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

[Jman27]

It shows the consequences of making a deal with the Devil.

to save an old woman who should have been dead

[DrewHLMW]

to save an old woman who should have been dead

Bringing her back after 400 was the biggest mistake marvel ever did imo

[Jman27]

Bringing her back after 400 was the biggest mistake marvel ever did imo

yeah I just read 400 it was a beautiful send off stupid marvel

[Garlador]

yeah I just read 400 it was a beautiful send off stupid marvel

That's a whole different discussion, but... yeah. It'll be very hard to ever top that story, and many people who actually worked on it felt it was one of the most emotional and effective issues they ever crafted.

[Ubauba01]

You should read some of the older comics. I started at jms and then kept on reading after Omd, and after reading the older comics I realized that bnd was just a pale imitation of the real thing. Why read a copycat when you can read the original.

I read like a couple dozen of those probably.

The first story arc I read from the Amazing Spider-Man series was Back in Black. My initial impression was that it was very dark for a Spider-Man story, but I understand that story was just a one-off thing (Spider-Man stories that are that dark and have Peter act that angry are quite rare from what I've seen).

That arc was probably not a good introduction story for someone getting into the series, I suppose.

[Garlador]

I read like a couple dozen of those probably.

The first story arc I read from the Amazing Spider-Man series was Back in Black. My initial impression was that it was very dark for a Spider-Man story, but I understand that story was just a one-off thing (Spider-Man stories that are that dark and have Peter act that angry are quite rare from what I've seen).

That arc was probably not a good introduction story for someone getting into the series, I suppose.

Not my first pick, no.

[Hurricane Billy]

I read like a couple dozen of those probably.

The first story arc I read from the Amazing Spider-Man series was Back in Black. My initial impression was that it was very dark for a Spider-Man story, but I understand that story was just a one-off thing (Spider-Man stories that are that dark and have Peter act that angry are quite rare from what I've seen).

That arc was probably not a good introduction story for someone getting into the series, I suppose.

I'd always suggest that newcomers either start from the beginning of either Lee/Ditko's run or the OG Ultimate Spider-Man run... or The Amazing Spider-Man #500 as a one-off.

[Ubauba01]

“Marriage” and “children” are separate statistics. Checking the census stats, marriage rates have been rather consistent since 2010, while birth rates have drastically lowered.

https://www.census.gov/library/stori...rce-rates.html
Well, it still declined noticeably from 2011 to 2021. Not huge but noticeable.

It is far more noticeable when you factor in the earlier decades. Compare the 1980s when Peter and MJs wedding issue came out to today.
https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources...-fp-22-25.html

“Marriage
Chiefly, concerning the topic of marriage, there are a surplus of foundational stories of Peter himself clearly stating HE WANTS MARRIAGE. He’s was trying to propose back in the 60s. He tried repeatedly in the 70s. He succeeded in the 80s. He was happy in his marriage until the late 2000s. He’s been back to wanting to propose again in the 2010s and 2020s.


The character at every decade of his existence has desired marriage. It’s not just something fans want; it’s what PETER wants. It’s what he’s strongly desires for nearly 60 years of established history.

Sure but I told you I personally don't care about that aspect of the character.

[Kurus]

Sure but I told you I personally don't care about that aspect of the character.

So we should just ignore a well established character trait because you personally don’t like it?

[marvelprince]

I mean I guess we consider these things differently because media has been ok with these kinds of depictions in the past. But sex where one person is blackout drunk and the other isn't is rapey. By my standards of consent it was just rape, (that's the premise here right? michelle wasn't blackout drunk and peter was. To the point where he couldnt even recognize who he was talking to before blacking out) and I feel like editorial agrees with me because they retconned it in the most heavy handed way imaginable. It's just the kind of rape that society casually ignores when it happens to a dude.

I didn’t view the scene as Michelle taking advantage of Peter, just two drunk people hooking up. But admittedly they did not handle her and the issues of consent very well so I get the attitudes.

[marvelprince]

Some people take a very different view of consent when alcohol is concerned, it’s antisocial behavior and perhaps shouldn’t be modeled by a character sold to kids and used as a Disney company mascot.

Edit: What Moxxie517 said.

And no one gets blackout drunk “accidentally.” In Web 39 he was tipsy after drinking a cup of punch that he didn’t know had been spiked, completely different situation.



So you don’t like it when MJ is passive and you don’t like it when she’s active?



MJ depicted in character is “awful?”




It’s been literally more decades of a single Peter dating various women with the relationships either going absolutely nowhere or ending in tragedy.

I agree the writing for MJ has been at times sexist, cliched and unoriginal.

Like when Zeb Wells wrote her standing sadly by the window in Beyond and ASM #1.

I’ve gotten accidentally blackout drunk before. For Peter who doesn’t drink I can easily imagine him drinking too much without realizing. Again I get the consent stuff so I’ll leave
That alone.

And re MJ it’s easy really, I just like when she’s not annoying. Most of my exposure to her as Peter’s wife I find annoying. I actually liked supportive non annoying non denial while still having agency like Wells had in Beyond or Spencer in the last arc. Both of which doesn’t have
Them married.

[godisawesome]

I didn’t view the scene as Michelle taking advantage of Peter, just two drunk people hooking up. But admittedly they did not handle her and the issues of consent very well so I get the attitudes.

I was actually going to mention that I think the Peter/MJ fan "equivalent" to the drunk hook-up with Michelle is probably the "young married couple getting kinky" stuff in the late 80's, early 90's; I think both bits of "fan service" in this case sort of reflect different priorities and philosophies on Peter/Spider-Man, and his supporting cast. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just think it's interesting.

Like... I've always thought Michelle's biggest conceptual problem for more "romantic" fans, *and* for "anti-soap opera" fans like myself, was that she was designed for an inherently shallow, brief, and exclusively "yuk-yuk, horny young people and the conflict that ensues, amirite?" storytelling, where Michelle was more of an archetype than a character, and there's a sort of built-in "...maybe don't look to closely at this; it's meant to just be some light-weight, time-wasting fun and drama, no biggie, it won't last" aspect.

In contrast, I've always seen MJ and Peter's shared subplot as being more of a "sitcom with costars" subplot when funny, and a "slice of life drama with costars" when serious, where MJ is inherently meant to be a bit more equal to Peter regarding their POVs, with a maybe more saccharine "Ah, young love... such a fascinating mix of horniness and emotional intimacy, amirite?" type of story, and a bit more weight on the love life stuff compared to the Michelle situation.

Personally, I can see how both can be boring or frustrating when written badly, and I get the appeal of the "horniness aspect" in both ... but I always find myself more tolerant of female characters who are still meant to be deuteragonists rather than just eye candy, and more forgiving of failed sitcom or "slice of life" writing than I am of "Meet Cute #36, Where We Never Want to Get Beyond This Too Much If We Can Help It" and "Interchangeable Hot Chick #35." (I also think that Carly Cooper suffered from "generic love interest syndrome" when first introduced, and then only really expanded when writers started wanting to write her independent of the role they saw for her.)

Of cours,e i'm also the guy who doesn't care about Bond Girl #4 is she's just a hot chock he sleeps with, and prefer even non-romantic Action Bond Girls to them.

[marvelprince]

I was actually going to mention that I think the Peter/MJ fan "equivalent" to the drunk hook-up with Michelle is probably the "young married couple getting kinky" stuff in the late 80's, early 90's; I think both bits of "fan service" in this case sort of reflect different priorities and philosophies on Peter/Spider-Man, and his supporting cast. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just think it's interesting.

Like... I've always thought Michelle's biggest conceptual problem for more "romantic" fans, *and* for "anti-soap opera" fans like myself, was that she was designed for an inherently shallow, brief, and exclusively "yuk-yuk, horny young people and the conflict that ensues, amirite?" storytelling, where Michelle was more of an archetype than a character, and there's a sort of built-in "...maybe don't look to closely at this; it's meant to just be some light-weight, time-wasting fun and drama, no biggie, it won't last" aspect.

In contrast, I've always seen MJ and Peter's shared subplot as being more of a "sitcom with costars" subplot when funny, and a "slice of life drama with costars" when serious, where MJ is inherently meant to be a bit more equal to Peter regarding their POVs, with a maybe more saccharine "Ah, young love... such a fascinating mix of horniness and emotional intimacy, amirite?" type of story, and a bit more weight on the love life stuff compared to the Michelle situation.

Personally, I can see how both can be boring or frustrating when written badly, and I get the appeal of the "horniness aspect" in both ... but I always find myself more tolerant of female characters who are still meant to be deuteragonists rather than just eye candy, and more forgiving of failed sitcom or "slice of life" writing than I am of "Meet Cute #36, Where We Never Want to Get Beyond This Too Much If We Can Help It" and "Interchangeable Hot Chick #35." (I also think that Carly Cooper suffered from "generic love interest syndrome" when first introduced, and then only really expanded when writers started wanting to write her independent of the role they saw for her.)

Of cours,e i'm also the guy who doesn't care about Bond Girl #4 is she's just a hot chock he sleeps with, and prefer even non-romantic Action Bond Girls to them.

This was really well put. I’ll agree that I think the writers were aiming for a take on the trope of the
Drunken weddings, but in portrayal of those hijinx they didn’t think about the character in terms of things like consent and agency. Makes a lot of that icky. I don’t have a preference for love interest or foils though. Some can be a quick interaction to advance a plot,you can also have a more thought out character if the goal is to have them stick around. Sometimes the former ends up evolving into the latter. Depends on the stories, just have to keep the integrity of the character intact no matter which route you go.

[Ubauba01]

So we should just ignore a well established character trait because you personally don’t like it?

Well, I didn't say you or anyone else has to ignore it. I was talking about my own opinion.

[Garlador]

I honestly wasn’t expected out campaign to get called out so quickly - we’re literally just starting! - but it seems Tom Brevoort had some choice words for us today on his blog.



… I mean, I’m surprised but glad to know it’s already a talking point at the offices. I’ll continue to emphasize our feedback is polite and respectful, but honest and well-articulated. Apologies in advance to Mr. Brevoort for the influx of letters planned next week.