Mary Jane Watson-Parker Appreciation 2024.

**MisterTorgo** · 04-02-2024, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Huntsman Spider

If what happened midway through the Clone Saga at the (false) reveal that Peter was the clone all along didn't do that . . .

UGH. That incident made me cancel my subscription to Amazing for a while, that's for sure.

**godisawesome** · 04-02-2024, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by K7P5V

"Doc" Bright (R.I.P.)

Originally Posted by Jman27

if this was 2017 Peter would be canceled

Originally Posted by Kevinroc

Peter's done a lot of things that would get him canceled.

I’d argue this particular scene wouldn’t be seen as nearly as particularly problematic a lot of successful and accepted romance arcs - partially because a scene like this, with a quick, seemingly impulsive kiss, her embracing him mid kiss, and then them realizing he screwed up could be “acceptably problematic” as an example of where two three dimensional characters can make a mistake that *could* be toxic in some circumstances, but non-toxic in others.

Yes, Debra Whitman and MJ getting thrown aside while pregnant are much more outright problematic and caused consternation even back then in a more toxic time, but this? It could be bad, but it doesn't have to be of the creator is empathetic and smart.

Think Han and Leia’s first kiss in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back - usually now recognized as having a lot of problematic elements present... but generally agreed to still toe the line enough with regards to Leia’s agency and psychology that it avoids aging too badly.

And anyways, heaven knows there’s been a lot more problematic stuff that people have accepted in modern times that “should” have gotten certain films or stories “cancelled” but that pop culture influencers will fight over labeling in a negative way thanks to aftershocks it might have...

**From The Shadows** · 04-03-2024, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by SturdyMike89

Is this early work from Carlos Pacheco? It says it is from October 1987, but I don't know of any work of his until about 1993 or so. If it is early work then it is very well done.

Yeah, I didn't realize his work went back that far either. He will be missed.

**Daibhidh** · 04-03-2024, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by godisawesome

I’d argue this particular scene wouldn’t be seen as nearly as particularly problematic a lot of successful and accepted romance arcs - partially because a scene like this, with a quick, seemingly impulsive kiss, her embracing him mid kiss, and then them realizing he screwed up could be “acceptably problematic” as an example of where two three dimensional characters can make a mistake that *could* be toxic in some circumstances, but non-toxic in others..

I think that the kiss in Spider-man vs Wolverine is made more acceptable by the art: while the narration and dialogue imply that MJ is unwilling, the art implies that she is. It's still a problematic sequence to have written. (I note that Christopher Priest was against the Peter/MJ relationship - I don't think it was the last time people who didn't want to write Peter and MJ together wrote something problematic.)

**godisawesome** · 04-03-2024, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Daibhidh

I think that the kiss in Spider-man vs Wolverine is made more acceptable by the art: while the narration and dialogue imply that MJ is unwilling, the art implies that she is. It's still a problematic sequence to have written. (I note that Christopher Priest was against the Peter/MJ relationship - I don't think it was the last time people who didn't want to write Peter and MJ together wrote something problematic.)

It's definitely the art that executes the "non-toxic" interpretation, a bit like how Ford and Fisher's acting carries their ESB kiss; now, its conceivable the writing was done with the intention for the art or acting to allay things and make the work non-toxic, which wouldn't necessarily prevent the relationship from being toxic as an intentional writing choice.

Which leads us to the interesting conundrum that Priest might have found himself in, or at least a way the writing could be viewed as a hypothetical problem for good character writers who still may not like the relationship, as opposed to mediocre or bad character writers who maybe depend more on external conflicts:

- Let's say a good writer, like Priest, decides that maybe the best way to use the Peter and MJ relationship is to try and intentionally portray the relationship as toxic in-universe - to try and turn the audience against it by making it clear these two characters are unhealthy for each other within the context of the story. If they can pull it off, it's far and away the smarter way to deconstruct the relationship, potentially turn people against it, and still derive entertainment material from it.

- The catch for a good character writer like Priest? He respects the work of previous writers too much and has too much professional skill to make a hack job of writing Peter and MJ - which means that he's going to write them consistent with prior characterization, nuance, and subtlety...

- ...which means that his story attempting to make MJ and Peter toxic is going to be limited in toxicity (since neither character's established personality is too toxic) and reliant on the idea that their fatal flaws in the relationship are static character flaws... so the next pro-relationship writer just has to make them dynamic characters, and suddenly Priest's hard work to sabotage the relationship just becomes a conflict they triumphantly overcame in a grand, well-written larger story.

Meanwhile, of course, the hacks who just cut to the point and try to write characters badly just get their stories "disqualified" because of the poor quality of their work.

**Huntsman Spider** · 04-04-2024, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by godisawesome

It's definitely the art that executes the "non-toxic" interpretation, a bit like how Ford and Fisher's acting carries their ESB kiss; now, its conceivable the writing was done with the intention for the art or acting to allay things and make the work non-toxic, which wouldn't necessarily prevent the relationship from being toxic as an intentional writing choice.

Which leads us to the interesting conundrum that Priest might have found himself in, or at least a way the writing could be viewed as a hypothetical problem for good character writers who still may not like the relationship, as opposed to mediocre or bad character writers who maybe depend more on external conflicts:

- Let's say a good writer, like Priest, decides that maybe the best way to use the Peter and MJ relationship is to try and intentionally portray the relationship as toxic in-universe - to try and turn the audience against it by making it clear these two characters are unhealthy for each other within the context of the story. If they can pull it off, it's far and away the smarter way to deconstruct the relationship, potentially turn people against it, and still derive entertainment material from it.

- The catch for a good character writer like Priest? He respects the work of previous writers too much and has too much professional skill to make a hack job of writing Peter and MJ - which means that he's going to write them consistent with prior characterization, nuance, and subtlety...

- ...which means that his story attempting to make MJ and Peter toxic is going to be limited in toxicity (since neither character's established personality is too toxic) and reliant on the idea that their fatal flaws in the relationship are static character flaws... so the next pro-relationship writer just has to make them dynamic characters, and suddenly Priest's hard work to sabotage the relationship just becomes a conflict they triumphantly overcame in a grand, well-written larger story.

Meanwhile, of course, the hacks who just cut to the point and try to write characters badly just get their stories "disqualified" because of the poor quality of their work.

Pretty much this.

**Prime** · 04-05-2024, 01:38 PM