Thread Drift: Writing a Married Spider-Man

[Metamorphosis]

Dan makes alot of great points in the video segment about MJ and the way she was depicted by writers after the marriage. She did change, that comes with the territory. And alot of the backstory stuff was just tiresome and boring (to me anyway).

Other female characters have some of the same issues, though. Take the Black Cat. As she became more prominent, writers have delved into her backstory to varying levels of success. The results are a kind of muddied character with an identity crisis. Its simpler for everyone when those characters are simpler.

And yet Mark Millar wrote them both effortlessly well, during the marriage and with all their continuity baggage fully intact. So is it a problem with who's writing them?

[Scott Taylor]

And yet Mark Millar wrote them both effortlessly well, during the marriage and with all their continuity baggage fully intact. So is it a problem with who's writing them?

Probably. Seems like writing married characters is a significant hurdle for many comic writers and editors.

[Confuzzled]

And yet Mark Millar wrote them both effortlessly well, during the marriage and with all their continuity baggage fully intact. So is it a problem with who's writing them?

Mark Millar, JMS, Matt Fraction, Tom DeFalco, David Michelenie, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa and Tom Beland all wrote Married MJ wonderfully by drawing from her rich history. And I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple of other writers too. It can be done.

[boots]

how long was millar on the book?

[Confuzzled]

how long was millar on the book?

See above. Millar was hardly the only writer to make it work. And you don't have to constantly bring up her history in every story she appears in. But as those writers showed, it is not impossible even if someone wants to explore those facets of the character.

Again, as with the marriage, it just boils down to differing subjective opinions.

[boots]

See above. Millar was hardly the only writer to make it work. And you don't have to constantly bring up her history in every story she appears in. But as those writers showed, it is not impossible even if someone wants to explore those facets of the character.

Again, as with the marriage, it just boils down to differing subjective opinions.

just pointing out the logical fallacy inherent. it's not as simple as a "problem" with who's writing. there are other factors to take into account when drawing proper equivalence.

[Mister Mets]

how long was millar on the book?

That's a good point. Millar's run was essentially a single self-contained story. That doesn't suggest that the marriage will contribute to good stories in the context of an ongoing series.

The same is true of Fraction and Beland's contributions.

Probably. Seems like writing married characters is a significant hurdle for many comic writers and editors.

There was the argument that all Marvel needed was good writers, although I'm not convinced.

Even if the “good writers” argument is correct, it doesn’t mean Marvel was wrong to do away with the marriage, or to retcon any other developments in the series. If you don’t believe that the pre-OMD writers on the Spider‑Man books (JMS, Bendis, Millar, Jenkins, PAD, etc) were good, you’ve got a bit of a problem as they’re considered to be among the best in the industry. It’s unreasonable to assume that we’ll suddenly find better or more competent writers as very few would fit the criteria. The exception would be if you have unconventional tastes, which means the guys you’d prefer are simply not commercial.

If there are so few good writers, Peter’s marital status should be whatever makes storytelling easier for the current and future incompetent creative teams to give the series any shot at surviving. In addition, if there are so few good writers out there, it would be selfish and bad business sense to put them all on Spider-Man titles. Surely other series need their talents more.

[Ozymandias]

if there are so few good writers out there, it would be selfish and bad business sense to put them all on Spider-Man titles. Surely other series need their talents more.

Totally agreed, except for the "if" part.

[Scott Taylor]

Spider-Man is the flagship character of Marvel, it makes total sense to put your best creatives on ASM. For the same reasons, DC won't be handing Batman over to a total newbie creative team anytime soon.

There is a reason ASM tends to sell well, and it has little to do with the current status quo of any era. Its because Marvel is committed to making their best franchise the best it can be.

[Confuzzled]

If there are so few good writers, Peter’s marital status should be whatever makes storytelling easier for the current and future incompetent creative teams to give the series any shot at surviving. In addition, if there are so few good writers out there, it would be selfish and bad business sense to put them all on Spider-Man titles. Surely other series need their talents more.

Are they necessarily "bad writers" just because they cannot write the best marriage stories? Some people usually flourish writing one kind of book, and flounder while writing another kind of book. I can think of two recent examples from Marvel. Jason Aaron can knock a Thor title out of the park, but put him on a "Wolverine and the X-Men" title, and it is nowhere close to being as well-received. Similarly, Rick Remender shone on "Uncanny X-Force", but put him on "Uncanny Avengers" and there are all kinds of problematic issues and inconsistency arising from the storytelling aspects and character treatment.

It is a matter of realizing who is the best fit for which character/story. Just efficient delegation.

[Confuzzled]

just pointing out the logical fallacy inherent. it's not as simple as a "problem" with who's writing. there are other factors to take into account when drawing proper equivalence.

What factors? Cheesedique just pointed out that some writers can make certain aspects of characters work while others cannot. For the very specific aspect of storytelling he was talking about, it does come down to the writer.

And this was in context of a statement made that certain development of a character made her less appealing. But if you prove how that development can work for her even in a single story, you have set an example and opened up possibilities.

[Ozymandias]

it makes total sense to put your best creatives on ASM

Not if you want to maximize (combined) sales, and I think they do.

[Confuzzled]

Not if you want to maximize (combined) sales, and I think they do.

What Scott Taylor was saying is that you need to put your "heavyweights" on your flagship character book, as that is the book that will be the gateway to the rest of your line for most readers. So you cannot afford that gateway book to suck.

Also, as I mentioned to Mister Mets, the matter of correct delegation (by recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of your creatives) is what actually maximizes combined sales. Deciding that someone is a "good" or "bad" resource based solely on how they fare at a particular task is just poor management.

[Scott Taylor]

Not if you want to maximize (combined) sales, and I think they do.

The highest profile stuff like ASM sells twice as much as most of their other titles, though. This means it not only pulls more than its own weight in overhead costs, bringing in money to boost other titles, but also brings in money to pay more to the creative team that works on it.

Of course, I have to admit to not knowing if the industry works that way or not.

[Ozymandias]

What Scott Taylor was saying is that you need to put your "heavyweights" on your flagship character book, as that is the book that will be the gateway to the rest of your line for most readers. So you cannot afford that gateway book to suck.

They can and they have, because the character will still sell on its own. What they can't afford, is for the character to stop selling. That's why they brought Byrne to do Chapter One, and when that didn't work out, they upped the ante with JMS.

Also, as I mentioned to Mister Mets, the matter of correct delegation (by recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of your creatives) is what actually maximizes combined sales. Deciding that someone is a "good" or "bad" resource based solely on how they fare at a particular task is just poor management.

There's an argument to be made in favor of delegation, for sure, but a good author won't sell worse than a bad or average creator, on a flagship character, despite their strengths and weaknesses. The opposite doesn't hold. For example, can you imagine Sandman in the top 20, with the ASM creative team?