Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 156
  1. #31
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
    Heh, it's kind of funny.

    Using sales during the 90s to argue the marriage was good, while people in Marvel argued the quality of stories during that period proved the marriage was bad.

    Comics boomed and were bad during the 90s. Not much to glean from there other than chasing the speculator market sent Marvel spiraling.

    I do think, ironically, the period between Doomed Affairs and OMD was the best the marriage was written . . . just before it got scrapped.
    I’m something of a neophyte regarding the late 80’s-90’s era Pre-Clone Saga; I know that there was the “Peter, your parents are alive!… oh wait, they’re actually evil robots!” story, the failed Byrne reboot, and a bunch of Venom and Carnage stuff.

    And I’ve never heard anyone point out a specific story as illustrating why the marriage was a bad idea; I’ve generally just assumed it was an argument that writers struggled with coming up with material they were enthusiastic about when they couldn’t do soapy romance stuff with Peter anymore… before showing they tended to suck as soapy stuff themselves post-OMD.
    Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?

    I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP

  2. #32
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
    Heh, it's kind of funny.

    Using sales during the 90s to argue the marriage was good, while people in Marvel argued the quality of stories during that period proved the marriage was bad.

    Comics boomed and were bad during the 90s. Not much to glean from there other than chasing the speculator market sent Marvel spiraling.

    I do think, ironically, the period between Doomed Affairs and OMD was the best the marriage was written . . . just before it got scrapped.
    The irony is noted. JMS is a funny subject because he's a guy that is a great writer but also he's a guy who clearly didn't know much Spider-Man. So he immediately just scraps 90% of it and spends his time on new villains (Morlun, Shathra, Digger, Molten Man II) and cut Peter's supporting cast to Peter, MJ, and May, even when MJ was across the country. While it meant we didn't get a lot from the larger cast and we just aborted storylines that absolutley needed an ending (THe Stacys.....), in return we got some of the best work avaiable for those three characters. While it's frustrating that his request that they be apart when he start led to the disaster that was Annual 19, ultimately its hard to be mad at him when that led to both one of the greatest affirmations of their relationship. Even though they aren't together together until 50, from teh moment JMS takes ovedr in ASM (v2) 35, the relationship is real and important to both of them. Peter calling MJ when he thinks he's going to die. MJ calling when Shathra goes on air to brag about how she slept with Spider-Man (lies, of course), it felt like a real digging into their relationship. It was absolutely a case where the author used the seperation as an affirmation of their feelings. But, you know, wasn't trying to hide the ball.

    That said, there's plenty o good material through the 90s, even if that era itself is questionable. I mean it starts on a banger with Kraven's last hunt, and of course immediately goes into the best of the Venom stuff. Micheline's era wasn't amazing but it was good work in general. Then after you get through the robot parents and the Clone Saga Mess (though I do enjoy the Reilly era Spider-Man, good Mysterio story), you have a great little time in between REvelations and the Mackie Reboot (a few years, IIRC) that's really fun and creative and has some good stories in it too (I love identity crisis, for instance). And while the reboot sucked, he's also not married for most of that because she's dead.

    It's like, there certainly are black marks that appear after the marriage, but those black marks are usually related to getting rid of the marriage (Clone Saga, MJ's death, ASM Annual 19, OMD)....or are Sins Past.

  3. #33
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,816

    Default

    How long into the marriage did they first start trying to maneuver away from it?
    Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?

    I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP

  4. #34
    Mighty Member Garlador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    How long into the marriage did they first start trying to maneuver away from it?
    “They” is complicated, because the answer is that some were opposed to it from the very beginning and hated it from the start, while others were excited for it and eager to take it further. So internally, there was pushback from the start.

    But that’s also the case for every hero marriage. Mark Waid has said he hates the idea of married superheroes in general, yet wrote some of the best Wally & Linda marriage comics during his run. Many hated Lois and Clark tying the knot and tried to write it out, only for other writers to argue they’re THE big couple of comics and to promote that.

    One comment I saw said that “even if you don’t like it, you have to respect it, because after decades of fans loving the relationship and establishing it as core to the characters, to ignore that growth is disrespectful and lazy.”

    The marriage was divisive. But EVERY superhero marriage has been. Good writers write with those limitations in mind.

  5. #35
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garlador View Post
    “They” is complicated, because the answer is that some were opposed to it from the very beginning and hated it from the start, while others were excited for it and eager to take it further. So internally, there was pushback from the start.

    But that’s also the case for every hero marriage. Mark Waid has said he hates the idea of married superheroes in general, yet wrote some of the best Wally & Linda marriage comics during his run. Many hated Lois and Clark tying the knot and tried to write it out, only for other writers to argue they’re THE big couple of comics and to promote that.

    One comment I saw said that “even if you don’t like it, you have to respect it, because after decades of fans loving the relationship and establishing it as core to the characters, to ignore that growth is disrespectful and lazy.”

    The marriage was divisive. But EVERY superhero marriage has been. Good writers write with those limitations in mind.
    I get that, but I'm sort of curious just how long it took for one of the dudes who was against it to actually take a shot at.

    MJ "dying" was the first time that happened, right?
    Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?

    I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP

  6. #36
    Mighty Member Garlador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    I get that, but I'm sort of curious just how long it took for one of the dudes who was against it to actually take a shot at.

    MJ "dying" was the first time that happened, right?
    That’s harder to establish, because a lot of writers didn’t like the marriage but write good material anyway, and it’s hard to establish if a big couples fight or character flaw was them trying to turn readers against it or not (e.g. MJ picks up a smoking habit, Peter accidentally hitting her, etc.).

    But in terms of official “let’s make a real attempt”, it was that airplane crash story for sure, and pushback was immediate.

  7. #37
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garlador View Post
    That’s harder to establish, because a lot of writers didn’t like the marriage but write good material anyway, and it’s hard to establish if a big couples fight or character flaw was them trying to turn readers against it or not (e.g. MJ picks up a smoking habit, Peter accidentally hitting her, etc.).

    But in terms of official “let’s make a real attempt”, it was that airplane crash story for sure, and pushback was immediate.
    There's a silly image in my head now of a skilled writer carefully crafting a realistic argument between the characters, hoping it will turn readers against the marriage, only for the fanbase to become engrossed and engaged with it in a productive way, leading the writer to go "Damn it! I'm too damn good at writing 3-dimensional but lovable characters going through a juicy realistic argument! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!"



    An interesting thing to me about MJ's "death" is that it was very much a soap opera type of plot twist, and one that when it didn't stick, now comes off as far superior to the current writing simply because actual textual drama and melodrama in it, even if it was blatantly trying to "get back to the good old single days!" idea.

    ...And I think I had a TPB from that time as well, and remembered being mildly befuddled when I realized the writer was probably so happy that he could just insert a random flirty and busty neighbor in Peter's apartment complex as part of "getting back to basics" with writing Peter's civilian life.

    To this day, I still think it's kind of goofy how often "Peter needs to be a loser who's unlucky in love!" proponents always also go "...and I would like to add another entry to the series of smoke-shows Peter runs into who become infatuated with him as soon as possible, please... or at least bring back the platinum blonde Catwoman analogue to jump his bones."
    Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?

    I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP

  8. #38
    Astonishing Member Tuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    3,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    I get that, but I'm sort of curious just how long it took for one of the dudes who was against it to actually take a shot at.

    MJ "dying" was the first time that happened, right?
    The Clone Saga was the first serious attempt. The original plan was that Peter being the clone and losing his powers wasn't a fake out, and Ben would take over as Spider-Man while clone Peter and MJ moved to Portland (I think it was Portland).

    It's just that when fans found out they'd been reading about the "wrong" Peter for 20 years, they got pretty upset and Marvel had to change course.

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    To this day, I still think it's kind of goofy how often "Peter needs to be a loser who's unlucky in love!" proponents always also go "...and I would like to add another entry to the series of smoke-shows Peter runs into who become infatuated with him as soon as possible, please... or at least bring back the platinum blonde Catwoman analogue to jump his bones."
    Peter's whole clueless babe magnet thing has always been just a little bit annoying.

    Often amusing, but annoying.

  9. #39
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    I get that, but I'm sort of curious just how long it took for one of the dudes who was against it to actually take a shot at.

    MJ "dying" was the first time that happened, right?
    No the first serious attempt was the second Clone Saga. Multiple times within it. One idea wasn't to get rid of the marriage per se but just make Peter the clone and Ben the original, so it didn't matter anymore. But no one liked that idea. There was also a serious consideration of divorcing them after they lost the baby, but ultimately it was decided that was too dark.

    THEN the next attempt was to kill her, but even the artist at the time knew that was stupid and drew in something falling out of the plane to like pre-set up a return for her. The next and "last" until OMD was ASM Annual 19, which is RIGHT AFTER she comes back from being imprisoned by her stalker and she tells Peter she needs space and leave him with the ring. THAt one is a little different though, as while it is absolutely terrible and nonsensical, JMS just had flatly requested they be seperated when his run started to see how he wanted to do it. Little bit of a different situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
    The Clone Saga was the first serious attempt. The original plan was that Peter being the clone and losing his powers wasn't a fake out, and Ben would take over as Spider-Man while clone Peter and MJ moved to Portland (I think it was Portland).

    It's just that when fans found out they'd been reading about the "wrong" Peter for 20 years, they got pretty upset and Marvel had to change course.
    Based on the behind the scenes stuff that was online about the clone saga by a Glenn...something, I 'm sorry I forget his name, I always thank Dan Jurgens for that. He argued hard that it didn't work with Ben and wanted Peter back. Ironically they moved too slow and so Jurgens ended up only writing Ben Reilly and never Peter. Also ironically it's really quite good. One of the biggest lost opportunities.

  10. #40
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    There's a silly image in my head now of a skilled writer carefully crafting a realistic argument between the characters, hoping it will turn readers against the marriage, only for the fanbase to become engrossed and engaged with it in a productive way, leading the writer to go "Damn it! I'm too damn good at writing 3-dimensional but lovable characters going through a juicy realistic argument! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!"



    An interesting thing to me about MJ's "death" is that it was very much a soap opera type of plot twist, and one that when it didn't stick, now comes off as far superior to the current writing simply because actual textual drama and melodrama in it, even if it was blatantly trying to "get back to the good old single days!" idea.

    ...And I think I had a TPB from that time as well, and remembered being mildly befuddled when I realized the writer was probably so happy that he could just insert a random flirty and busty neighbor in Peter's apartment complex as part of "getting back to basics" with writing Peter's civilian life.

    To this day, I still think it's kind of goofy how often "Peter needs to be a loser who's unlucky in love!" proponents always also go "...and I would like to add another entry to the series of smoke-shows Peter runs into who become infatuated with him as soon as possible, please... or at least bring back the platinum blonde Catwoman analogue to jump his bones."
    The best issue of the Mackie run is the issue before MJ is revealed to be alive, when PEter finally breaks down and seems to accept that she's gone. Real heartbreaking stuff.

    I'd give the number but samruby is gone and I can't remember the other website that had reviews and synopsis for all the spider-man comics =(

  11. #41
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
    The Clone Saga was the first serious attempt. The original plan was that Peter being the clone and losing his powers wasn't a fake out, and Ben would take over as Spider-Man while clone Peter and MJ moved to Portland (I think it was Portland).

    It's just that when fans found out they'd been reading about the "wrong" Peter for 20 years, they got pretty upset and Marvel had to change course.



    Peter's whole clueless babe magnet thing has always been just a little bit annoying.

    Often amusing, but annoying.
    I knew about the Clone Saga thing; I always thought it said something weird about the creators that they would rather dump the dude who'd had a decade plus of stories as "not the real Spider-Man" than admit that Spider-Man could be married. Like, surely some of their own favorite stories were included in the run they were about to make about a clone; being that scared about admitting the passage of time and ending a small subset of soap opera drama is weird on a conceptual level.

    ...And I tend to think that Peter's unofficial "lady killer days" (since the longer his chick magnet status lasted, the less "clueless" he could conceivably be) always had a sell-by date for how well they could actually work.

    It's amusing for the good-hearted nerd to suddenly discover that he can be extremely attractive to girls for a short while, but only for a little bit. After all... "With great rizz comes great responsibility!"

    I think part of the problem Carly Cooper and Michelle Gonzales had with fans was as much about the remaining context that OMD didn't remove as it was about the obtrusiveness of soapy drama back into Spider-Man; once a fan knows that they're officially supposed to still consider multiple blonde bombshells as amicable exes and lost loves, one brunette (mild) cougar as a reciprocated first crush, *and* the stunning redhead as an extremely long term committed girlfriend...

    ...Ain't no one got time for a man swimming in hotness to bemoan being "lonely," and on a soap drama level, any new love interests have to compete with the standard set by a veritable modeling company of predecessors, many of whom actually already have a genuine personality in solid stories.

    Hell, I'd argue that MJ sort of emerged as the "victor" through sheer "survival of the fittest" as the primary "raw" love interest; Gwen has the "lost love" thing both pushing her forward yet limiting her at the same time, and Black Cat and others need their super-IDs to stand out.

    New love interests might not match up to Debra Whitman, who's like a D-list girlfriend for Spider-Man, let alone the upper part of the "pack."
    Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?

    I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP

  12. #42
    Astonishing Member Tuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    3,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    ...Ain't no one got time for a man swimming in hotness to bemoan being "lonely," and on a soap drama level, any new love interests have to compete with the standard set by a veritable modeling company of predecessors, many of whom actually already have a genuine personality in solid stories.
    When the Chameleon took over Peter's identity during BND, he at one point made a comment like, "does this guy know anyone besides beautiful women?"

    But with the lonely thing, being able to attract women doesn't mean he's able to maintain relationships.

  13. #43
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
    When the Chameleon took over Peter's identity during BND, he at one point made a comment like, "does this guy know anyone besides beautiful women?"

    But with the lonely thing, being able to attract women doesn't mean he's able to maintain relationships.
    I get that.

    But then you enter the more raw, oxymoronic paradox of Marvel desperately wanting him to be lonely and unable to maintain a relationship, while the character's personality and the tradition of how to write his story means writing him as someone who is totally capable and often pursuing a genuine, intimate relationship, and has success... only to then have the story reset as soon as possible.

    And I think telling prospective new readers that things will always be reset to the more painful starting point again is a turn off for young fans as much as old ones - at least whenever its not a full reboot each time. There's a reasons movies and TV show adaptations always move forward until a reboot; people don't mind starting again, as log as they eventually get a catharsis at some point, and don't have that catharsis ripped away for minimal return.
    Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?

    I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP

  14. #44
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post

    New love interests might not match up to Debra Whitman, who's like a D-list girlfriend for Spider-Man, let alone the upper part of the "pack."
    It may be because I'm the world's only Deb Whitman fan, but none, and I mean NONE of the BND love interests come close to her. Maybe Norah, but I never figured she was meant to be anything other than a spunky friend.
    1312

  15. #45
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    I get that.

    But then you enter the more raw, oxymoronic paradox of Marvel desperately wanting him to be lonely and unable to maintain a relationship, while the character's personality and the tradition of how to write his story means writing him as someone who is totally capable and often pursuing a genuine, intimate relationship, and has success... only to then have the story reset as soon as possible.

    And I think telling prospective new readers that things will always be reset to the more painful starting point again is a turn off for young fans as much as old ones - at least whenever its not a full reboot each time. There's a reasons movies and TV show adaptations always move forward until a reboot; people don't mind starting again, as log as they eventually get a catharsis at some point, and don't have that catharsis ripped away for minimal return.
    Like you alluded to, OMD just doesn't work for so many reasons, and one of them was that it made all his new relationships pointless. And alos as you alude to, what chance do new characters have against ones with fifty years of Pedigree and Stan Lee bonafides. Like they're always going to pale in comparison, they really CAN'T compete with even Deb Whitman, because Deb has history, let alone Gwen or Mary Jane.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegan View Post
    It may be because I'm the world's only Deb Whitman fan, but none, and I mean NONE of the BND love interests come close to her. Maybe Norah, but I never figured she was meant to be anything other than a spunky friend.

    While all of them would have been pointless the fact that Norah was obviously the best potential love interest in BND and they just did nothing there is pretty laughable. Like they never actually made Carlie appealing (or Michelle for that matter), so the whole thing was just weird.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •