Dan Slott on the "real" MJ

[Kevinroc]

Slott should just stay far away from writing MJ and Felicia. All he is doing is further damaging the characters and angering fans in the process.

MJ came from Stan. She's been around for a long time. She's ingrained into the larger franchise. This also means that when movie time roles around, the characters ingrained into the franchise appear in the movies. This means they appear in the comics even more. Which further ingrains these characters into the franchise.

Slott's treating the relationship like a "hot potato" and still "trying to move forward" doesn't actually work. And acting like OMIT proves how nobody will be satisfied is the wrong way to read that reaction (OMIT was terrible).

[squirecam]

The fleshed-out MJ is the real deal. Its that back story that makes the character grow. Why do you think Aunt May would set up Peter with MJ? Because she partied? No. Because May knew what I did. Pete = MJ. Period.

803555-peter_s_love__for_mary_jane__or_peter_thanks_god_for_his_wife_full_page__super.jpg

[Aruran.]

Ok so after hearing the video a couple of times, I kinda get what the person asked Dan Slott at 51:10.

"What did you think of the Mephisto deal?"

And then Dan Slott beats around the bush, but pretty much said

" I understand why they did it, I understand why some fans are mad, but I know that with everything I've written, I treat that like a hot potato. I try not to go near it."

Which makes sense with a lot of his work since Big Time. He hasn't addressed the relationship between Peter and MJ and only refers to their past in passing convos with other characters that are aware. But what I take away, is that I don't see Dan Slott reuniting Peter and MJ as long as he's the writer, cause it is a messy situation. So whatever happens in RYVs, I doubt it address the relationship of Peter and MJ in 616.

Theres more he said, saying how no one liked it when OMIT brought it up again, saying the story didn't make the people angry happy, and the people who were happy didn't care for it.

[squirecam]

Ok so after hearing the video a couple of times, I kinda get what the person asked Dan Slott at 51:10.

And then Dan Slott beats around the bush, but pretty much said


Which makes sense with a lot of his work since Big Time. He hasn't addressed the relationship between Peter and MJ and only refers to their past in passing convos with other characters that are aware. But what I take away, is that I don't see Dan Slott reuniting Peter and MJ as long as he's the writer, cause it is a messy situation. So whatever happens in RYVs, I doubt it address the relationship of Peter and MJ in 616.

Theres more he said, saying how no one liked it when OMIT brought it up again, saying the story didn't make the people angry happy, and the people who were happy didn't care for it.

Which....is still awful and wrong. There is an elephant in the room. There always will be, until it is dealt with.

Refusing to see it by playing hot potato just makes it worse...

"Elephant in the room" or "Elephant in the living room" is an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth that is either being ignored or going unaddressed. The idiomatic expression also applies to an obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.

It is based on the idea that an elephant in a room would be impossible to overlook.

The term refers to a question, problem, solution, or controversial issue which is obvious to everyone who knows about the situation, but which is deliberately ignored because to do otherwise would cause great embarrassment, or trigger arguments or is simply taboo. The idiom can imply a value judgment that the issue ought to be discussed openly, or it can simply be an acknowledgment that the issue is there and not going to go away by itself.


The term is often used to describe an issue that involves a social taboo, such as race, religion, or even suicide. This idiomatic phrase is applicable when a subject is emotionally charged; and the people who might have spoken up decide that it is probably best avoided.

The idiom is commonly used in addiction recovery terminology to describe the reluctance of friends and family of an addicted person to discuss the person's problem, thus aiding the person's denial. Especially in reference to alcohol abuse, the idiom is sometimes coupled with that of the pink elephant, q.v. "the pink elephant in the room."

Glenn : It was the most controversial Spider-Man story ever done. It's one ofthe most controversial stories in comics, period. Before the Clone Saga, Gwen Stacy's death was the most controversial Spider-Man story, and she's still referred to every couple of months in the books. It's either a flashback to her or it's another return to that fucking bridge! (Laughter) That was a controversial story, but not like this. The clone story still hangs over a lot of people. There are many people, as we know from the feedback we get on this column, who were dissatisfied with the ending of the Clone Saga and the death of Ben Reilly. Nothing keeps a story alive more than an ending no one likes. When a big story ends with a thud, people will always wonder how it could have been done better. What happened with this Clone Saga is a prime example of how not to do a story, or a Spider-Man story.

http://lifeofreillyarchives.blogspot...&by-date=false

When will Marvel pay attention to history???

[Vortex85]

Well if you're going to put THAT much spin on it... ;-)
No.
"Slott" says that the incredible vibrant and 3D character that Stan Lee & John Romita Sr brought to life is the REAL MJ.
And that when you added a tortured back story to explain WHY she needed to be the center of attention, sequences (plural) when she waited & worried about the fate of her husband, and oh-so-interesting subplots about whether she would-or-wouldn't take up smoking-- that was subtractive (rather than additive) to what made MJ awesome.

Hi Dan,

Sorry to misrepresent your point. To me it sounded like you were blaming the marriage itself for the change in MJ's character as well as the backstory of her family. To me this is no fault of the marriage but started before the marriage was even a thing earlier in Defalco's run. The only change in MJ's character at the time of the marriage was the ability for her to see herself married to Peter, which was well shown (despite rushed) by Peter proving he could be there for MJ when she truly needed him in dealing with her family issues. Other than that there was no light switch change that all of a sudden occurred the moment she was married.

For the aspects you complained about such as her looking out the window worried, or the smoking subplot, those gradually crept in later on. And it's not like we needed to see that because of the marriage, it was the writer’s choice to include. But is it really bad to show MJ thinking and worried out a window from time to time? Or was maybe just overdone a bit for a period? I would think the latter, especially with 4 simultaneous ongoings where authors could repeat the same type of scenes that others were showing. Seeing characters reflect like that gives us a chance to hear their thoughts and get emotional resonance behind what the characters are feeling and thinking that further draws the reader into feeling, not just following the story. But it can be overdone. Also, the smoking plot was not an earth shattering groundbreaking plot point, but it's a very real world issue that people struggle with.

With all this said, looking outside of the marriage at other relationships Peter has had, I have not found one with more heart and intimacy than Pete’s marriage to MJ. It trumps everything else by far when it was well written. Perhaps it was inevitable because of the amount of time it was around, but when written well all those little special moments are something I’m truly grateful for.

It’s a big part of why I’d like to see the marriage return one day. I want new readers to be able to experience the same joy I had in seeing a truly meaningful and deep relationship in Peter’s life that he cherished. I don’t think it’s selfish for fans to want to see the marriage return, we loved it in the book and we want to share that love with other readers so they can know it as well!

I’m not trying to say those moments in the marriage can never be trumped by a future romance for the character. But if it is to be trumped, it would be a sad day for this spider fan to see it between anyone other than Peter and MJ.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to the fans here and elsewhere on the internet. It’s a special time we live in to hear directly from the creative minds behind these loved characters!

[stillanerd]

As someone who was a fan of Peter and Mary Jane's marriage and who considers One More Day to be one of the worst editorial decisions ever made, I believe Dan Slott is making a very valid point. The reason why Mary Jane became such a popular character in the first place was because she was such a vivacious, happy-go-lucky character who was not only the life of the party but someone who was fun to hang out with. Not to mention her seemingly ditzy demeanor made for some nice comic relief. What's more, as Gerry Conway would state in an interview with Word Balloon, she was one of those rare love interests who didn't need the hero; rather, she was a free-spirit who could've had any guy she wanted, but choose him regardless. Yet after Peter and MJ did get married, admittedly much of her personality was indeed lost, and she was portrayed--often times in various types of pajamas, lingerie and 80s hair--as either "Mrs. Spider-Man," or the stereotypical worried and nagging housewife. And I agree wholeheartedly that whole smoking subplot was ridiculous, especially since it dragged on for way too long.

Though I will disagree with Dan on two points: first, I don't consider the loss of MJ's personality to be a product of the marriage. That's was more of a product of the lack of quality writing from the 1990s. Because let's be honest--with a few exceptions like the Death of Superman, Knightfall, Age of Apocalypse, Marvel Knights: Daredevil and the like, superhero comics in the 1990s were god-awful, including the depiction of romantic relationships between characters. Yet there have been writers on Amazing Spider-Man who did portray Peter and MJ's marriage really well, especially J. Michael Stracynski (though he's more 2000s), Peter David, and J.M. DeMatteis.

The second point I would disagree with is that the "tortured back story" (which was pretty melodramatic, I admit) wasn't what diminished her being a happy-go-lucky character. After all, having a psychological explanation behind a character's behavior and personality doesn't automatically mean they no longer have that behavior and personality, or that behavior or personality somehow makes them less appealing of a character, do they? For example, we know why Spidey cracks jokes whenever he fights the bad guys--it's because he does it to throw them off their game, put whatever innocent bystanders are around at ease, and giving himself a boost of confidence so as to not be scared. And we also learn that much of his sense of humor came from Uncle Ben, and that by being Spidey, Peter is essentially channeling and imitating him. Yet with that explanation for why he cracks jokes, do we think Spidey's no longer a wisecracking smart aleck? Of course not. Same thing goes for Doc Ock having an abusive dad, an overbearing and manipulative mom who smoothed him and ruined his chance to marry the woman he loved, and being bullied as a kid because he was a fat bookworm. So Mary Jane having grown up with an alcoholic dad, a sick mom, and a sister who was raising two kids by herself, that she exaggerated her party girl demeanor in order not to have the face her own past, I would think deepens her as a character and doesn't negate the personality which made her a fan favorite to begin with. But I can see where those who would disagree are coming from.

[Aruran.]

MJ came from Stan. She's been around for a long time. She's ingrained into the larger franchise. This also means that when movie time roles around, the characters ingrained into the franchise appear in the movies. This means they appear in the comics even more. Which further ingrains these characters into the franchise.

Slott's treating the relationship like a "hot potato" and still "trying to move forward" doesn't actually work. And acting like OMIT proves how nobody will be satisfied is the wrong way to read that reaction (OMIT was terrible).

That's true, but the role for MJ has definitely changed.
They don't want her to be The love interest just a love interest.

It's been 7 years since OMD, and Peter and MJ haven't rekindled their relationship. The new movie doesn't wanna focus on the romantic aspect, and only the video games actually incorporate that element, nothing else does.

[Michael P]

As someone who was a fan of Peter and Mary Jane's marriage and who considers One More Day to be one of the worst editorial decisions ever made, I believe Dan Slott is making a very valid point. The reason why Mary Jane became such a popular character in the first place was because she was such a vivacious, happy-go-lucky character who was not only the life of the party but someone who was fun to hang out with. Not to mention her seemingly ditzy demeanor made for some nice comic relief. What's more, as Gerry Conway would state in an interview with Word Balloon, she was one of those rare love interests who didn't need the hero; rather, she was a free-spirit who could've had any guy she wanted, but choose him regardless. Yet after Peter and MJ did get married, admittedly much of her personality was indeed lost, and she was portrayed--often times in various types of pajamas, lingerie and 80s hair--as either "Mrs. Spider-Man," or the stereotypical worried and nagging housewife. And I agree wholeheartedly that whole smoking subplot was ridiculous, especially since it dragged on for way too long.

Though I will disagree with Dan on two points: first, I don't consider the loss of MJ's personality to be a product of the marriage. That's was more of a product of lack of quality writing from the 1990s. Because let's be honest--with a few exceptions like the Death of Superman, Knightfall, Age of Apocalypse, Marvel Knights: Daredevil and the like, superhero comics in the 1990s were god-awful, especially when it came to writing romantic relationships between characters. Yet there have been writers on Amazing Spider-Man who did portray Peter and MJ's marriage really well, especially J. Michael Stracynski (though he's more 2000s), Peter David, and J.M. DeMatteis.

The second point I would disagree with is that the "tortured back story" (which was pretty melodramatic, I admit) wasn't what diminished her being a happy-go-lucky character. After all, having a psychological explanation behind a character's behavior and personality doesn't automatically mean they no longer have that behavior and personality, or that behavior or personality somehow makes them less appealing of a character, do they? For example, we know why Spidey cracks jokes whenever he fights the bad guys--it's because he does it to throw them off their game, put whatever innocent bystanders are around at ease, and giving himself a boost of confidence so as to not be scared. And we also learn that much of his sense of humor came from Uncle Ben, and that by being Spidey, Peter is essentially channeling and imitating him. Yet with that explanation for why he cracks jokes, do we think Spidey's no longer a wisecracking smart aleck? Of course not. Same thing goes for Doc Ock having an abusive dad, an overbearing and manipulative mom who smoothed him and ruined his chance to marry the woman he loved, and being bullied as a kid because he was a fat bookworm. So Mary Jane having grown up with an alcoholic dad, a sick mom, and a sister who was raising two kids by herself, that she exaggerated her party girl demeanor in order not to have the face her own past, I would think deepens her as a character and doesn't negate the personality which made her a fan favorite to begin with. But I can see where those who would disagree are coming from.

Are you me?

[marvelguy25]

what comic has Dan been reading? does he prefer peter to be with a nerd instead of someone who his is equal and someone he can share a good chemistry with? Carlie was a nerd and she was just sooooooo unlikable to sit through. Gwen worked fine because of their interest in science which is relatable to geeks and with carlie we just have to have every character say how awesome she is without having something to back up.

i hope dan is just screwing with us because i want this book to be good.. you know, fraction did so well with to have a hand to hold. i wonder how he would've handled RNYV.

[marvelguy25]

That's true, but the role for MJ has definitely changed.
They don't want her to be The love interest just a love interest.

It's been 7 years since OMD, and Peter and MJ haven't rekindled their relationship. The new movie doesn't wanna focus on the romantic aspect, and only the video games actually incorporate that element, nothing else does.

it felt like 15 years

[boots]

i don't think i ever had a handle on the "real mj", mainly because all the depictions i read seemed loose or contradictory (and not in a "fully rounded character" contradictory way). that might have been because my reading selection was random as a kid or the amount of different writers on different titles, i'm not sure. never had the pleasure of reading the pre-marriage mj.

the "real mj" to me is random as hell.

[marvelguy25]

As someone who was a fan of Peter and Mary Jane's marriage and who considers One More Day to be one of the worst editorial decisions ever made, I believe Dan Slott is making a very valid point. The reason why Mary Jane became such a popular character in the first place was because she was such a vivacious, happy-go-lucky character who was not only the life of the party but someone who was fun to hang out with. Not to mention her seemingly ditzy demeanor made for some nice comic relief. What's more, as Gerry Conway would state in an interview with Word Balloon, she was one of those rare love interests who didn't need the hero; rather, she was a free-spirit who could've had any guy she wanted, but choose him regardless. Yet after Peter and MJ did get married, admittedly much of her personality was indeed lost, and she was portrayed--often times in various types of pajamas, lingerie and 80s hair--as either "Mrs. Spider-Man," or the stereotypical worried and nagging housewife. And I agree wholeheartedly that whole smoking subplot was ridiculous, especially since it dragged on for way too long.

Though I will disagree with Dan on two points: first, I don't consider the loss of MJ's personality to be a product of the marriage. That's was more of a product of the lack of quality writing from the 1990s. Because let's be honest--with a few exceptions like the Death of Superman, Knightfall, Age of Apocalypse, Marvel Knights: Daredevil and the like, superhero comics in the 1990s were god-awful, including the depiction of romantic relationships between characters. Yet there have been writers on Amazing Spider-Man who did portray Peter and MJ's marriage really well, especially J. Michael Stracynski (though he's more 2000s), Peter David, and J.M. DeMatteis.

The second point I would disagree with is that the "tortured back story" (which was pretty melodramatic, I admit) wasn't what diminished her being a happy-go-lucky character. After all, having a psychological explanation behind a character's behavior and personality doesn't automatically mean they no longer have that behavior and personality, or that behavior or personality somehow makes them less appealing of a character, do they? For example, we know why Spidey cracks jokes whenever he fights the bad guys--it's because he does it to throw them off their game, put whatever innocent bystanders are around at ease, and giving himself a boost of confidence so as to not be scared. And we also learn that much of his sense of humor came from Uncle Ben, and that by being Spidey, Peter is essentially channeling and imitating him. Yet with that explanation for why he cracks jokes, do we think Spidey's no longer a wisecracking smart aleck? Of course not. Same thing goes for Doc Ock having an abusive dad, an overbearing and manipulative mom who smoothed him and ruined his chance to marry the woman he loved, and being bullied as a kid because he was a fat bookworm. So Mary Jane having grown up with an alcoholic dad, a sick mom, and a sister who was raising two kids by herself, that she exaggerated her party girl demeanor in order not to have the face her own past, I would think deepens her as a character and doesn't negate the personality which made her a fan favorite to begin with. But I can see where those who would disagree are coming from.

you know, if Dan wasn't incharge of the series who would you want to write instead? i for one say fraction because of his brilliant Annual in to have a hand to hold which TASM 2 did pay tribute to in the bridge scene and i'd like to see how he does this as a loving family since he's also a father as well and married to Kelly Sue Deconnik. but as they are finally back together again it would've been a nice idea to have JM Dematteis as tribute to the marriage.

[Kevinroc]

That's true, but the role for MJ has definitely changed.
They don't want her to be The love interest just a love interest.

It's been 7 years since OMD, and Peter and MJ haven't rekindled their relationship. The new movie doesn't wanna focus on the romantic aspect, and only the video games actually incorporate that element, nothing else does.

Marvel will refer to MJ as "Spider-Man's True Love" (http://marvel.com/comics/discover/28...f-peter-parker), and use her relationship with Peter to generate hype for one of the biggest Secret Wars tie-ins.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth because I imagine the people at Marvel have different opinions about Mary Jane (beyond that she shouldn't be married to Peter because Peter shouldn't be married). I don't think it's the idea that MJ is "just another love interest," but I think there's an effort to make it seem like she isn't so strongly tied to the franchise, so she can leave/come back at any moment.

I've said before that I don't expect the marriage to come back after Secret Wars. About the only thing I'm going to predict on the other side of Secret Wars for Spider-Man is MJ will have a bit more focus in the narrative than she's had for the last few years. But what kind of focus that would be? I have no idea. (But yeah, if people want to mock me for the "safe prediction" of MJ having a role of some kind in a Spider-Man comic, something that she's had since the first appearance of Kraven the Hunter, go ahead.)

(Also, I think MJ will have a role in the next Spider-Man movie, even with its rumored less focus on romance.)

[marvelguy25]

The fleshed-out MJ is the real deal. Its that back story that makes the character grow. Why do you think Aunt May would set up Peter with MJ? Because she partied? No. Because May knew what I did. Pete = MJ. Period.

803555-peter_s_love__for_mary_jane__or_peter_thanks_god_for_his_wife_full_page__super.jpg

such warmth and humanity. makes me wish doctor strange would've done something smart instead of sprouting out BS as to why removing a bulletwound wouldn't work.

[marvelguy25]

Marvel will refer to MJ as "Spider-Man's True Love" (http://marvel.com/comics/discover/28...f-peter-parker), and use her relationship with Peter to generate hype for one of the biggest Secret Wars tie-ins.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth because I imagine the people at Marvel have different opinions about Mary Jane (beyond that she shouldn't be married to Peter because Peter shouldn't be married). I don't think it's the idea that MJ is "just another love interest," but I think there's an effort to make it seem like she isn't so strongly tied to the franchise, so she can leave/come back at any moment.

I've said before that I don't expect the marriage to come back after Secret Wars. About the only thing I'm going to predict on the other side of Secret Wars for Spider-Man is MJ will have a bit more focus in the narrative than she's had for the last few years. But what kind of focus that would be? I have no idea. (But yeah, if people want to mock me for the "safe prediction" of MJ having a role of some kind in a Spider-Man comic, something that she's had since the first appearance of Kraven the Hunter, go ahead.)

(Also, I think MJ will have a role in the next Spider-Man movie, even with its rumored less focus on romance.)

i think Liz allen would've been a nice idea as a first love interest seeing as how she's his first crush and MJ came lady for other important reasons. though if it's focused on having less romance and possibly(and hopefully not) more time with the avengers and almost having norman forming the thunderbolts and the idea of having goblin involved with shield i'm just not sold on this especially with the possibility of having Asa Butterfield as spiderman seeing as how he's way too young and is way too short which is what bothered me when lafuente took over. he looked 3.4 instead of 5.10 or 5.8. i know he's like 5.5. but he looks like a 4.