Bringing Back a Married Spider-Man - The Official Appeal - The Discord is Live!

[Alan2099]

So what do you think of the retcon to Nightcrawler's parentage?

Are we talking about Nightcrawler being the son of a demon or are we talking about Nightcrawler being the son of two women? One of those things is a really weird idea, the other is really stupid. I'll let you decide which.

[Kevinroc]

Are we talking about Nightcrawler being the son of a demon or are we talking about Nightcrawler being the son of two women? One of those things is a really weird idea, the other is really stupid. I'll let you decide which.

One of those ideas was something Chris Claremont wanted to do decades ago but wasn't allowed. The other is one of the most reviled stories in X-history.

If people are worried about continuity being too convoluted in mainstream superhero comics, that ship has sailed.

[Tuck]

Now you're just confusing here. What does Disney and Sony (movie/series adaptations of the franchise) have to do with the decisions in the comics?

The Superman marriage got postponed in the books when it was decided they were going to be married on Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, so that they could happen closer together.

[Jman27]

So what do you think of the retcon to Nightcrawler's parentage?

it was a lot and now I'm wondering why

[Tuck]

The context of the comic market also matters since the argument is often a counterfactual that the book would be doing better under different circumstances, so if the entire market takes a hit, this would have likely affected the 12th year of JMS's run on an Amazing Spider-Man with a married Peter & MJ.

This is correct.

But how well books like ASM, the X books, the Bat books are selling likely have a downstream effect for the rest of Marvel/DC and then the industry as a whole. What I mean is that if Spidey, the X books, and Bat books all tanked in the same time period, independent of industry trends, the rest of of the industry would feel ripples.

[wleakr]

It's hard to like an answer that isn't actually answering the question, so yes, have an actual response please that answers what I asked before.

Well, I'm glad we finally cleared that up!

(Y'know, cuz you totally did say for that poster not to respond to you and he didn't but then you responded to the poster when he was no longer addressing you. Oy vey!)

And we all know whatever answer you get (as evidenced by your response to answers you do get), you will not like regardless!

C'est la vie!

[Moxxi517]

So what do you think of the retcon to Nightcrawler's parentage?

Not that you're asking me, but it's cool to see a queer story retconned into existence when the author's intent was for it to exist from the beginning. But the editorial team at the time was too bigoted and from all accounts I've seen wrote like the most reviled nightcrawler story in the history of the character in order to avoid having queer characters in the 90s. Just all around cool to see. And like the retcon's a bit convoluted, but like I blame that on the Draco being stupid.

I only go into detail on this here because I feel like there would be some parallels we could draw between retconning the draco and retconning OMD. (Not to say there's any transphobia in OMD obviously)

[WebLurker]

For argument's sake, let's say this thread was "Vaccines cause cancer and birth defects, let's sign a petition to ban them permanently!". By your rationale, no one who may disagree with that take should be allowed to post on the thread. Seems kind of impeding, dangerous, and closed-minded, doesn't it?

False equivalence. The point is that the debate is off topic and would fare much better as its own thread or a split thread. No one is silencing anyone, but repeatedly coming to a thread on a subject to tell the users that they're all wrong about the point of the subject is, at best, rude.

Then let's add to my position by stating a young, single Peter Parker is when the character has been best-presented and best-written.

Fair if you think so. However, opinion in and of itself doesn't mean that other status quos can't be good on their own terms or that the one you like is the only way it should be.

No. It doesn't make sense for Peter to be able to balanace things in his life well. Sure, you can write him as being married with children, having a successful job, being loved by the public as Spider-Man, and having no issues in the world except the villains he fights. Doesn't really sound like Peter Parker to me. Even Stan Lee, who is being singled out as the only creative voice for the character that matters, said what made Peter so great was that he made mistakes and failed, and that this was relatable to readers who had similar struggles in their life in absence of super powers.

Straw man. No one wants a Spider-Man without drama and you sure as hell will not hear it from me, since I want a Spider-Man who has his struggles and all that. Also, I'll thank you to read what I actually said next time; "trying" to find life balance doesn't mean "having a perfect life."

Thing is, unlike you, I don't his and Mary Jane's marriage as making things easy for him; in fact, you read the actual stories, when done well, they have their fair share of ups and downs to get through (the marriage wasn't the end of the story, just the next chapter). Look at it this way; Spider-Man's setup is that his powers make his life more complicated and sometimes worse, but he still carries on trying to find normalcy in his private life and the life-long struggle to balance his responsibilities. The marriage fits perfectly with all that (another responsibility, a piece of normalcy, etc.).

And again, the other issue is that regardless of what Peter wants, Spider-Man will always be priority in his life. That really doesn't work when you bring a wife and potential children into the picture. Peter prioritizing Spider-Man in that situation makes him look like a selfish jerk.

I know a guy who serves in active duty in the army. Is he a selfish jerk for leaving his wife and kids for tours of duty? Are cops and firefighters selfish jerks for holding dangerous jobs while raising families?

Peter juggling his calling while trying to carve out time for family that he won't always be able to find? You can get a lot of story out of that and it's on point for the franchise (Peter's private life and superhero life blending together in ways that add complications). There's a reason the marriage works so well for him.

And we've had MANY MORE stories that show Peter as a younger, single hero also.

So? There's room for both, just a question of where.

You can also write a letter to Donald Trump or Joe Biden asking them not to run for re-election. Seems the more prudent action would be to vote.

In comparison, the prudent course of action would be not to waste your time writing a letter and instead buy Ultimate Spider-Man.

Since I'm a Trekkie, I know that writing letters can change the course of the franchise (e.g. Star Trek: The Original Series). Being a Trekkie, I also know it doesn't always work (e.g. Star Trek: Enterprise), but that's always the gamble and the odds of writing are a heckuva lot better than doing nothing. Besides, writing in alongside supporting the new series is more than doable, so why not?

Because if the majority of comic book fans wanted to bring the marriage back as some here do, then Renew Your Vows should have been a runaway success and the marriage reinstated by now.

Since we know it's about ideology, not money, that's long odds, not to mention that AU series are always at a disadvantage. Wish RYV had lasted longer, but that's neither hear nor there in regards to 616, the marriage, and the editors' love of OMD.

Point being, RYV wasn't a success, which is why I'm telling people if there is this belief that more fans than not want the marriage back, the support needs to be directed towards Ultimate Spider-Man - not online threads, petitions, or letters.

Guess what? The support is being directed to the USM. People are doing that. I'm looking forward to it. What the heck is your problem here if they're also doing something else on the side?

[Conn Seanery]

You really haven't. You've just tried to say the marriage was bad because of other factors and then refused to engage with me about your behaviour here. Sorry, but I don't buy this from you.

Respectfully friend...you asked me not to respond to your posts anymore, which I respected. You apparently deleted that post and respond back to me. You can't have it both ways.
And yes, I have provided ample evidence. You choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your opinion.

No, you've been misreading me continually and so I responded accordingly. You on the other hand seem to want it both ways where you conflate things that shouldn't be conflated to try to make a point that isn't as consistent or solid as you feel. Make better arguments, please. It's a little embarrassing from you to not be able to defend your viewpoint.

And I think it's embarrassing that you asked me not to respond to you anymore, only for you to delete that post and respond to a post not even directed towards you.

Such is life, friend.

I haven't deleted any posts yet, so once again, stop lying please. About this and many other things. It would be very nice.

Did you or did you not ask me not to respond to you anymore?

You still did respond did you not? Or am I misreading the quotes in your posts with my name in them? Even then, it's to harp on about this and not even address what I was asking about. Still haven't responded to the questions on whether you feel your way is the right way, everyone else is wrong and should fall in line and everything around that topic. You seem to feel quite strongly about something which is just a preference ultimately, so I'm waiting on that.

No, I didn't respond to you once you asked me not to. But interesting that the langauge from that post is now missing.

You didn't respond earlier when I was asking for answers, and when I asked again later, it's all about running away from the questions being asked. Am I to take that your whole spiel on the virtues of OMD and the general tone of Spider-Man that you want is just because you feel that way and so that is the way it should be rather than anything substantial like sales/fan reactions/etc? Yes or no?

I was responding to your posts. You didn't like my answers, so you asked me not to reply to you anymore. I obliged. Then that language from that post suddenly disappears, and you start responding to my posts that were not directed towards you.

So, do you want me to respond to you or not?

It's hard to like an answer that isn't actually answering the question, so yes, have an actual response please that answers what I asked before.

Okay, enough of this ****.

I'm assuming this is the post in question:

There is a continuation to the conversation that can be had, you're just trying not to have it because for some reason you've decided to ignore my posts to harp on about your preferences and what you think is right and how that totally is the way to go about Spider-Man. I'll wait until you are able to have an actual conversation, until then please don't reply to me.

Personally, I don't care if it is or isn't. You two are going to stop dragging down this thread with this nonsense, or I'll be doing it for you.

[Daibhidh]

One of those ideas was something Chris Claremont wanted to do decades ago but wasn't allowed. The other is one of the most reviled stories in X-history.

That's in continuity now? Yes!
(The way I understood it it was just one possibility that Claremont was playing with, but it's still the best idea he was playing with. And the demon idea is just terrible.)

[Tuck]

And maybe JMS would have done it, and maybe he wouldn't have. To further extrapolate on this, JMS mentioned he wanted to approach it like the film "Sliding Doors", not "Back to the Future". Are you familiar with the movie? I think this is VERY important.

"Sliding Doors" is a romantic comedy movie about a moment in time where fate intervenes and a woman's destiny is split in two, creating TWO timelines. In the film, these two timelines COEXIST, allowing one version of herself to continue forward while the other version parallel to herself experiences a completely different but shockingly similar series of events. JMS's pitch would have absolutely worked for going back further and changing the whole relationship because his "Sliding Doors" analogy would keep the version we had followed until then alive. We would simply "slide" to the alternate timeline and pick up with them.

Also, check out "Sliding Doors". Great film.

I can only speak for myself, but I would have been satisfied with splitting the timeline like this (as long as it's left so the married version still exists; we're just not following it anymore). Maybe we don't get Spider-Gwen though.

ASM #500 always felt like a good ending to the whole Spider-Man story.

What we have now is this dissonant and unresolved note hanging over the timeline.

[Garlador]

I can only speak for myself, but I would have been satisfied with splitting the timeline like this (as long as it's left so the married version still exists; we're just not following it anymore).

Personally speaking too, I think I would have accepting this as well. It’s just a few additional steps away from a “branched alternate timeline” that the MCU uses so heavily these days anyway. It’s hard to explain, but it feels more respectful that way and, yes, allows readers a bit more contentment and closure that “their” Spider-Man is still out there fighting the good fight. Or as DeMatteis put it, “I live in a universe where Spider-Man is still married”.

I’d simply treat a “parallel” Spider-Man as its own thing, one that isn’t at the expense of the other.

[kingaliencracker]

So what do you think of the retcon to Nightcrawler's parentage?

Although I have sporadically followed the X-Men in my 30+ years of reading comic books and love many of the characters, I am certainly not the best person to ask about X-related topics.

However, I can bring up my Superman example again. DC married off Clark and Lois, which was not something I was necessarily in favor of. But I was less objecting of Clark being married versus Peter, because Clark's romantic life wasn't a source of drama or writing material the way it was for Peter (especially since the love "triangle" had more or less ended with Byrne's reboot), and if there is a character who can balance being married and a superhero, it's Superman, right? Within a few years, however, Grant Morrison, Mark Waid, and Mark Millar attempted to OMD Superman a full 7 years before that story, by way of Mxyzptlk casting some kind of spell that would have undone Clark and Lois' marriage.

When I found this out, I was pretty irked. Not only did it sound like a stupid story by three writers who were certainly more talented than that, but it also ignored nearly 60 years of established history in that Mxyzptlk's spells do not carry over once he returns to the 5th dimension. In any event, this story never happened and Superman remained married up until New 52. When that initiative failed, DC brought back the pre-Flashpoint Superman and Lois, with child in tow, killing off New 52 Superman. Then DC still wound up using Mxy in some weird story that somehow merged pre and post-Flashpoint Superman continuity. Now, Superman's history is a complete wreck (although that could now be argued about DC overall).

Now, am I enjoying Superman right now? Yes, although I wish Jon Kent wasn't aged up. But ultimately, DC should have just left Clark and Lois married but their attempts to go back and revisit that, both in favor or against the marriage, have just made things much worse. That's why for me, I'd perfer Marvel just continue moving forward and not attempt to go back to undo OMD. The one time they did try to elaborate upon or clarify OMD, they came out with OMIT, which is a story that is nearly OMD's equal in awfulness.

[Knightsilver]

Personally speaking too, I think I would have accepting this as well. It’s just a few additional steps away from a “branched alternate timeline” that the MCU uses so heavily these days anyway. It’s hard to explain, but it feels more respectful that way and, yes, allows readers a bit more contentment and closure that “their” Spider-Man is still out there fighting the good fight. Or as DeMatteis put it, “I live in a universe where Spider-Man is still married”.

I’d simply treat a “parallel” Spider-Man as its own thing, one that isn’t at the expense of the other.

Agreed. That would've been the best way to handle it. Saying that the versions of the characters you liked for decades have been erased could only lead to resentment...as we've seen for the last decade and a half. And really...no matter how much they insist...the current timeline is always going to be seen as a reality warp and "false" to a great number of readers. That's just the nature of how it came to be.

[kingaliencracker]

False equivalence. The point is that the debate is off topic and would fare much better as its own thread or a split thread. No one is silencing anyone, but repeatedly coming to a thread on a subject to tell the users that they're all wrong about the point of the subject is, at best, rude.

I haven't told anyone they are "wrong". I have provided my stance on this subject and evidence in support of said stance.

Fair if you think so. However, opinion in and of itself doesn't mean that other status quos can't be good on their own terms or that the one you like is the only way it should be.

Again, I've never stated my opinion is fact or called someone's opinion wrong. I don't have to say IMO in every single post. It's an internet message board. Opinion is already implied.

Straw man. No one wants a Spider-Man without drama and you sure as hell will not hear it from me, since I want a Spider-Man who has his struggles and all that. Also, I'll thank you to read what I actually said next time; "trying" to find life balance doesn't mean "having a perfect life."

Thing is, unlike you, I don't his and Mary Jane's marriage as making things easy for him; in fact, you read the actual stories, when done well, they have their fair share of ups and downs to get through (the marriage wasn't the end of the story, just the next chapter). Look at it this way; Spider-Man's setup is that his powers make his life more complicated and sometimes worse, but he still carries on trying to find normalcy in his private life and the life-long struggle to balance his responsibilities. The marriage fits perfectly with all that (another responsibility, a piece of normalcy, etc.).

A few posters have pointed out that what made MJ the perfect choice for Peter to marry was that she was completely supportive of him being Spider-Man. This is more or less how the marriage was depicted throughout its existence. Even when there was external drama, MJ continued to support Peter's dual role. Hardly realistic. But again, the counter to it is that she isn't supportive and comes across as a shrew, or Peter is constantly letting down his family to be Spider-Man.

I know a guy who serves in active duty in the army. Is he a selfish jerk for leaving his wife and kids for tours of duty? Are cops and firefighters selfish jerks for holding dangerous jobs while raising families?

Well, since I'm a sergeant for a law enforcement agency that I've worked at for 12 years AND have a wife and daughter, I may be the most suited to answer this question...

Peter juggling his calling while trying to carve out time for family that he won't always be able to find? You can get a lot of story out of that and it's on point for the franchise (Peter's private life and superhero life blending together in ways that add complications). There's a reason the marriage works so well for him.

As I stated previously, there's a difference in Peter letting down his girlfriend, his job, his teacher, etc., versus him letting down his wife and children.

So? There's room for both, just a question of where.

And we've had both. Renew Your Vows had Peter married with children, and the upcoming Ultimate Spider-Man reboot will have Spider-Man married with children.

Interestingly, when the original Ultimate Spider-Man came out, offering an alternative for fans not in favor of the marriage and wanting a younger Peter, those fans were referred to that series by fans in favor of the marriage in lieu of the 616 titles. And when it became evident that Marvel was going to undo the marriage, fans constantly referenced Ultimate Spider-Man as a reason the marriage didn't need to be undone - there already was a single Spider-Man in comic books. Now that I'm more or less telling fans of the marriage the same thing by directing them towards the new Ultimate Spider-Man, they don't like that response.

My my my, how the turntables.

Since I'm a Trekkie, I know that writing letters can change the course of the franchise (e.g. Star Trek: The Original Series). Being a Trekkie, I also know it doesn't always work (e.g. Star Trek: Enterprise), but that's always the gamble and the odds of writing are a heckuva lot better than doing nothing. Besides, writing in alongside supporting the new series is more than doable, so why not?

The misconception about Star Trek is that it didn't have support or ratings when it initially aired. This isn't true. Star Trek was almost canceled not because of ratings but because it was expensive to produce and Gene Roddenberry wasn't well-liked. It was brought back for a third season because fans did write in, but NBC all but sabotaged it by taking away all of Roddenberry's power, slashing its budget, and and moving it to the Friday night death slot.

In any event, I've been referenced to Spider-Man 2 sellng 5 milion copies. Spider-Man 2 features a single Peter Parker. Do you think a petition that has, say, 10,000 signatures in favor of bringing the marriage back would have more or less impact than Spider-Man 2's 5 million copies, Ultimate Spider-Man outselling ASM consistently by thousands and thousands of units?

[quote]Since we know it's about ideology, not money, that's long odds, not to mention that AU series are always at a disadvantage. Wish RYV had lasted longer, but that's neither hear nor there in regards to 616, the marriage, and the editors' love of OMD.[quote]

Again, Ultimate Spider-Man outsold ASM and the other 616 titles for the first few years of its publication. All Star Superman outsold the main Superman titles. It's certainly possible for an AU Spider-Man to outsell the primary universe titles.

Guess what? The support is being directed to the USM. People are doing that. I'm looking forward to it. What the heck is your problem here if they're also doing something else on the side?

Despite my feeling that it's a waste of time and resources since voting with your wallet will be the only thing Marvel listens to, nothing. But again, I'm reminded of the early and mid-00's when fans of the marriage were telling fans against the marriage to Ultimate Spider-Man.