"Face It Tiger...", Mary Jane Watson/Parker Appreciation

[Kevinroc]

You are taking different versions of the characters and amalgamating them. New 52 wasn't off again, it was an outlier. It's like saying Hal Jordan has fluctuated between being good and bad cos that's just how it is. No. It was just that one time.

Peter and MJ weren't on again and off again in Slott's run. They were in a constant state of off with teases of getting on that never happened cos Slott gotta Slott.

I'm not saying they won't be off again someday.

I'm saying we aren't doomed to the damn cycle forever and ever.

Someday this bullshit cycle with comics will die when they realize it's losing them money whereas every other goddam comic book publisher in the country/world and every other story medium just lets **** go forward and run it's course.

New 52 Superman and Lois were the main Superman and Lois. Until they weren't.

When I say on-again/off-again, I don't just mean in Slott's run (although RYV did begin under Slott's metaphorical pen where they were most definitely on-again). I meant the franchise in general. If you want to argue that the cycle shouldn't have to repeat over and over again, I would actually agree that things should be rethought. But I don't think they will be. That's the thing about mainstream super hero comics. "What's old is new again."

[Mister Mets]

We'll have to disagree there. Dan often deconstructed her later stages of character development, critiquing stories like Parallel Lives

You can be a fan of the character, and think that a story didn't work well.

[Mister Mets]

No it shouldn't.

Parallel Lives gave MJ and her relationship with Peter immense development by having her know who he was.

MJ became the one woman Peter could never lie to and thus she was the only one unlike Gwen or Felicia who saw him for who he really was.

Not Spider-Man. Not Peter Parker. Both and the man between them.

That's who she fell in love with.

When she closed that door in ASM #122 it was everything your ead in 1973 but so much more because she was choosing to do that in the immediate wake of seeing what her own fate could be if she chose to commit to a relationship with this man.

And she did it anyway because MJ is the most badass Normal this side of Lois Lane.

It also meant that she protected his greatest secret, good training for her future with him and in Ron Frenz's words a profound gift of loyalty.

So no.

Just because you don't like it changing the stories as you experiences them PL shouldn't be decanonized.

It's a well written additive story that gives back immeasurably more than it takes away.

What?


You wanna remove Hobgoblin Lives from canon too because it did the exact same thing

If Parallel Lives is so important, why has no one told a story about her perspective between Amazing Spider-Man #42 and #257, when she got to know Peter Parker, while aware that he was Spider-Man?

Yeah no. Betty Brant didn’t break it off with Peter. Re-read ASM ’30. Peter dumps her because she wanted a normal guy and he wasn’t it. They also weren’t brother/sister after that they dated again in the 1970s and there was romantic tension between them after that too such as in the 1990s.

You’ve totally failed to explain why it’s a bad retcon beyond ‘there are too many connected threads’.

Like dude...she was next door. She was literally next door. AF #15 stated Aunt May was with the Watsons and as far as silver age was concerned MJ lived next door.

Its totally plausible and again developed her character and their relationship to an immense degree (that you just handwaved).

Character development in line with the central themes of the series>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>Too many coincidences.

****...circa 1989 we hadn’t even GOTTEN too many retcons to make things neat and overly interconnected yet.

p.s. technically speaking according to JMS and Slott Peter is a Chosen One character. And Stan Lee’s Spider-Man talks about ‘destiny’ a Hell of a lot.


p.p.s. character development is goofy.

Okay well...I’ll be over here enjoying all of Rowlings goofiness in Harry Potter then

Retcons aren't necessarily equivalent to character development.

[Spidercide]

New 52 Superman and Lois were the main Superman and Lois. Until they weren't.

When I say on-again/off-again, I don't just mean in Slott's run (although RYV did begin under Slott's metaphorical pen where they were most definitely on-again). I meant the franchise in general. If you want to argue that the cycle shouldn't have to repeat over and over again, I would actually agree that things should be rethought. But I don't think they will be. That's the thing about mainstream super hero comics. "What's old is new again."

Yeah they were the main Superman and Lois but that doesn’t make them the same versions. They had separate histories, separate lives, separate outlooks and personalities from their predecessors. I mean Jesus they eve had separate entires on the DCwiki.


I know you meant the franchise in general.


And I am saying the notion that comics ‘are just like that’ and we should resign ourselves to it is bullshit.


The idea of there even being a ‘cycle’ didn’t even begin with Marvel until like maybe the 1990s. They’ve been struggling to survive ever since then when the direct market became the main market.


The fact is they’ve been dealing with diminishing returns for decades now whilst Indie, Japanese and other overseas publishers within their relative corners do far more successfully.

Tl:dr. The cycle for Marvel is a recent addition in the broad scope of their history, DC outright broke the idea of their characters having a cycle in 1986 before trying to bring their silver age BS back in the 2000s but with Rebirth have seemingly recommitted themselves to going forward.


Superhero comics are not this doomed perennial cycle by their nature. They are that way because of fear and incompetence that other more successful publishers don’t have. Most other major comic book publishers in the world don’t sit there and try to make things last indefinitely if they are supposed to be genuine works of drama like superheroes are.

If Parallel Lives is so important, why has no one told a story about her perspective between Amazing Spider-Man #42 and #257, when she got to know Peter Parker, while aware that he was Spider-Man?



Retcons aren't necessarily equivalent to character development.

For the same reason nobody touched the Clone Saga or Ben Reilly for the most part prior to Clone Conspiracy.


Something can be important and beneficial but writers might just not want to go there or else might personally dislike it.


You seem to operate under the presumption that writers are these enlightened people who’s words are authorative. They aren’t. They can be petty, they can have disinterests, they can be incompetent.


Doesn’t make the nature of a story any different.


Hell Jody Houser is the first writer in 20 years to touch the miscarriage which was incredibly important even if no one talked about it.


Talking about something isn’t the sole qualifier for making something important Mets.


No retcons are not equivalent to character development but they can be used to generate character development as PL did, as Spec annual 1994 did as ASM #259 did as ASM #400 did.

[Kevinroc]

Yeah they were the main Superman and Lois but that doesn’t make them the same versions. They had separate histories, separate lives, separate outlooks and personalities from their predecessors. I mean Jesus they eve had separate entires on the DCwiki.


I know you meant the franchise in general.


And I am saying the notion that comics ‘are just like that’ and we should resign ourselves to it is bullshit.


The idea of there even being a ‘cycle’ didn’t even begin with Marvel until like maybe the 1990s. They’ve been struggling to survive ever since then when the direct market became the main market.


The fact is they’ve been dealing with diminishing returns for decades now whilst Indie, Japanese and other overseas publishers within their relative corners do far more successfully.

Tl:dr. The cycle for Marvel is a recent addition in the broad scope of their history, DC outright broke the idea of their characters having a cycle in 1986 before trying to bring their silver age BS back in the 2000s but with Rebirth have seemingly recommitted themselves to going forward.


Superhero comics are not this doomed perennial cycle by their nature. They are that way because of fear and incompetence that other more successful publishers don’t have. Most other major comic book publishers in the world don’t sit there and try to make things last indefinitely if they are supposed to be genuine works of drama like superheroes are.

In "Action Comics" and "Superman" (as well as the other books DC were publishing, with the Lois & Clark book excluded), they were the main Superman and Lois Lane. And they were off for quite a while. Another Lois and Clark supplanting them as the main Lois and Clark doesn't change that.

But it's not just the Clark/Lois relationship. How are Barry Allen and Iris West? Hal Jordan and Carol Ferris?

I don't say these things because I am trying to upset people. And I'm not wild about it being the nature of the business. I'm just saying it as I see it play out. Again and again. You can cite how publishers in other countries do it, but they handle things differently from Marvel and DC. Stuff like My Hero Academia probably won't still be in publication with new adventures in fifty years with all new creative teams handling its cast of characters and their relationships.

[Spidercide]

In "Action Comics" and "Superman" (as well as the other books DC were publishing, with the Lois & Clark book excluded), they were the main Superman and Lois Lane. And they were off for quite a while. Another Lois and Clark supplanting them as the main Lois and Clark doesn't change that.

But it's not just the Clark/Lois relationship. How are Barry Allen and Iris West? Hal Jordan and Carol Ferris?

I don't say these things because I am trying to upset people. And I'm not wild about it being the nature of the business. I'm just saying it as I see it play out. Again and again. You can cite how publishers in other countries do it, but they handle things differently from Marvel and DC. Stuff like My Hero Academia probably won't still be in publication with new adventures in fifty years with all new creative teams handling its cast of characters and their relationships.

Again, being the main stars doesn’t make you the same versions.

The new 52 versions were never on. Also they were not the same versions as the ones who formed a relationship in the first place.

So it’s not the same.

You are extrapolating the current state of affairs and proclaiming it as forevermore the way things will be though.

One could have done the same thing in the 1950s...then Stan Lee happened. Or the 1980s...then Alan Moore happened. Or Heck network TV before cable and the Golden age of TV that’s still happening happened.

It’s not even just that hypothetically something could come along to change things.


It’s that for comics to survive they have to.


Existing in a state of a constant unending story is not a natural fit for comic book superheroes, at least not the marvel or post-crisis DC ones, and is greatly to blame for their shedding of readers. They still think it’s the 1950s where the readership will cycle in and out and where the characters barely if ever develop, not being geared towards continuity, consequences or real drama. Except they are now and have been since 1961/1986.

My point with other countries is that they handle things differently to Marvel and DC and are much, much, much more creatively and financially successful for it relatively speaking. 2000 AD sells less than Batman pretty much because a) 2000 AD doesn’t have the global icon status of Batman and b) because the entire UK is smaller than some states within America. But when you adjust for that it’s way more successful.

If Marvel and DC wish to survive they HAVE to kill the ‘endless cycle’ bullshit. I mean hate to break to people here but most stories/most of the best stories, don’t use that model and the ones that do use it for characters simply not built for the same purposes as superheroes. It works for Garfield because Garfield is not a dramatic character.

Spider-Man is. Stan Lee designed him with the specific intention of aging him as time went by. He literally said that that was the reason he called him Spider-MAN in the first place.

There is no NEED for these characters to last indefinitely or even for decades at a time. Again, within Japan, they make much more money and their business model is someone will show up tell their story for however long they want it to last then it’s done with and someone with a new story has a shot.

That’s even how TV and movies work (well movies used to work) to great success obviously.

We don’t need these characters to last forver because the fact is they’ve made such an impression across decades they already will. We will never stop revisiting Spider-Man ever even if there are no new issues out.

[Huntsman Spider]

And we've reached 300 pages for the Mary Jane Watson(-Parker) Appreciation Thread. Sweet! Also, love your impassioned defenses of Mary Jane's character, development, and relevancy to the Spider-Man mythos, Spidercide. Keep it up.

[Tuck]

Its totally plausible and again developed her character and their relationship to an immense degree (that you just handwaved).

Peter's Spider sense warns him if he is putting his identity at risk. It's a gaffe. One that can be No-Prized, but it's still a gaffe.

Character development in line with the central themes of the series>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>Too many coincidences.

It's a re-contextualization, not development. And it's one that makes MJ look bad. It's not just one or two times you have to overlook her behavior if she knows Peter is Spider-Man. (And MJ figuring it out makes the discovery MJ's, rather than chance's . . . which is just better storytelling.)

[Starrius]

Its funny how everyone is pessimistic about the return of the MJ romance. Spidey fans must have gotten quite jaded in the decade after one more day.

I am not one of those people.

I am not pessimistic, but I am not optimistic
I am just...going with the flow
wait to see what happens

I find some of the negativity irritating

[Miles To Go]

It's a re-contextualization, not development. And it's one that makes MJ look bad.)

No it doesn't, it makes her conflicted and appear more human.

[juan678]

https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-mary-...conway-debuts/

[Spidercide]

Peter's Spider sense warns him if he is putting his identity at risk. It's a gaffe. One that can be No-Prized, but it's still a gaffe.



It's a re-contextualization, not development. And it's one that makes MJ look bad. It's not just one or two times you have to overlook her behavior if she knows Peter is Spider-Man. (And MJ figuring it out makes the discovery MJ's, rather than chance's . . . which is just better storytelling.)

a) Conway has always been bad on the Spider Sense I will admit. However Peter’s Spider Sense has a proven track record of being undependable if he’s angry or distressed enough as showcased in the Death of Jean DeWolff and even Spec #300
b) That one little moment of the spider sense being ignored could very well be a gaffe but that’s not the retcon. The retcon under discussion is MJ knowing
c) Recontextualization can lead to development. Roderick Kingsley developed immensely when he was recontextualized as the Hobgoblin. You also SEE some of the development IN the story itself as evidenced by her apprehension to meet Spider-Man. You are saying that knowing Vader is Luke’s Dad DOESN’T develop him or Obi Wan from the first movie. You are saying, for as poorly as the romance was written, the fact that Anakin went bad due to love merely ‘recontextualizes’ his turning back to the light out of love, but it doesn’t develop his character. You are saying Harry being a horcrux and Dumbledore knowing it and Snape being in love with his mother merely recontextualizes those characters but doesn’t develop them. Yeah it really, really does!
d) If you think it makes MJ look bad you are not even bothering to try and look at things from her POV, a toxic problem I’ve found in this fandom.

WHAT does she do that makes her so bad exactly?

She gets mad that her boyfriend whom she’s put herself at mental, emotional and physical risk to be in a relationship with against deep set phobias regarding commitment and emotional intimacy is continually risking his life, her life and doesn’t even have the decency to tell her but instead LIES to her face?

When she’s 21-22 years old FFS!


And hasn’t even explained WHY he’s Spider-Man.


What a BITCH amirite!


You could equally argue she was trying to deny the truth to herself much as Aunt May did in ASM #400 when she too was intended to have known since AF #15.


Oh look...human psychological layers being added to the characters. How awful.


See I don’t overlook anything she did in light of that retcon barring like two instances of exposition dialogue that don’t matter anyway.

How the **** is discovery inherently worse than figuring it out?

Discovering vs. figuring something out are just different one isn’t inhernelty better than the other. You PREFER it. Okay cool. Your preferences don’t = automatically bjectively better.


Plus technically she did figure it out via deducing if Peter goes in and Spidey comes out he must be Spider-Man.

No it doesn't, it makes her conflicted and appear more human.

Characters being human in Spider-Man goes against the point of Spider-Man though.

Stan Lee and Steve Ditko clearly show us that.

[Celgress]

...love your impassioned defenses of Mary Jane's character, development, and relevancy to the Spider-Man mythos, Spidercide. Keep it up.

Same here, great job Spidercide. You are very knowledgeable about the subject matter I must say.

[John Ossie]

I am not one of those people.

I am not pessimistic, but I am not optimistic
I am just...going with the flow
wait to see what happens

I find some of the negativity irritating

Whilst I tend to just ignore the negativity, everything else in your post are pretty much the way I see things too. I'm not going get optimistic about the MJ-Peter situation but I'm not going to get pessimistic either.

[Tuck]

WHAT does she do that makes her so bad exactly?

She smokes.








http://community.comicbookresources....-To-Spider-Man