Discussion with Tom Brevoort on Spider-Man marriage

[Celgress]

She has been removed from the canvas for the most part for a little over a year. As much as it sad to see her gone from the book, it's better than the damage done by by featuring her only in frustrating ways to the audience. The few appearances she's had since the end of Superior have made her pretty unlikable for any new readers.

Why would anyone care or be invested in her character these days? She's the annoying ex who gave up, is completely dismissive of Peter, and hugs it out with her new boyfriend in front of him. Long time readers feel the loss of a once great love, but too anyone new, it's like good riddance. Why should they care at all? There has been nothing to make readers invested in her for the past 8 years.

Hopefully, RYVs will start to change that. Hopefully.

I agree (and when I mentioned on the canvas I meant during the eight years since OMD in totality), there is little point in having her around these days. Much as it pains me, unless they plan to do something with her I think MJ is best kept off screen for the foreseeable future.

[Wandacrystal22]

What I find funny is recently, Slott and Marvel have been TRYING behind the scenes to ruin Peter's relationship with women as a whole. Its not just MJ. Felicia is basically unlikable and unlike her to hate Peter giving mind control and swapping bodies is just a random tuesday in the Marvel Universe. Something is going on. I think they are TRYING to make Peter an angsty, immature man child of a loser from the 60's.

[Celgress]

What I find funny is recently, Slott and Marvel have been TRYING behind the scenes to ruin Peter's relationship with women as a whole. Its not just MJ. Felicia is basically unlikable and unlike her to hate Peter giving mind control and swapping bodies is just a random tuesday in the Marvel Universe. Something is going on. I think they are TRYING to make Peter an angsty, immature man child of a loser from the 60's.

Perhaps my fears, as expressed in the Ironman as flagship character thread, are more than simple paranoia. Maybe those in charge of Marvel are attempting to sabotage Peter's character, or at least downplay his importance moving forward. Hope I am wrong here, but I got to wonder given recent rumors and even actual events.

[Mister Mets]

What I find funny is recently, Slott and Marvel have been TRYING behind the scenes to ruin Peter's relationship with women as a whole. Its not just MJ. Felicia is basically unlikable and unlike her to hate Peter giving mind control and swapping bodies is just a random tuesday in the Marvel Universe. Something is going on. I think they are TRYING to make Peter an angsty, immature man child of a loser from the 60's.

Do you think they're trying to replicate the most iconic period in the series's history?

[boots]

Perhaps my fears, as expressed in the Ironman as flagship character thread, are more than simple paranoia. Maybe those in charge of Marvel are attempting to sabotage Peter's character, or at least downplay his importance moving forward. Hope I am wrong here, but I got to wonder given recent rumors and even actual events.

the idea of intentionally sabotaging an established cash cow in order to grow a potential of others is both unnecessary and a ridiculously bad business move. the profile of iron man and miles can be grown without a ritual sacrifice- it’s not an either or proposition. i think you can rest easy.

[Ursalink]

OK, so now that it has been confirmed that Miles Morales will take Peter's place as the main Spider-Man, I think there's no more reasons to NOT restore the Spider-Marriage with MJ. With Miles Morales, they are going to have a teen Spider-Man, so they can stop ruining every single attempt of Peter Parker to grow-up. I don't know how he did it, but if Parker Industries is going to be restored to something big, that gives Peter enough resources to have a wife and a daugther. Of course, I'm pretty sure that means Peter's new enemies in the market of enterprises will surely try to attack them; you know, as when Justin Hammer tried to attack Tony Stark's beloved ones.

I really want they keep the Parkers from "Renew Your Vows", especially after reading the first issue. Seriously, if there's a Spider-Marriage like this one, how can they seriously just throw it away? How to keep it? Easy, just like I said before mirroring Galactus' case: Merging counterparts from the same characters.

[Xenon]

This is nothing new, it's something he says every few years, and it's something that remains as wrong as it was back in 2007 and 2011. It's a shame to see that he remains committed to this idea, but I suppose after a certain point of defending such foolishness you can't go back on it without eating a moutain of crow too big for any man to stomach. Point by Point.

1) The "he can't still be Spider-Man and have a child" argument is just plain dumb. People's lives don't go on hold simply because they have children. They still drive cars, fly in airplanes, work construction, fight fires, eat greasy foods, and do any number of a thousand things that may lead to them getting killed.
2) "Well that's their job and Spider-Man isn't his job" argument is nearly as dumb. Partially because getting paid to do something doesn't remove the fact that these people are risking their lives. The question remains, do you think all cops and firemen are irresponsible for having children? Because that's what you're saying. That you cannot risk your life if you have children. It's complete bunk on a conceptual level. Partially as well because being a cop or a fireman would limit his effectiveness and endanger his loved ones, he couldn't be both, for instance, though he often serves both functions as Spider-Man. And it's one thing to be a cog in the machine, where you are A cop or A judge or A district attorney. But he can never be a cog in that machine because he has powers and is way more effective. Revealing himself means he makes himself a target at all times.
3) And note, I'm not even pushing for him to have a kid, just to have his progress restored, but those arguments are still really stupid.
4) Adaptations start him in High School or College because ADAPTATIONS START AT THE BEGINNING. Also because Marvel largely controls the adaptations.
5) The "its selfish to want him to grow up with you" and related arguments are all kinds of fallacies, but it's also not a worthwhile argument in any year past, say, 1965. The fact of the matter is that the character of Peter Parker DID grow up and he continued to grow in popularity. Peter Parker was out of college when I was born and the version I really fell for was a college student when I was 8 (and at that age he was for all intents and purpose a grown up in my mind). The "he needs to be this certain way to work" may be valid in certain circumstances, but it's be demonstrated quite clearly to not be the case here.

6) And this is kind of seperate from the main issue and I'd argue it's only a LITTLE dumb, but his fundamental understanding of the character's motivation is flawed. He says more than once that Peter is motivated by guilt in reality. That being Spider-Man was a childish decision made out of guilt. And that version of Spider-Man isn't a hero. Let alone a super one. He's not the only one I've heard express such opinion but it's a terribly flawed one. The point of AF15 was not that Peter had to do something to fix what he did before, but it was that his Uncle Ben's death was an ironic example of what happens when bad people are free to do bad things. It wasn't to give him a complex that he had to make it up to Uncle Ben. It's was to show him what can happen when you fail to do all that you can for good. That burglar could have killed anyone, but because it was his Uncle Ben, the lesson hit home, that his failure to act could cause someone else to go through the same awful night that he had when his Uncle Ben died. It was to explain the importance of doing right, of doing good, of being righteous. And it's a lesson you see him take to heart in those early issues. He is driven by a compulsion, but not one of guilt, but of responsibility, of knowing that he can solve a problem and so he should, because it's the right thing to do. That's who he is. That's who he should be.

But Brevoort's Spider-Man isn't that. He's a childish neurotic failure. And incompetent fool failing about in what is essentially a fifteen year tantrum. That's not a hero. That's a selfish child.

[boots]

This is nothing new, it's something he says every few years, and it's something that remains as wrong as it was back in 2007 and 2011. It's a shame to see that he remains committed to this idea, but I suppose after a certain point of defending such foolishness you can't go back on it without eating a moutain of crow too big for any man to stomach. Point by Point.

1) The "he can't still be Spider-Man and have a child" argument is just plain dumb. People's lives don't go on hold simply because they have children. They still drive cars, fly in airplanes, work construction, fight fires, eat greasy foods, and do any number of a thousand things that may lead to them getting killed.

peter's life wouldn't go on hold, he'd actually retire to have a life. it's not just brevoort who believe that's what he would do and wants to do.

and the argument isn't that "people" don't stop taking risks, it's that peter would.

his vigilantism would be what goes on hold. it's not the same as working as a firefighter. he is out there cultivating powerful and psychotic enemies that develop obsessive vendettas against him. its been shown time and again that peter's "work" follows him home. i'll bet that if any cop's spouse was physically threatened as many times as mary jane has been (despite plot armour saving her each time) that they would think twice about their lifestyle.

but that doesn't happen, because it's two different situations.

2) "Well that's their job and Spider-Man isn't his job" argument is nearly as dumb. Partially because getting paid to do something doesn't remove the fact that these people are risking their lives. The question remains, do you think all cops and firemen are irresponsible for having children? Because that's what you're saying. That you cannot risk your life if you have children. It's complete bunk on a conceptual level. Partially as well because being a cop or a fireman would limit his effectiveness and endanger his loved ones, he couldn't be both, for instance, though he often serves both functions as Spider-Man. And it's one thing to be a cog in the machine, where you are A cop or A judge or A district attorney. But he can never be a cog in that machine because he has powers and is way more effective. Revealing himself means he makes himself a target at all times.

the point is that they aren't comparable. as a cop you have a force behind, you have a partner, you have back up, you have desk work, you have pension, you have disability and worker's compensation. peter as a vigilante has the opportunity to lose a leg or die with no benefits. he can call on his amazing friends, sure, but he's pretty much a solo act. let's see how many cops are willing to do the same level of risky work completely alone. there's a reason why undercover officers are heavily profiled, heavily supported in mental health and retired as soon as possible.

and just because a lot of police manage families doesn't mean they do it well; huge levels of stress, many require therapy. i have cops in my family- one had a best mate who shot himself leaving his sons and widow behind. that's anecdotal and not indicative of the entire force, but if you feel that much pressure from regular law enforcement, god knows how terrible it would be with goblins, octopi and living sand trying to kill you.

and the point about being a job is very important, because it shows that they can still have time outside of work to be a family person. raising a child is expensive. paying rent is expensive. a mortgage even more so. schooling, medical bills, babysitting, etc. spider-man is not a full time paid gig. between work, family and being a super-hero one of the three will have to be sacrificed. unless he can create massive amounts of passive income coincidentally at the same time his wife becomes pregnant or he start keeping a bit on the side when he busts bank robbers, his child will suffer. alternatively, if he continues to work and be spidey at the same pace, he has to sacrifice time with his child.

there's only 24 hours in each day. i know what peter would choose.

6) but it was that his Uncle Ben's death was an ironic example of what happens when bad people are free to do bad things.

what was ironic about it?

[jimishim12]

OK, so now that it has been confirmed that Miles Morales will take Peter's place as the main Spider-Man, I think there's no more reasons to NOT restore the Spider-Marriage with MJ. With Miles Morales, they are going to have a teen Spider-Man, so they can stop ruining every single attempt of Peter Parker to grow-up. I don't know how he did it, but if Parker Industries is going to be restored to something big, that gives Peter enough resources to have a wife and a daugther. Of course, I'm pretty sure that means Peter's new enemies in the market of enterprises will surely try to attack them; you know, as when Justin Hammer tried to attack Tony Stark's beloved ones.

I really want they keep the Parkers from "Renew Your Vows", especially after reading the first issue. Seriously, if there's a Spider-Marriage like this one, how can they seriously just throw it away? How to keep it? Easy, just like I said before mirroring Galactus' case: Merging counterparts from the same characters.

Peter will never be allowed to grow up to where he's a well adjusted adult provider to his family like Reed, nor will he mature to have the progression to lead his life the way he sees fit from a strong resolution like Captain America. It detracts from his image as the martyr of being the "image of real life" he's so beloved for.

Thats how Marvel wants to keep him.

[Confuzzled]

peter's life wouldn't go on hold, he'd actually retire to have a life. it's not just brevoort who believe that's what he would do and wants to do.

and the argument isn't that "people" don't stop taking risks, it's that peter would.

his vigilantism would be what goes on hold. it's not the same as working as a firefighter. he is out there cultivating powerful and psychotic enemies that develop obsessive vendettas against him. its been shown time and again that peter's "work" follows him home. i'll bet that if any cop's spouse was physically threatened as many times as mary jane has been (despite plot armour saving her each time) that they would think twice about their lifestyle.

but that doesn't happen, because it's two different situations.



the point is that they aren't comparable. as a cop you have a force behind, you have a partner, you have back up, you have desk work, you have pension, you have disability and worker's compensation. peter as a vigilante has the opportunity to lose a leg or die with no benefits. he can call on his amazing friends, sure, but he's pretty much a solo act. let's see how many cops are willing to do the same level of risky work completely alone. there's a reason why undercover officers are heavily profiled, heavily supported in mental health and retired as soon as possible.

and just because a lot of police manage families doesn't mean they do it well; huge levels of stress, many require therapy. i have cops in my family- one had a best mate who shot himself leaving his sons and widow behind. that's anecdotal and not indicative of the entire force, but if you feel that much pressure from regular law enforcement, god knows how terrible it would be with goblins, octopi and living sand trying to kill you.

and the point about being a job is very important, because it shows that they can still have time outside of work to be a family person. raising a child is expensive. paying rent is expensive. a mortgage even more so. schooling, medical bills, babysitting, etc. spider-man is not a full time paid gig. between work, family and being a super-hero one of the three will have to be sacrificed. unless he can create massive amounts of passive income coincidentally at the same time his wife becomes pregnant or he start keeping a bit on the side when he busts bank robbers, his child will suffer. alternatively, if he continues to work and be spidey at the same pace, he has to sacrifice time with his child.

there's only 24 hours in each day. i know what peter would choose.



what was ironic about it?

Okay, ignoring the glaringly baseless arguments like "Let's see how many cops are willing to do their work without benefits", let's get down to the basic points of your post.

1) Spouse/kids being constantly attacked: This is just a symptom of lazy and bad writing. There is no reason why foes must discover Spidey's identity or identity of his loved ones SO MANY times. It is a poor gimmick which should never be used constantly.

2) He has to compromise one of superheroing/work/family: Well, seeing how MJ is not a stay at home wife/mother, and is actually the owner of a plush Manhattan nightclub right now, Peter could do with compromising his work. Also, if he continues to have a stake in Parker Industries in the position of a stakeholder, even if he isn't the CEO anymore, he does not have to devote all the time in the world to his profession. There are many ways to work around this.

3) Raising a family costs $$: If PI and/or MJ's are huge revenue generating businesses (which, seeing aspects such as their locations and line of operations, they should be), then it covers all of the health benefits for the family as well as school/rent expenses.

Considering these elements at play, Peter and MJ are much better off than the regular cop or soldier and their families.

[ishikabe]

Peter will never be allowed to grow up to where he's a well adjusted adult provider to his family like Reed, nor will he mature to have the progression to lead his life the way he sees fit from a strong resolution like Captain America. It detracts from his image as the martyr of being the "image of real life" he's so beloved for.

Thats how Marvel wants to keep him.

I hope Image comes up with a knock off Spider-Man. I need to use this money.

[boots]

Okay, ignoring the glaringly baseless arguments like "Let's see how many cops are willing to do their work without benefits", let's get down to the basic points of your post.

interesting twisting of what i said.

i was showing how the analogy falls apart when you put a cop into peter's shoes. the reason why an officer wouldn't police a city on their own? it's insane. comic book superhero wisdom is not compatible with real life demands.

to reiterate the overall point- they are not comparable lifestyles.

1) Spouse/kids being constantly attacked: This is just a symptom of lazy and bad writing. There is no reason why foes must discover Spidey's identity or identity of his loved ones SO MANY times. It is a poor gimmick which should never be used constantly.

it's the melodramatic soap opera superhero world. it's no less a poor gimmick than constantly fighting the same foes for decades on end.

which in itself is the issue. even if the writers chose not to use the gimmick you dislike (attacking loved ones) and kept the gimmick you do (i'm assuming recurring villains) then that in itself presents an ongoing issue that most cops, pilots and firefighters do not have to deal with.

like it or not, the gimmick is a part of the truth of the marvel universe and a part of peter's reality. just as much as all the other insipid/camp/fun gimmicks. that is how it needs to be judged.

2) He has to compromise one of superheroing/work/family: Well, seeing how MJ is not a stay at home wife/mother, and is actually the owner of a plush Manhattan nightclub right now, Peter could do with compromising his work. Also, if he continues to have a stake in Parker Industries in the position of a stakeholder, even if he isn't the CEO anymore, he does not have to devote all the time in the world to his profession. There are many ways to work around this.

your point 2 and 3 are essentially one point and it's not a bad one, i'm working off the traditional mj and peter that i remember, not club owner and ceo mj and peter. it's a fair point that their jobs could be contrived to allow more time. is peter now living in luxury? is mj in the higher percentile bracket of society? i don't know if writing peter as earning passive income off his stake holding is exactly interesting or character building, but it financially allows for a child if that's the end gambit.

actually reminds me of one of PAD's stories where in the future peter sells his web fluid and shooter design and became rich. he has a son named ben (good to see the ol' parker naming creativity at work). and he retired from being spider-man because of his responsibility to his wife and child.

still, the rest of the points stand. this needs to be argued on the merits of peter's personality and his lifestyle within his fictional reality. real life comparisons with high risk occupations don't work because the parallel is specious.

[boots]

I hope Image comes up with a knock off Spider-Man. I need to use this money.

jack in the box / astro city still being published?

[Confuzzled]

i was showing how the analogy falls apart when you put a cop into peter's shoes. the reason why an officer wouldn't police a city on their own? it's insane. comic book superhero wisdom is not compatible with real life demands.

to reiterate the overall point- they are not comparable lifestyles.

Is Spidey policing the entire city by himself though? NYC is bursting with other superheroes and cops. Anyway, Peter and MJ do enjoy financial perks that regular cops and families don't enjoy anyway.

it's the melodramatic soap opera superhero world. it's no less a poor gimmick than constantly fighting the same foes for decades on end.

which in itself is the issue. even if the writers chose not to use the gimmick you dislike (attacking loved ones) and kept the gimmick you do (i'm assuming recurring villains) then that in itself presents an ongoing issue that most cops, pilots and firefighters do not have to deal with.

like it or not, the gimmick is a part of the truth of the marvel universe and a part of peter's reality. just as much as all the other insipid/camp/fun gimmicks. that is how it needs to be judged.

While I do push for new, diverse characters to be included in Spidey's Rogues gallery (like seriously, where are all the lady villains who are not C and D-Listers?), fighting recurring villains allows for far more flexibility than loved ones getting abducted again and again and again. Kingsley is a slick dude who knows how to be a real player in the long game. The symbiotes can switch between person to person etc.

However, endangering family members in every other story arc makes not just for lazy writing but also makes Peter look extraordinarily incompetent at what he does, if he cannot even keep his identity secret for more than a month's interval.

your point 2 and 3 are essentially one point and it's not a bad one, i'm working off the traditional mj and peter that i remember, not club owner and ceo mj and peter. it's a fair point that their jobs could be contrived to allow more time. is peter now living in luxury? is mj in the higher percentile bracket of society? i don't know if writing peter as earning passive income off his stake holding is exactly interesting or character building, but it financially allows for a child if that's the end gambit.

MJ is working off her brand recognition as a successful supermodel to establish her nightclub. That's why she has her face plastered all across the building. It isn't contrived to think of glamor struck Manhattanites or MJ's rich pals in the fashion industry flocking to it on a daily basis. Also, she has been at it for some time now. Even if we don't consider Parker Industries, the nightclub on its own would be more than enough to support the family. Bringing PI into the equation does allow for more interesting subplots though, even if Peter's role in the business is semi-active.

[JBatmanFan05]

Peter will never be allowed to grow up to where he's a well adjusted adult provider to his family like Reed, nor will he mature to have the progression to lead his life the way he sees fit from a strong resolution like Captain America. It detracts from his image as the martyr of being the "image of real life" he's so beloved for.

Thats how Marvel wants to keep him.

Yes. I don't think it can be more clearly suggested by Marvel (their comics, Breevort, Slot) that Peter won't ever be either.