Reasons To Keep Peter Parker Single

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

I believe you're referring to the word balloon interview with Slott.

Though, I'm pretty sure RDMacQ is already aware of that point, since he previously responded to the interview saying Slott was being intellectually dishonest, blaming poor writing ability on MJ. or something.

I don't think we need to go over my "response" to that again. I think for many people here, once was enough.

[Alan2099]

I believe you're referring to the word balloon interview with Slott.

Though, I'm pretty sure RDMacQ is already aware of that point, since he previously responded to the interview saying Slott was being intellectually dishonest, blaming poor writing ability on MJ. or something.

... you know, I guess I'm an idiot, but I didn't realize RobertMacQuarrie1 was RDMacQ.

Thank you. This explains so much.

[Zeitgeist]

Oh, is that a thing?

Again, prove this.

Prove that this is true.

Asking questions isn't the same as having answers. If you want to say that there are fewer stories with a married Spider-Man, prove it.

Why don't you just prove that it's not true? Just detail statistically how after 2 decades of married Spider-man stories, there would have been, without a doubt, more successful stories than what we've had since BND. Easy!

But if the journey is boring, I don't care. It's just wasting time.

Because I'm paying good money to be entertained. If you can't guarantee that, don't waste my time.

Getting what I want isn't the problem. It's getting what I need, which is to be entertained. If you can't fulfill that need, then nothing else matters.

No, that's still their problem. And if their problem means that they can't tell good stories, then I don't care what their rationale is. I'm paying for good stories, not for them to sort out their own issue.

What you find boring, what you find entertaining, what you call a good story - all subjective to your own specific tastes.

Except you haven't proved that the book was suffering from creative stagnation. All you've said was that you had a problem with it. That's not the same thing. There's nothing about what you've said that proves that it wasn't anything more than your personal bias.

Which in no way means that the book was creatively stagnant.

Again, you've done nothing to prove that the book was stagnant outside of just you saying it was. Where is your proof? Where is your evidence? Why should I take your word as an unbiaed authority on the quality of the material, and not simply regard it as an argument of fan with a biased narrative?

This whole thread is about people's preferences and opinions. Everything I've said is my opinion, to argue as if I had been offering it as anything more is a straw man. I'd demand pie charts of how fresh you personally thought the spider-marriage was, but I'm not Froot Loops enough to believe such a thing could be quantified.
It's incredibly disingenuous to come in and demand burdens of proof and "evidence" out of people based what's largely their own subjectivity, while calling them biased. Of course people in this thread are "biased" to Peter being single - it's what the thread is about after all:

Reasons To Keep Peter Parker Single

The one true fact however is that Marvel thought there was a problem, and so they did something about it. Whether you or I think they were right or wrong is, surprise surprise, subjective. But if you want to talk about an "authority", the buck stops there whether you like it or not.

If you don't feel the need to defend your position, or prove anything that you say, then there's no need for me to take anything you say seriously.

As I said, pretty much everything you've said just tells me one thing- you had a problem with the marriage. That's all. But that in no way proves that the marriage was a problem.

And everything you've pretty much said tells me that you didn't have a problem with the marriage. But that in no ways proves that the marriage wasn't a problem.

No offense, but I don't really care if you take what I say seriously or not. As the OP shows, this thread wasn't designed to be a debate, and I wasn't posting in this thread asking you to validate my personal opinions as correct or incorrect.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

Why don't you just prove that it's not true? Just detail statistically how after 2 decades of married Spider-man stories, there would have been, without a doubt, more successful stories than what we've had since BND. Easy!

It doesn't work like that. It's not my job to disprove your statement. If you are the one making the argument, you have to back it up.

Otherwise, an argument without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Also, Spider-Man had his best sales period during when he was married. Spider-Man #1 by Todd MacFarlane sold over a million copies. The Clone Saga, to this day, is still the best selling Spider-Man event of all time.

What you find boring, what you find entertaining, what you call a good story - all subjective to your own specific tastes.

And the exact same is true for you. So why does your qualifications for what is entertaining trump mine or anyone else's?

This whole thread is about people's preferences and opinions. Everything I've said is my opinion, to argue as if I had been offering it as anything more is a straw man. I'd demand pie charts of how fresh you personally thought the spider-marriage was, but I'm not Froot Loops enough to believe such a thing could be quantified.
It's incredibly disingenuous to come in and demand burdens of proof and "evidence" out of people based what's largely their own subjectivity, while calling them biased. Of course people in this thread are "biased" to Peter being single - it's what the thread is about after all:

It's great that it is your opinion that a single Spider-Man is more entertaining.

But I'd like to see proof of that, or of any claim that it is inherently superior. Why is that such a bad thing?

The one true fact however is that Marvel thought there was a problem, and so they did something about it. Whether you or I think they were right or wrong is, surprise surprise, subjective. But if you want to talk about an "authority", the buck stops there whether you like it or not.

Right, you're not an authority and neither am I.

So why do I need to take your claim and your claim alone as to why it was "bad?"

DC thought there was a problem with Hal Jordan too. That's why they killed him off. Same with Barry Allen. Killed him off in the 80's. And they killed off Supergirl as well. But they brought all of those characters back.

That's the rub- yes, there are folks at Marvel that think that it was a problem. But there's nothing to say that they aren't wrong.

And everything you've pretty much said tells me that you didn't have a problem with the marriage. But that in no ways proves that the marriage wasn't a problem.

Yeah, I don't think it was a problem. But I wasn't the one saying that it was a big problem. That was you. I was simply asking you to provide proof beyond personal opinion.

[Ultimate Spider-Fan]

Yeah, I don't think it was a problem. But I wasn't the one saying that it was a big problem. That was you. I was simply asking you to provide proof beyond personal opinion.

The marriage was a problem because the higher-ups at Marvel thought it was a problem, spending over a decade trying to get rid of it and nearly destroying the character in the process. They tried to get rid of it with the Clone Saga and they tried again during the Mackie/Byrne relaunch. In the end, Joe Quesada was willing to fall on the grenade and get it done, though he did kind of drag JMS down with him. OMD was a terrible story in its own right, but it was a bandaid Marvel felt needed to be pulled off, and after all the criticism they endured because of it I don't see them ever wanting to go back to a pre-OMD status quo again.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

The marriage was a problem because the higher-ups at Marvel thought it was a problem, spending over a decade trying to get rid of it and nearly destroying the character in the process. They tried to get rid of it with the Clone Saga and they tried again during the Mackie/Byrne relaunch. In the end, Joe Quesada was willing to fall on the grenade and get it done, though he did kind of drag JMS down with him. OMD was a terrible story in its own right, but it was a bandaid Marvel felt needed to be pulled off, and after all the criticism they endured because of it I don't see them ever wanting to go back to a pre-OMD status quo again.

But, as I pointed out, the creators at DC once thought the same thing of Hal Jordan. And Barry Allen. And Supergirl. And aspects of Superman's mythology such as Krypto the Superdog, Beppo the Supermonkey, Comet the Superhorse, and so on. Did that mean that they were right? Because that didn't stop these character and aspects from coming back, and in some cases- such as Hal Jordan- to greater heights than before.

The creative parties are not all seeing, and all knowing. Yes, there may be those that perceive it to be a problem. But that doesn't mean it is a problem. One could also argue that the marriage enduring even though the creative parties tried to kill it on two separate occasions showed that they were wrong in their assumption that it was a problem, because it didn't deter fans or even creators from the title. And even seven years after OMD, there is still many requests to bring it back, and the marriage is still referred to in outside media.

It's not enough to say "They got rid of it, therefore they are right." One should be able to prove- outside of personal opinion- that things are legitimately better than they were before. Someone saying that the sales on the book are better or that it is more creative is not the same as proving it. Especially in terms of sales, because that can easily be disproved by simple sales figures.

[Ultimate Spider-Fan]

But, as I pointed out, the creators at DC once thought the same thing of Hal Jordan. And Barry Allen. And Supergirl. And aspects of Superman's mythology such as Krypto the Superdog, Beppo the Supermonkey, Comet the Superhorse, and so on. Did that mean that they were right? Because that didn't stop these character and aspects from coming back, and in some cases- such as Hal Jordan- to greater heights than before.

The creative parties are not all seeing, and all knowing. Yes, there may be those that perceive it to be a problem. But that doesn't mean it is a problem. One could also argue that the marriage enduring even though the creative parties tried to kill it on two separate occasions showed that they were wrong in their assumption that it was a problem, because it didn't deter fans or even creators from the title. And even seven years after OMD, there is still many requests to bring it back, and the marriage is still referred to in outside media.

It's not enough to say "They got rid of it, therefore they are right." One should be able to prove- outside of personal opinion- that things are legitimately better than they were before. Someone saying that the sales on the book are better or that it is more creative is not the same as proving it. Especially in terms of sales, because that can easily be disproved by simple sales figures.

What outside media other than the comic strip? Not the movies or animated shows, and that's where the vast majority of the public encounters Spidey.

Unless you want to consider overall critical consensus, then you cannot prove "that things are legitimately better than they were before". Sales indicate success in the marketplace; everything else is subjective.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

What outside media other than the comic strip? Not the movies or animated shows, and that's where the vast majority of the public encounters Spidey.

Just recently I saw a TV show in Canada here called "Ink" which talked about comic books, and they referred to the Spider-Man marriage, and not to OMD or any of the attempts to break it up.

Unless you want to consider overall critical consensus, then you cannot prove "that things are legitimately better than they were before". Sales indicate success in the marketplace; everything else is subjective.

Sales indicate success, but not quality. And as we've spoken about in another thread, sales numbers can be fudged.

And you're right, I cannot prove things are legitimately better than before. But I'm not the one arguing that they are.

[Ultimate Spider-Fan]

Just recently I saw a TV show in Canada here called "Ink" which talked about comic books, and they referred to the Spider-Man marriage, and not to OMD or any of the attempts to break it up.

I don't think a reference in some unknown Canadian TV show demonstrates cultural relevance. When they start seriously considering using a married Spider-Man in one of the movies or cartoons, then maybe I'll buy it.

[Ultimate Spider-Fan]

Sales indicate success, but not quality. And as we've spoken about in another thread, sales numbers can be fudged.

And you're right, I cannot prove things are legitimately better than before. But I'm not the one arguing that they are.

I never said sales equal quality, only that they indicate success. You're the one arguing ... Well, I don't know what you're arguing anymore. It seems to me you want Marvel to cater more to your desires, but are unwilling to just come out and say want you specifically want to see happen in the comics and why Marvel should consider doing that since what they are currently doing is obviously working (at least to some degree).

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

I never said sales equal quality, only that they indicate success. You're the one arguing ... Well, I don't know what you're arguing anymore. It seems to me you want Marvel to cater more to your desires, but are unwilling to just come out and say want you specifically want to see happen in the comics and why Marvel should consider doing that since what they are currently doing is obviously working (at least to some degree).

None of which has depended upon him being single- to bring the topic back around to the conversation at hand.

[Ultimate Spider-Fan]

None of which has depended upon him being single- to bring the topic back around to the conversation at hand.

I'd argue that Superior wouldn't have been possible with a married Spider-man. People freaked out badly enough when they thought Otto might date MJ, imagine if they'd been married.

Peter being single worked quite well in the comics for over two decades. Peter being married worked quite well for a time as well. I just don't get why so many fans, especially pro-marriage fans, take a "my way or the highway" approach to this issue. I prefer a single Spidey, but I read and enjoyed the book when he was married. i can see preferring one situation over the other, but what I can't see is the fans who refuse to read the book because of it. Are your views on the character so inflexible that you can enjoy nothing else?

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

I'd argue that Superior wouldn't have been possible with a married Spider-man. People freaked out badly enough when they thought Otto might date MJ, imagine if they'd been married.

Perhaps. But that was one storyline that came six years after the marriage was done away with, and none of the stories in the interim really required him to be single.

Peter being single worked quite well in the comics for over two decades. Peter being married worked quite well for a time as well. I just don't get why so many fans, especially pro-marriage fans, take a "my way or the highway" approach to this issue. I prefer a single Spidey, but I read and enjoyed the book when he was married. i can see preferring one situation over the other, but what I can't see is the fans who refuse to read the book because of it. Are your views on the character so inflexible that you can enjoy nothing else?

Personally speaking, I never felt it was the fans of the marriage who took a "My way or the highway" approach. From what I experienced, it was less a demand to have the character married and more of a acceptance that the mythos can and has changed. A few were even OK with him being single, but were not convinced of the justifications for it or impressed with the stories that came afterwards. Again, from my personal experience, it was the fans who liked him being single who had the "My way or the highway" approach. The notion that the book was better now, that if you didn't like it then you should leave. And these same fans would demand that others judge the book on the quality rather than the lack of a marriage, but would happily proclaim that they would drop the book the second the marriage or even MJ would come back.

I'm not saying that him being single is wrong. Or that he has to be married. I'm saying that him being single isn't inherently better, and him being married wasn't inherently worse. He doesn't need to be married. But a story like OMD doesn't have to be defended upon some notion that it magically makes the book better. I don't have a problem with people preferring him single. I just disagree with those who say that it is makes things inherently superior in every way.

[Ultimate Spider-Fan]

Perhaps. But that was one storyline that came six years after the marriage was done away with, and none of the stories in the interim really required him to be single.



Personally speaking, I never felt it was the fans of the marriage who took a "My way or the highway" approach. From what I experienced, it was less a demand to have the character married and more of a acceptance that the mythos can and has changed. A few were even OK with him being single, but were not convinced of the justifications for it or impressed with the stories that came afterwards. Again, from my personal experience, it was the fans who liked him being single who had the "My way or the highway" approach. The notion that the book was better now, that if you didn't like it then you should leave. And these same fans would demand that others judge the book on the quality rather than the lack of a marriage, but would happily proclaim that they would drop the book the second the marriage or even MJ would come back.

I'm not saying that him being single is wrong. Or that he has to be married. I'm saying that him being single isn't inherently better, and him being married wasn't inherently worse. He doesn't need to be married. But a story like OMD doesn't have to be defended upon some notion that it magically makes the book better. I don't have a problem with people preferring him single. I just disagree with those who say that it is makes things inherently superior in every way.

Who's defending OMD? It was one of the suckiest stories that ever did suck. There's a ton of ways that Marvel could have gotten rid of the marriage. Why they chose the absolute worst still boggles my mind. All I'm defending is the desire from a fan, corporate, and creative viewpoint for a single Spider-Man.

As for the "my way or the highway" attitude regarding the marriage, I'd say just look at some of the posters around this forum. How many of them have said they dropped the book after OMD and will only pick it up after the marriage is restored? Now, how many have said they dropped the book back in the 80's when Pete and MJ got married or that they only started picking it up because he's single now and would drop it if the marriage was restored? I'm betting posters in the former group would greatly outnumber those in the latter.

And I don't think fans who prefer a single Spidey want the fans who prefer him married to leave, they just want them to not talk about it all the damned time. It's not as bad as it was the first few years of BND, but it sometimes seems like pro-marriage fans can't go 5 minutes without bitching about it. After awhile it just gets old and frustrating. Sometimes you just want to enjoy the character and the stories, you know?

[Zeitgeist]

It doesn't work like that. It's not my job to disprove your statement. If you are the one making the argument, you have to back it up.

Otherwise, an argument without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Posting my personal opinion about what I perceive as the advantages of Peter being single in a thread designed for just that =/= "making an argument".
I'm going to keep on saying it until you acknowledge it: this was not an argument. And if it was, as you're the one that had presented your own opinion as an opposition to my own, it certainly would be your job.

Also, Spider-Man had his best sales period during when he was married. Spider-Man #1 by Todd MacFarlane sold over a million copies. The Clone Saga, to this day, is still the best selling Spider-Man event of all time.

You're talking about sales from 1990 and 1994-1996 respectively - that's 20-25 years ago. Needless to say, the market was an incredibly different place and for that nugget to be at all relevant you need to take into account comic industry trends such as the crash in the early-mid 90s and how no comic has sold close to a million copies in ages and adjust your statistics to make a fair comparison, at the very least.

For example, The Amazing Spider-Man #583 was the highest selling regular series comic of the 00's and went to five printings, yet 'only' sold over 350,000 copies. That's an example of how the market has changed.

Here's a more relevant and fair comparison: During Brand New Day, where Amazing Spider-Man was selling 3x monthly, more issues landed inside the monthly top 25 than Amazing did with Sensational and Friendly Neighborhood before BND.

And the exact same is true for you. So why does your qualifications for what is entertaining trump mine or anyone else's?

I don't believe I ever said such a thing?

It's great that it is your opinion that a single Spider-Man is more entertaining.

But I'd like to see proof of that, or of any claim that it is inherently superior. Why is that such a bad thing?

Because it's impossible to provide "proof" regarding what constitutes someone's personal tastes, maybe? It's like asking somebody for proof why they think sweet potato tastes gross.

Right, you're not an authority and neither am I.

So why do I need to take your claim and your claim alone as to why it was "bad?"

You're the one that came into the thread called "Reasons To Keep Peter Parker Single" and decided to take a general opinion as a claim that needed to be argued. I (or anyone else for that matter I'm guessing) didn't demand you to take my/their 'claim'.

That's the rub- yes, there are folks at Marvel that think that it was a problem. But there's nothing to say that they aren't wrong.

Right, they're certainly not infallible. I certainly don't think everything Marvel does is 100% right. But it is something notable to consider.

Yeah, I don't think it was a problem. But I wasn't the one saying that it was a big problem. That was you. I was simply asking you to provide proof beyond personal opinion.

Again, asking for proof out of a personal opinion doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I am going to take a stab in the dark and say there is nothing more I could say which would make you happy. I don't have the 'proof' you're looking for.