Tom Brevoort on why Marvel won't undo One More Day

[Steeler53]

Admitting something ASAP is usually better ( an obvious exception is something that can send you to jail ( which is why people plead "Not Guilty")). In the OMD Case, they have had opportunities to come up with good responses about why OMD was a "Good Thing" or at least say a deal with Mephisto may not have been the right way, but "The End Justifies The Means" and remove MJ from the Daily Strip. But as we see with Brevoort, they take the approach that people who do not agree 100% with OMD are on the level of children and we must take their medicine, and it will make us feel better. I must be stupid because I thought being angry at something must be unhealthy which is why Society created "Anger Management Classes"? OMD does NOT make me better in any way shape or form, and it never will.



I get that they don't want to look bad by admitting that they made a mistake, but at the same time, couldn't they find a way to just present it as what's simply a good response, rather than "fixing" a mistake?[/QUOTE]

[Darkspellmaster]

There was a set of lines that Al Ewing wrote for Odin in regard to Loki in Agent of Asgard #9 that reminds me a lot of the issues with the Editorial department in the Spider books. Loki's acting like an idiot and Odin tells him to wait before he runs off and acts Heroic.

"When I last saw you, you had grown. Now you are shrunken turning in on those you once called comrade who stood with you when no one else would. Is this a changed god I see before me? Nay, for all your noble deeds these past days, you lack that quality....{snip} You lack humility. and without Humility, yes you may change. You may change and change and change like a vain fool trying different armors to see which gleams brightest, while the battle goes on without him. You may change, but you will never grow."

I think that's something that the Spider office doesn't get, and a lot of people in charge of Marvel don't get. Change is good, growth is better. I know someone would cite Nancy Drew as the perpetual teen sluth and that she hasn't changed in years. But the difference is that she has had starts and stops and there are different versions of her allowing at least a few of her to grow as a person and gain more experinces. Another series I can point to that still has a heck of a lot of devoted fans is the Harry Potter series that has a character that grew up, and is now married, and fans want stories about his kids, his family, and the world. Spiderman is no different then that.

I don't see why, if a story is done well, if a character is given growth, they can't change or eventually retire. Yes I know "But Peter Parker is Spiderman!" Yet for the longest time we Accepted Bucky and now Falcon as Captain America, we've had Dick Grayson as Batman. It's a logical move up. You can always tell stories about Peter, you tell them in the past, you tell them as events that did happen, there's no reason that he shouldn't be allowed to grow up. We have a ton of Teen/Single spider people (Miles, Kaine, Mayday, Gwen, Jessica, Madam Webb, Flash, Steam punk may, Miguel, etc. Etc. And so forth) why must Peter be the solo character? I mean heck, if you put Miles or Mayday as a lead in a Spiderman cartoon and had Peter as an older figure, how much you want to bet people when they were teens would want to see a comic where Miles was the lead and that he was the "True" spiderman.

I get their reasoning, Peter is a hot commodity, he's the Spider-man that everyone knows of. But...what good does it do to keep him going like this if he doesn't grow? Again I point to Nancy Drew. While the series is doing good, it's not doing great. Life with Archie turned out to be a kick butt experiment that did well for Archie Comics, showing that people will happily read about adult versions of the characters. Why can't Marvel do the same thing? Seriously, after a point Peter is going to get old really fast and people are going to demand more. A serial has to grow and change or else it's going to be doomed unless it's a Slice of Life thing, or a gag strip. Spider-man is neither.

[Phantom Roxas]

The thing is, it's effectively saying that those who disagree with OMD are "sick". It's our fault for not being "healthy" by refusing what it resulted in.

[Darkspellmaster]

The thing is, it's effectively saying that those who disagree with OMD are "sick". It's our fault for not being "healthy" by refusing what it resulted in.

You know the funny thing is that in a few years when all the old guard has since left the building you're going to have the reverse happening. People are going to say "Why was the marriage restored." and the response will be "Deal with it."

[Blacksun]

Those two issues the downward spiral and OMD are really related to the arrogance of the Comic Book Industry. Someone could actually write a Thesis Paper on this but here is the short version. Back in the old days the Entertainment Industry had a saying "The Audience Is Always Right." The reason is, because they buy the tickets, comics, records, etc. Now, they have an arrogance issue. OMD ( like 'The Clone Saga' before it), is a story that turned out badly for Marvel. But instead of admitting it, or at least changing it, they fight tooth and nail to defend it. You also see this with the garbage that is going on with Sony after 'The Conversation'. The dirt came out about what top executives said about Obama, and instead of manning up to it, and firing those responsible ( if they felt it was necessary), they put Al Sharpton on the Board Of Directors, which solves nothing. Until the Entertainment Industry admits they are NOT perfect, mistakes do happen, sometimes people must be held accountable, and quit doubling down on these mistakes, the only way the audience can force change. is not to spend their money. I did that after 'The Clone Saga' and there are certain Celebrities I will not spend one second of my time or one cent of money on. If Marvel wants to play games after RYV and continue on with OMD, that is their right. But I have the right not to put money in their wallets, a right I will exercise.

editors became so arrogant that want their version of the character, not what fans want

[Celgress]

It is never good for anyone involved when those producing a form of entertainment spend most of their time fighting with the fanbase and critics alike.

[Derek Metaltron]

The thing which occurs to me is that Renew Your Vows won't undo One More Day, because it's an alternate Peter. So that might means that whilst 616 Peter remains ignorant of what occurred we'd have a married Peter in RYV.

[AJpyro]

The thing which occurs to me is that Renew Your Vows won't undo One More Day, because it's an alternate Peter. So that might means that whilst 616 Peter remains ignorant of what occurred we'd have a married Peter in RYV.

And as long as he gets to continue doing as he does in RYV, it should be good. If he's just there to get divorced or killed off then its not worth it.

[Aioros22]

Anonymous:


Tom Brevoort:


http://brevoortformspring.tumblr.com...refuse-to-undo

Sorry Tom, children don`t have Money to spend, teenagers and up do.

So, listen to your audience.

[Vworp Vworp]

If RYV has tremendous sales I guarantee they will consider undoing it

But how many of us that jumped ship after OMD will actually pick it up?

I trust Slott to write a story that shows the marriage in a positive light and portrays MJ as a great character less than I'd trust a Piranha to look after a goldfish. And as I have no desire to play 'chase the carrot on a stick' with Marvel, I won't be buying any of RYV.

[Cmbmool]

I must ask: What's wrong with Marvel that they will not admit at least making part of a mistake or two in terms of OMD ?

I mean they they had a chance to explain things, but they didn't show us how "good" the deal was the series.

Or how Mephisto gets his kicks off breaking marriages. I mean I was hoping the Fantastic Four was next after OMD.

[Minerboh]

I think that it is a oneway road.
If they undo OMD then how will they adapt the timeline in order to explain the events that took place during all these years?

[Punisher007]

The first big problem was that OMD was a terrible-written and horribly-contrived story. Basically if they wanted to break Peter/MJ up, then they picked pretty much the worst way possible to do it. That turned off a lot of fans immediately (hence why I know long-time Spidey fans who have refused to buy a Spider-Man book ever since OMD). And if you're going to do that, then what comes after HAS to be really good and interesting. And a lot of it simply wasn't. We had "bachelor" Peter having a series of ultimately meaningless hook-ups, the complete regression of Black Cat's character, and a "romance" with Carlie Cooper that was controversial to say the very least. And we got more of the "loser" Peter stories that we'd gotten over and over and over again over the years. Basically, it was more of the same and, because he's almost 30 now (by Marvel's own count), it's not longer endearing. It's just sad and pathetic. Basically, you turn people off with the initial premise, and the turn more people off with the subpar aftermath. It took Slott and his big and out there ideas to really make people interested again.

And worst of all, this isn't something that the fans were asking for. This was completely Marvel editorials doing. Basically Joe Quesada and co wanted "their Spider-Man" back. They wanted him back to the way that THEY grew up reading him. THEY hated the marriage, not the fanbase. It's usually not a good idea to force your own personal ideas down a fanbases throats, especially when a lot of them don't come from the same place that you do.

[Punisher007]

I must ask: What's wrong with Marvel that they will not admit at least making part of a mistake or two in terms of OMD ?

I mean they they had a chance to explain things, but they didn't show us how "good" the deal was the series.

Or how Mephisto gets his kicks off breaking marriages. I mean I was hoping the Fantastic Four was next after OMD.

Because that wasn't Mephisto. That was a glorified plot device/contrivance that Quesada decided to call Mephisto. Mephisto was never that way before OMD and he's never been that way since. He was crowbarred into the story in an ooc manner because Quesada, in his infinite wisdom, decided that Peter selfishly making a deal with a demon somehow sent a better message to kids than he and MJ just getting divorced naturally.

[AcroBrat]

One of the probls is that in some ways he is right. While the stories right away weren't that great, theuchad worked Spidey into such a corner that something as drastic as OMD was necessary. (Of course, this raises another issue, of publishers and writers intentionally sabotaging books into to make their sweeping reforms seek desirable.) They had to recover from the unmasking and the Back in Black travesty, and decided to bring the marriage with it.

I think the overarching issue here though, is that characters like Spidey have been around for so long, that the people writing them now grew up as fans. That sounds great in theory, but they are essentially just writing company sanctioned fan fiction. There head can on is no more valid than yours or mine, bit they get to publish it with Marvel's name on it. If they never liked a certain aspect of a character, or thought something was stupid, they can exert that will over the rest of the fans, regardless if it is "objectively" (in so far as such a thing can be objective) better for the characterbor the stories.that kind of flagrant fanboyism comes along with that sense of superiority that you guys were talking about. They are the sanctioned fans. They can be bullies with a badge, and all of our wailing doesn't do anything to negate the fact that they got their power trip.