Slott & Kubert Tackle "Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows" in "Secret Wars"

[Gordonstar]

You are correct. Though, Joe Q. still had to approve it right? If not, okay fine. I just hope Renew Your Vows doesn't turn into a story detailing why Spider-Man with a wife and kid(s) is bad. I'll just have to wait a find out.

No but it did mentioned why getting what you want is bad.

[dragonmp93]

No but it did mentioned why getting what you want is bad.

Well, if that it's true, then the fireworks are going to be really pretty over here.

But im a X-fan, so im used to getting the knife twisted........................................... ..

[theshow07]

To be fair, Dan said RYV was HIS pitch. Unlike OMD/OMIT, which was authored by Joe Q.



So I dont think this has anything to do with Joe.

Omit that was all quesada on that one but omd jms helping to plot the story, write it, and his name being on the cover

[Vortex85]

Omit that was all quesada on that one but omd jms helping to plot the story, write it, and his name being on the cover

JMS did it because he was forced to. It was editorially mandated years before it occured and he knew it was coming and he was going to have to make it happen. Though, he has publically stated that if up to him, he could have written Peter and MJ married forever as he loved their relationship.

[squirecam]

JMS did it because he was forced to. It was editorially mandated years before it occured and he knew it was coming and he was going to have to make it happen. Though, he has publically stated that if up to him, he could have written Peter and MJ married forever as he loved their relationship.

More specifically:

I have always made it very clear that when I came aboard ASM I brought Peter and MJ back together because I liked writing them as a married couple. I made equally clear that the decision to unmarry them and, in the same brushstroke, eliminate virtually every story I’d written during those eight years was an editorial mandate, not my choice. I would’ve been happy to continue writing them married until the sun went out. Marvel wanted to unmarry them. That’s your choice, and your right. At no point did I duck out of anything. If you think I did, back it up: what are you referring to?

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/12/...-steve-wacker/

JMS had a good run, and good sales. Liked the marriage. Shame it ended the way it did.

[Mister Mets]

I think you’re honing in a bit too much on theyears of stories” bit. The important point was that Quesada said that they wouldn’t be doing a “Bobby Ewing” on the reveal of Spider-Man’s secret identity, all the while knowing that they were arguably planning on doing exactly that. It may not technically have been a lie; but it was definitely an effort to deceive.

Well, the "years of stories" bit is a comment that was attributed to Quesada, so it is relevant to point out that it could be an urban legend.

As for the other comment, Quesada could just have a different understanding of what it means to pull a Bobby Ewing than some of his fans.

http://collectingcomics.tribe.net/th...d-7708158ef326

Fans like picking apart the nuances of what professionals say, but there may jusy be a difference in frames of reference.

[Phantom Roxas]

I understand "pulling a Bobby Ewing" to mean that they'd make the stories all just a dream, which that very article cites as an example of what they wouldn't do. Then there's also the mention of not doing a "forget-me ray", despite the blind spot that Doctor Strange was revealed to have cast in One Moment in Time.

Seriously, read that again. "He also promised that Marvel won't be backing-off of Spidey's big revelation by zapping the public with a forget-me ray or saying the press conference was a dream or a hoax. 'We won't be pulling a Bobby Ewing with this.'"

But hey, like you said, there may be different frames of reference. If there's a different way in which the audience was meant to interpret that quote, I'd love to hear it.

[theshow07]

JMS did it because he was forced to. It was editorially mandated years before it occured and he knew it was coming and he was going to have to make it happen. Though, he has publically stated that if up to him, he could have written Peter and MJ married forever as he loved their relationship.

So jms was forced use mephisto as plot device to get rid unmarry or his version omd he wanting erase 30 years continuity of spider-man and marvel just to get rid of sin past

[Phantom Roxas]

I think the decision to get rid of Sins Past was a more of a matter of convenience. If they were tossing so much aside with no care for what was being erased, why not undo Sins Past, or at least bring back Gwen Stacy?

[Dataweaver]

Well, the "years of stories" bit is a comment that was attributed to Quesada, so it is relevant to point out that it could be an urban legend.

As for the other comment, Quesada could just have a different understanding of what it means to pull a Bobby Ewing than some of his fans.

http://collectingcomics.tribe.net/th...d-7708158ef326

Fans like picking apart the nuances of what professionals say, but there may jusy be a difference in frames of reference.

I understand "pulling a Bobby Ewing" to mean that they'd make the stories all just a dream, which that very article cites as an example of what they wouldn't do. Then there's also the mention of not doing a "forget-me ray", despite the blind spot that Doctor Strange was revealed to have cast in One Moment in Time.

Seriously, read that again. "He also promised that Marvel won't be backing-off of Spidey's big revelation by zapping the public with a forget-me ray or saying the press conference was a dream or a hoax. 'We won't be pulling a Bobby Ewing with this.'"

But hey, like you said, there may be different frames of reference. If there's a different way in which the audience was meant to interpret that quote, I'd love to hear it.

And how is this picking apart nuances? Picking apart nuances would be something like “well, there was no ray gun involved, so we didn't use a 'forget me' Ray; and the press release wasn't a dream or a hoax; it's just that nobody remembers it clearly anymore. Likewise, the scene where Peter wakes up to see MJ coming out of the shower and realizes that it was all just a dream happened in the newspaper strip, not the comic book; they pulled a Bobby Ewing, not us.” All technically true, BTW.

And very much misleading, since the issue at hand was whether or not “Peter Parker is Spider-Man” would remain public knowledge. That is, you need to pick apart what Quesada said to defend him, as a straightforward reading is pretty damning.

[Mister Mets]

I understand "pulling a Bobby Ewing" to mean that they'd make the stories all just a dream, which that very article cites as an example of what they wouldn't do. Then there's also the mention of not doing a "forget-me ray", despite the blind spot that Doctor Strange was revealed to have cast in One Moment in Time.

Seriously, read that again. "He also promised that Marvel won't be backing-off of Spidey's big revelation by zapping the public with a forget-me ray or saying the press conference was a dream or a hoax. 'We won't be pulling a Bobby Ewing with this.'"

But hey, like you said, there may be different frames of reference. If there's a different way in which the audience was meant to interpret that quote, I'd love to hear it.

The only thing Quesada is literally quoted as saying 'We won't be pulling a Bobby Ewing with this.'

It's unclear if the rest of it is a paraphrase, pretty much a direct quote or the reporter's interpretation of the comment. That's only significant when trying to pick apart what Quesada may have said.

[Phantom Roxas]

And how is this picking apart nuances? Picking apart nuances would be something like “well, there was no ray gun involved, so we didn't use a 'forget me' Ray; and the press release wasn't a dream or a hoax; it's just that nobody remembers it clearly anymore. Likewise, the scene where Peter wakes up to see MJ coming out of the shower and realizes that it was all just a dream happened in the newspaper strip, not the comic book; they pulled a Bobby Ewing, not us.” All technically true, BTW.

And very much misleading, since the issue at hand was whether or not “Peter Parker is Spider-Man” would remain public knowledge. That is, you need to pick apart what Quesada said to defend him, as a straightforward reading is pretty damning.

Exactly. Going back to the debate over the Huston quote, Quesada talked about the upcoming year or so of stories, and how the unmasking would play into that. Hell, "years worth of stories" wasn't even a direct quote from Huston either, that's just how squirecam phrased it. What Quesada said in that Wizard issue very much suits what squirecam was referring to.

The only thing Quesada is literally quoted as saying 'We won't be pulling a Bobby Ewing with this.'

It's unclear if the rest of it is a paraphrase, pretty much a direct quote or the reporter's interpretation of the comment. That's only significant when trying to pick apart what Quesada may have said.

The article says Quesada promised that, and it's used in between two quotes from him anyway. I agree that it's probably paraphrasing, but paraphrasing suggests that there was an original quote to be reinterpreted. The excerpt is structured in a way to say that those precise examples were used by Quesada, meaning that those examples had to have been used before. Or did the reporter just pull specific examples out of nowhere? Except if they did, why would they attribute them to Quesada? That would be putting words into his mouth, and thus the report would have been inaccurate in that regard.