I wasn't particularly taken by her in the Raimi Trilogy.

Didn't see a lot of the '90s Spidey cartoon (love Spectacular, though). I did like Raimi's MJ and would make the case that, while not exactly like her comics variant, she is a stronger character than a lot of other love interests in comic book movies (if nothing else, I did like that her characterization made sense given her backstory and that we see aspects of her life beyond her relationship with Peter).

Kinda thought Jean was boring in the Evolution cartoon (decent person, but the others seemed to have more personality). Their take on Rogue was one of my favorites and I was actually rooting for her and Cyclops to get together instead of Jean, in part to finding their dynamic more interesting. (Recall from an interview with people who worked on the show that, allegedly, had the series continued, Jean would've died in the Phoenix incident and Cyclopes and Rogue would've become a couple sometime after that. Not sure the clues cited in the final episode confirm that, but I do like to believe that's what happened. If nothing else, it does put a new perspective on the series if re-watched with that assumption in mind.)

I had a variety of Spidey comics growing up: some tpbs of ultimate and 60s stuff, a Night Gwen Stacy Died comic that I got from a Marvel Legends Green Goblin, and finally a really awesome CD that had decades of Amazing back issues up to the Back in Black Era. (Did not include OMD, but I knew about it.)

Been getting the ASM Epics. Hoping they eventually collect the stuff before OMD (although they're not that good at collecting the side series, which have a lot of the good stuff).

I was first subscribed to Marvel Adventures Spider-man. I wasn't fully subscribed to ASM until I was a pre-teen in the BND era. And I read and collected those issues. I was subscribed up through the end of Superior before dropping the book. Now I follow whats happening in the book, but mainly pick up whatever stories interest me.

Only Spider-Man thing I subscribed to was the RYV series, although I have gotten some of the trades of other stuff. Liked Marvel Adventures, but only found random book sets.

As a reader, not knowing the behind the scenes story of OMD, I just always expected the couple to be reunited in marriage at some point with a follow up to that story. Didn't become involved in the online discussion until 2013/14, when I learned that was apparently a big no-no.

Suppose a lot of fans, esp. those who don't read the comics, are out of the loop of what's happening.

Wasn't there also a mandate that Jean was never to return? That was another thing that I remember wanting to see when I was first introduced to comics.

Seems like there was "dead characters stay dead" policy for awhile, but not sure on the specifics of Jean. (Have a few X-Men title collections from the Jean is dead era and, ironically, I think I like Cyclops with Emma Frost better.)

[marhawkman]

Saw a bit of that one. A little random, but fun.

Yeah, SM: TAS picked and chose a bit erratically from existing storylines to adapt, mostly, but did new stuff every now and then. Did have married Pete though! Which got weird....

Hydro-MJ

Like I said..... WIERD.. O-o'''' but also incredibly sad ;-;

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I'll say that while I dislike how BND/Slott/Wells did to Peter and MJ, it's more of a secondary beef for me when I look at the bigger picture. My primary beef was always how they portray Peter.

I actually didn't become a PeterxMJ Stan until about the last 6 years when I finally read more of the marriage stories. In spite of that, I still couldn't stand what an insecure manchild post-OMD Peter is. Even as a teen during the BND era. Freakin' Ultimate Pete and Spectacular Pete are more mature and competent than post-OMD Pete.

I say this to point out that you really don't have to be an uber fan of Peter and MJ's relationship to dislike how these writers portray Spider-Man. In my case, my dislike of how they portray the book's main character precedes any strong opinion I have on that. I didn't like how Slott portrays Peter with girls even back when I had a "Peter has a harem" mentality.

[Rzerox21xx]

It be nice if it happened on my lifetime. I just turned 39 last month.

[Lee]

"I really wanted to get into Captain America, but then I saw Rob Liefeld did a horrible series with him a few decades ago so I decided not to." This is basically the hypothetical reader you're talking about and, and it's something NOBODY will ever actually say.

"I really wanted to get into Spider-Man, but then I heard that the Captain Power story RUINED the continuity!"

[The Twilight Mexican]

I'll say that while I dislike how BND/Slott/Wells did to Peter and MJ, it's more of a secondary beef for me when I look at the bigger picture. My primary beef was always how they portray Peter.

I actually didn't become a PeterxMJ Stan until about the last 6 years when I finally read more of the marriage stories. In spite of that, I still couldn't stand what an insecure manchild post-OMD Peter is. Even as a teen during the BND era. Freakin' Ultimate Pete and Spectacular Pete are more mature and competent than post-OMD Pete.

I say this to point out that you really don't have to be an uber fan of Peter and MJ's relationship to dislike how these writers portray Spider-Man. In my case, my dislike of how they portray the book's main character precedes any strong opinion I have on that. I didn't like how Slott portrays Peter with girls even back when I had a "Peter has a harem" mentality.

Correct. Conflating beef with OMD to shipping is overly reductive and, frankly, intellectually dishonest. The issue is that the character is supposed to be about "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility," and now every new story published with the character can't be viewed as anything but a product of one of the most irresponsible things any character in any Marvel comic ever did.

Pete literally gave the embodiment of evil permission to warp reality, despite knowing that every action this entity takes is intended to cause as much suffering as possible to as many as possible. There is no situation where letting Mephisto add an ingredient to a cake makes for anything but a cake that shouldn't be eaten. The cake now has poison baked into it.

For the life of me, I do not know why the editors at Marvel do not understand that allowing The Devil (capital "T," capital "D") to impose his will on the lives of other people is the worst thing Peter ever did. Possibly the worst thing any Marvel superhero has ever done. And unlike hard decisions made by, say, Namor or Dr. Strange to save the inhabitants of their universe ... Pete was only concerned about "then it wouldn't be my fault" if his already super elderly relative died.

An inability to live without her wasn't even the motivation here. That would still be supremely selfish (and weird AF), but at least somewhat understandable. This was just about him not wanting to feel responsible for it if she died.

But being responsible for The Devil's poisoned cake that Harry Osborn and who knows how many others would have to eat? That's perfectly fine since he wouldn't have to remember it to feel responsible.

Are the editors genuinely unable or just unwilling to see that this is a problem for the character, and that it's an even bigger problem for the depiction of the character that this problem was created without the intention of it being acknowledged by the character?

For any other character in this or any other medium, Pete's deal with The Devil would be meant as the set up to a story, not the conclusion.

To depict any character like this does them no favors. To depict a superhero this way asks the audience to invest in an unwitting supervillain. To depict this superhero this way undermines the very motto that defines superheroes as a whole.