What Does Spider-Man Editorial Really Know About "Youth"?

[PCN24454]

I mean… probably? It’s a great film building off a previous great film with great word of mouth.


To say “nobody actually hates it” makes no sense when editorial is on record over many years saying, no, they actually really hated it (one calling it “the worst mistake in Spider-Man history”.)

Doing stuff in non-canon, “what if“ stories has never been a satisfactory alternative. Saying they “did the marriage” in an unrelated alternate universe has as much merit as “Peter ate his wife had aunt” and “gave MJ cancer from his radioactive semen”. You can do whatever nonsense stuff you want and easily discard it because it doesn’t “really count” since only the 616 ever truly matters.


It was for twenty years. I will forever insist only a bad or lazy writer can’t tell a compelling story with that status quo.

I’m talking about ITSV as well. If Peter wasn’t a part of the main plot, would people still be interested?

[marhawkman]

It was for twenty years. I will forever insist only a bad or lazy writer can’t tell a compelling story with that status quo.

I often wonder if the real issue is that the people making the decisions can't imagine being happily married?

[Tendrin]

I often wonder if the real issue is that the people making the decisions can't imagine being happily married?

A number of them seem to be.

[Huntsman Spider]

I often wonder if the real issue is that the people making the decisions can't imagine being happily married?

A number of them seem to be.

Married? Yeah, maybe. Happy is something I leave up to them and their personal lives.

[Conn Seanery]

In any case, it's nobody's business to be suggesting or implying people's real lives and/or capacity for relationships are impacting their work simply because they don't like a comic's direction or status quo. Be better than this, folks.

[Huntsman Spider]

A very good point there. My sincerest apologies.