Has the Spider-Man editorial hate ever been this large and transparent?

[Vortex85]

Exactly this.

Already posted a rebuttal of this. It's a simple matter, Peter being single does not serve the stories like it did to prior to the development of MJ in the franchise. Given Spider-Man fans know and recognize Peter and MJ as the OTP for the Spider-Man franchise, having them exist in those roles in story would better serve the stories for readers. Trying to pair Peter with other women is not effective as it used to be prior to this. It isn't actually working for the stories, because it doesn't work for the characters that fans know them as.

It's to the point that seeing Peter date other women than MJ feels out of character, because it is, since we are all certain he belongs with MJ, their love has become one of the pillars the franchise is built on.

I would say most fans probably prefer better being married, and not only that with a kid. I think Peter balancing Spider-Man, marriage, work, and a child has a lot of potential. Either way, we should be WAY beyond the point we are at now and it should have been a father over a decade ago.

Cogsigned.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Do people really want 616 Parker to have a “Spider-Baby”?

Like, why?

I do think some fans exaggerate the "need" for Peter to have a baby. Historically, Peter and MJ weren't portrayed as people rushing to have kids (they were happy over May but it wasn't planned - even then, Editorial only introduced May as an excuse to retire Peter for good). And also, many New Yorkers in Peter and MJ's age group want kids but are not having them due to issues like poverty and climate change. So I'll admit there is an element of conservatism (as in "All grown-ups have a kid unless they're manchildren") in some fans' insistence of canonizing Baby May that I'm not comfortable with.

That said, it's not an absurd idea. Lots of people still have kids, and Peter and MJ have been portrayed as being great with kids. Superman and Batman were given kids, so it would make sense to do it with Spider-Man too. It would be new ground that hasn't been explored yet in 616.

We also have to consider the context here. Marvel is the one arguing that Peter having a kid is some violation of child labor laws. Marvel is also the one who gave Peter kids twice in 616, and toom them away both times. Fans want to see the hero "win" his kids back. If Marvel didn't make those arguments or erase Peter's kids like that, there would be less of an aggressive push for a "Spider-Baby".

So look, I'll grant that SOME fans are being a bit too aggressive with their demand for a Spider-Baby, and that such aggression risks reinforcing old-fashioned thinking about people with/without kids. But that doesn't mean the majority of arguments fans are making in favor of Baby May or against Editorial are wrong or don't have a point. They absolutely have a point that a 616 Spider-Baby would be great if done for the right reasons.

[Vortex85]

I do think some fans exaggerate the "need" for Peter to have a baby. Historically, Peter and MJ weren't portrayed as people rushing to have kids (they were happy over May but it wasn't planned - even then, Editorial only introduced May as an excuse to retire Peter for good). And also, many New Yorkers in Peter and MJ's age group want kids but are not having them due to issues like poverty and climate change. So I'll admit there is an element of conservatism (as in "All grown-ups have a kid unless they're manchildren") in some fans' insistence of canonizing Baby May that I'm not comfortable with.

That said, it's not an absurd idea. Lots of people still have kids, and Peter and MJ have been portrayed as being great with kids. Superman and Batman were given kids, so it would make sense to do it with Spider-Man too. It would be new ground that hasn't been explored yet in 616.

We also have to consider the context here. Marvel is the one arguing that Peter having a kid is some violation of child labor laws. Marvel is also the one who gave Peter kids twice in 616, and toom them away both times. Fans want to see the hero "win" his kids back. If Marvel didn't make those arguments or erase Peter's kids like that, there would be less of an aggressive push for a "Spider-Baby".

So look, I'll grant that SOME fans are being a bit too aggressive with their demand for a Spider-Baby, and that such aggression risks reinforcing old-fashioned thinking about people with/without kids. But that doesn't mean the majority of arguments fans are making in favor of Baby May or against Editorial are wrong or don't have a point. They absolutely have a point that a 616 Spider-Baby would be great if done for the right reasons.

Great point here. I'm more 100% on the marriage better serving the stories, than introducing the baby back.

However, I'd still argue for the baby because I feel it was given and taken away, and would make for a GREAT story for Peter to find his long-lost child alive somewhere after all these years. It always felt like Baby May being taken away was a setup for a future story in the same way OMD felt a setup for the return of the marriage in a future story. Both of these events have a good storytelling reason to happen based on past stories and lore.

But yeah, between both of these things, I feel the baby is less necessary than the marriage as far as serving the books going forward to tell good stories.

[Lee]

Sales has never been the reason for having Peter married or single, pointing out that the book continued to sell simply my way of pointing that out that. If sales were a factor Marvel would have made the claim they needed Peter to be single for better sales, which they never argued because that is not the case. Instead, they argued they needed Peter single because the character was about youth and he was single in the past and it used to work good for the stories.

The incentive Marvel had to make Peter single was the belief that they could make the same type of drama work like it did prior to MJ becoming the archetype of Peter' true love in the book. However, they overlooked her popularity and prevalence in the franchise as a whole and what she had been turned into over the decades since the 60s/70s. Fans know who and what she is in the franchise and the Spider-Man franchise can't go back to before that. The simple fact is that Peter being single no longer better serves the stories given the expectation and presupposition about Peter and MJ in the franchise as a whole.

I'm a fan and I disagree.

That's the problem here. "The fans agree that Peter and MJ blah blah blah" - they don't agree. Your opinion is just your opinion, it's not more important than any other fan's opinion.

Plus, it's pretty clear they both want to have kids with each other

Can you provide examples?

[Vortex85]

I'm a fan and I disagree.

That's the problem here. "The fans agree that Peter and MJ blah blah blah" - they don't agree. Your opinion is just your opinion, it's not more important than any other fan's opinion.

Hey there will always be exceptions. I'm sure there are exceptions for Superman too, where despite the understanding of Lois and Clark as the OTP of the Superman franchise, some fans don't care and may want single Superman book, or to ship him with other love interests, and may claim that "fans don't agree Superman and Lois are blah blah blah blah". Same thing for Spider-Man here.

But if you are trying to claim that Peter and MJ are NOT seen as the popular iconic paring of the Spider-Man franchise, and that it's just "my opinion" and therefore Peter and MJ is no more important than any other pairing in Spider-Man, then I would have to argue it's either a lack of awareness/ignorance, or a form of denial.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Great point here. I'm more 100% on the marriage better serving the stories, than introducing the baby back.

However, I'd still argue for the baby because I feel it was given and taken away, and would make for a GREAT story for Peter to find his long-lost child alive somewhere after all these years. It always felt like Baby May being taken away was a setup for a future story in the same way OMD felt a setup for the return of the marriage in a future story. Both of these events have a good storytelling reason to happen based on past stories and lore.

But yeah, between both of these things, I feel the baby is less necessary than the marriage as far as serving the books going forward to tell good stories.

I like the idea of the baby being alive. It's a good way to eventually age her up without feeling contrived. (Since she would already be closer to Normie's age.)

And honestly, giving the baby up for adoption and never telling Peter seems more like Norman than killing it IMO.

[Mercwmouth12]

I like the idea of the baby being alive. It's a good way to eventualky age her up without feeling contrived. (Since she would already be closer to Normie's age.)

And honestly, giving the baby up for adoption and never telling Peter seems more like Norman than killing it IMO.

I think the best way they could do or one way is Peter being alerted or finding out about a random child who has developed Spider powers and then you can deal with the drama of Peter and MJ trying to connect the child and be a family. If that was the route of find out the child was alive.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I think the best way they could do or one way is Peter being alerted or finding out about a random child who has developed Spider powers and then you can deal with the drama of Peter and MJ trying to connect the child and be a family. If that was the route of find out the child was alive.

And also, the adoptive parents would have every right to be unsympathetic to Peter and give him the "Why now?" speech. Since Peter can't disclose the reason the child was given away without blowing his cover. Or maybe the kid would dislike them for "abandoning her", and neither Peter nor MJ can explain why the Green Goblin of all people wanted to mess with them.

Wow, look at that. A way to tell drama with a Spider-Man who is a father.

[Vortex85]

I like the idea of the baby being alive. It's a good way to eventually age her up without feeling contrived. (Since she would already be closer to Normie's age.)

And honestly, giving the baby up for adoption and never telling Peter seems more like Norman than killing it IMO.

True, I kind of imagined a scenario where the baby was sent of with Alison Mongrain, but the woman had given the baby to someone else to raise/care for in hiding, and Osborn assumed the baby had been killed or died somehow because Alison had framed it that way. That way later on when the baby is found, Norman had just been led to believe she had died all this time which is why he had never tried to tell Peter that he still had a baby while he has been redeemed.

[Lee]

Mary Jane is the most popular girlfriend Spider-Man has had so far. I think they could and should always be open to new ideas for the future, always adding to the mythology.

Mary Jane's history as Peter's girlfriend will always be a part of the Spider-Man mythos, just like Gwen and Black Cat. I don't think they should give up on introducing new characters and exploring new territory. I also think it's fine to have periods where Peter isn't dating anyone, if that's what serves the stories being told at that time.

Batman's most popular girlfriend so far is Catwoman. I don't think that means they should get married and that Catwoman should be a constant presence in the Batman series. If a creative team wants to give Bruce Wayne a new girlfriend, that's fine. If a creative team wants to tell stories that don't center Bruce's love life, that's fine too.

[Vortex85]

Mary Jane is the most popular girlfriend Spider-Man has had so far. I think they could and should always be open to new ideas for the future, always adding to the mythology.

Mary Jane's history as Peter's girlfriend will always be a part of the Spider-Man mythos, just like Gwen and Black Cat. I don't think they should give up on introducing new characters and exploring new territory. I also think it's fine to have periods where Peter isn't dating anyone, if that's what serves the stories being told at that time.

Batman's most popular girlfriend so far is Catwoman. I don't think that means they should get married and that Catwoman should be a constant presence in the Batman series. If a creative team wants to give Bruce Wayne a new girlfriend, that's fine. If a creative team wants to tell stories that don't center Bruce's love life, that's fine too.

Ok, that's fine to think that. But I disagree with the belief that MJ will ever be usurped by another girl as Peter's iconic love interest in the future. This is due to her being established outside of the comics in this way. We just have an over 2 billion dollar movie that establishes every Peter has his MJ and that MJ Waston of MCU is the MJ for that universe. Now we have Spiderverse movies with alternate Peter's being with their MJ, and the main one having a baby with his MJ. If you want to say Mary Jane is not the MJ for the comics, that's going to be a hard thing to argue.

I guess it's not impossible for things to change, but I don't see it as likely, since for every writer in the comics who wants to write Peter and MJ as sperate, another writer will want to explore the most iconic couple that fans know and love. Remember, writers are fans too, so many of them also have a deep conviction about Peter and MJ being true loves in the comics. Trying to fight this perception in the comics is a losing battle when Peter and MJ are known well beyond them.

PS. It's funny, there are popular twitter accounts with 10s of thousands of followers like Fiti Vidal, who talk comics and do comic fan art who still simply refer to Peter and MJ as husband and wife and simply ignore the fact that they are currently not in the comics. The dialogue on social media among teens and 20-somethings are still gunghoe on Peter and MJ being husband a wife, it's still extremely popular. It seems to be the older fans of the comics pre-marriage that seem stuck on the idea that younger fans don't want this for some reason. Perhaps once those older fans age out, we will see younger fans take over and re-establish the marriage.

[CrimsonEchidna]

Haven't been a fan of the direction of Amazing for a long while but on that same token I'm not a fan of harrassing creatives on Social Media just because I don't like the book.

[Vortex85]

Haven't been a fan of the direction of Amazing for a long while but on that same token I'm not a fan of harrassing creatives on Social Media just because I don't like the book.

Agreed, no one should harrass the creatives on social media. I have replied to Nick Lowe to bring up some points before about a story or idea, but never to attack him. I have seen others say he should get fired, or is purposefully trying to upset fans with bad intentions, or is just an MJ hater, etc. I have always thought that is counterproductive. If you want a creator to take your side, why ever make them your enemy? If you have something to say, keep it respectful.

[Lee]

Ok, that's fine to think that. But I disagree with the belief that MJ will ever be usurped by another girl as Peter's iconic love interest in the future.

She doesn't have to be. That relationship is part of the Spider-Man mythos. That doesn't mean that nothing can come after it.

When I'm reading stories with a new character, I'm not worrying about whether that character will still be around in 40 years' time, or if they'll be as popular as a character introduced in the 1960s.

Batman's Silver St. Cloud is a worthwhile character even though she only appeared in a handful of issues. Those stories are still worthwhile stories.

[Vortex85]

She doesn't have to be. That relationship is part of the Spider-Man mythos. That doesn't mean that nothing can come after it.

When I'm reading stories with a new character, I'm not worrying about whether that character will still be around in 40 years' time, or if they'll be as popular as a character introduced in the 1960s.

Batman's Silver St. Cloud is a worthwhile character even though she only appeared in a handful of issues. Those stories are still worthwhile stories.

Yeah, I'm not worried about if MJ will be around later, in fact I know she will be. That really wasn't my concern and is reframing it into a different point in which I was not even arguing (about whether past stories are worth reading based on current knowledge - never said they weren't - though they will be very different experience and framing since readers know what it led to already afterward). My point is about the presupposition and expectations about the majority of fans on this matter regarding Peter and MJ and how that colors their feelings on the new relationships Peter has real time.

In the current status quo, other relationships have come and gone and will continue to happen with Peter being single, that is something coming after MJ and is happening now in the comics. This is true too. Anyway, I think we have both said as much as we can say on the topic and I am glad that you are enjoying it. There are certainly fans like you who find joy in reading new relationships for Peter other than MJ. I guess it does work for some people and there are fans still buying and reading so I hope they are as happy as you are about it.