Discussion with Tom Brevoort on Spider-Man marriage

[cyberhubbs]

No more exaggeration than the "MJ is worthless" posts.

I doubt that's a camp you wanna be in.

[cyberhubbs]

one is an opinion the other is hyperbole to pass moral judgement (or just plain bullshit). you could just say peter’s new relationships are worthless instead of trying to invoke some sort of slut-shaming anti-sex message. one is open to debate, the other is…worthless.

Nevermind that Miles is totally underage.

[boots]

Not just any wife and baby. If someone wrote stories about Peter and a love interest besides MJ and those stories were popular, I don't think the cries for progress would be as loud.

good point. it shows the desire for a certain wish fulfilment that’s been dressed up as “what’s best for the character” in a lot of cases.

[Lee]

The one who serves best as Peter's confidant is MJ.

Why? What is it that is so particular to MJ, yet vague enough to also include her radically different Ultimate counterpart, that she is the best to serve that purpose?

And how does Spider-Man having someone he can share all of his thoughts with improve the comic? How does it enhance the drama? How does it resonate with the core themes of the series?

The Amazing films tried to do that with Gwen. And they basically tried to give Gwen that role as Peter's confidant. And it didn't really work out.

What didn't work about it?

The popular opinion amongst fans, critics and general viewers alike is that the chemistry between Peter and Gwen was the strongest aspect of the Amazing films.

[DCordo74]

good point. it shows the desire for a certain wish fulfilment that’s been dressed up as “what’s best for the character” in a lot of cases.

Both sides of the argument are under the guise of "what's best for the character". Both sides are wish fulfillment. It's all about personal preference. It can be argued that Peter should be single and youthful, or Peter should grow and be married. Neither one is fully right, neither side is fully wrong...

[boots]

Both sides of the argument are under the guise of "what's best for the character". Both sides are wish fulfillment. It's all about personal preference. It can be argued that Peter should be single and youthful, or Peter should grow and be married. Neither one is fully right, neither side is fully wrong...

perhaps but coming at it from a writer’s perspective, you build elements for certain reasons. if you go with a youthful single character, it’s for a narrative reason (i would hope) and the reasons have been stated clearly. like any creative choice, it’s open to debate but we had a thread here a while ago with writer’s opinions on this topic and while it was mixed, the majority of writers were on the anti-marriage side.

i have no problems with mj fans saying they miss her and that she was an important part of the book for them. can’t say a bad thing about that. but when it’s pitched as character development and best for the book, they have to be able to back that up and explain why they aren’t asking for any other form of development. why the fixation on mj? do they want development or do they want mj? are they rationalising mj to give the argument more weight?

[Kevinroc]

Why? What is it that is so particular to MJ, yet vague enough to also include her radically different Ultimate counterpart, that she is the best to serve that purpose?

And how does Spider-Man having someone he can share all of his thoughts with improve the comic? How does it enhance the drama? How does it resonate with the core themes of the series?

The answer is the same as it always was. History, legacy, pedigree. MJ was created by Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, and John Romita, Sr. That means she was a creation of the people who made Spider-Man and his world all that they are. All creators that followed are toy keepers. Lee, Ditko, and Romita were the toy makers. Stan was so supportive of the Peter/MJ pairing that he married them in his personal newspaper strip. No other character can really compete with that.

What didn't work about it?

The popular opinion amongst fans, critics and general viewers alike is that the chemistry between Peter and Gwen was the strongest aspect of the Amazing films.

Well, she died, for one thing. In fact, the only way they could think to make Gwen more interesting in the movies was to make her MORE like Mary Jane in the comics but still keep her iconic death scene. (Minus any drama and tension in their relationship in those films so that her death could have a bigger impact on the audience.)

There's also the little fact that those movies were considered failures by the studio that made them. (You don't rush into a deal with another studio to help you make Spider-Man films otherwise.)

[Celgress]

i dunno man, look at dr who. the guy is thousands of years old and every so often they reset him to being a big kid. actually, you could argue that he’s always a big kid. still, you couldn’t argue that the character hasn’t progressed.

i wonder if his fans want him to settle down in the burbs and make little baby whos.

Oddly enough in Canon he has a daughter and originally was traveling with his granddaughter for a time, plus he's been married at least twice (once to his original wife, whoever she was, and once to River Song).

[boots]

Why? What is it that is so particular to MJ, yet vague enough to also include her radically different Ultimate counterpart, that she is the best to serve that purpose?

And how does Spider-Man having someone he can share all of his thoughts with improve the comic? How does it enhance the drama? How does it resonate with the core themes of the series?

on point.

again with the dr who stuff- this is a character who is built for confidants and companions. the whole concept of flying around in a big blue box is designed to invite people into his life. when he doesn’t have a companion, the audience feel the lack of it and it has a detrimental affect on the character himself. it’s been shown again and again in the narrative that he is diminished without a human being by his side, he almost goes off the rails. the concept doesn’t work with a purely solo doctor.

similarly the fantastic four wouldn’t work as the fantastic one.

spider-man was built to be an outsider and a solo act. he didn’t work because of his confidants and companions, he worked because of the lack of them. he functions perfectly well without a confidant- he functions as spider-man.

can he get a confidant? sure. would it be warm and fuzzy? sure. but it fundamentally shifts things by removing one of the driving elements of the concept that makes spider-man what it is. it moves the narrative forward and it should have bigger consequences than “everything remains the same except now he has hot lady who listens to him”.

it’s the old rule of screen writing: in order to find out if an element is needed in a scene take it out. does the scene still work? then that element was superfluous. even if it was your personal favourite.

[boots]

Oddly enough in Canon he has a daughter and originally was traveling with his granddaughter for a time, plus he's been married at least twice (once to his original wife, whoever she was, and once to River Song).

and similarly, those aren’t a permanent part of his narrative. they’re almost footnotes. painful footnotes maybe.

[Lee]

The answer is the same as it always was. History, legacy, pedigree. MJ was created by Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, and John Romita, Sr. That means she was a creation of the people who made Spider-Man and his world all that they are. All creators that followed are toy keepers. Lee, Ditko, and Romita were the toy makers. Stan was so supportive of the Peter/MJ pairing that he married them in his personal newspaper strip. No other character can really compete with that.

So nothing specific to the character? Just the fact that she's been around since the early days? And having her play a role far removed from who she was in those early days is the best way to pay tribute to the character?

Well, she died, for one thing. In fact, the only way they could think to make Gwen more interesting in the movies was to make her MORE like Mary Jane in the comics but still keep her iconic death scene. (Minus any drama and tension in their relationship in those films so that her death could have a bigger impact on the audience.)

There's also the little fact that those movies were considered failures by the studio that made them. (You don't rush into a deal with another studio to help you make Spider-Man films otherwise.)

You're right, the relationship between Peter and Gwen really didn't work in those last 10 minutes when she was a corpse. Good point. I never stopped to consider that.

I concede that Mary Jane is a more effective character than a corpse.

[Kevinroc]

So nothing specific to the character? Just the fact that she's been around since the early days? And having her play a role far removed from who she was in those early days is the best way to pay tribute to the character?

I'm sorry that a different take on a character doesn't work for you.

You're right, the relationship between Peter and Gwen really didn't work in those last 10 minutes when she was a corpse. Good point. I never stopped to consider that.

I concede that Mary Jane is a more effective character than a corpse.

https://twitter.com/gerryconway/stat...06944960593923

Glenn Greenberg ‏@GlennLGreenberg 6 May 2014
@gerryconway Hey Gerry--had the Gwen Stacy of the comics been more like the Emma Stone version, would you still have wanted to kill her off?

Gerry Conway
‏@gerryconway
@GlennLGreenberg If the Gwen Stacy of the comics had been more like Emma Stone, she'd have been MJ. So, probably no.

[DCordo74]

So nothing specific to the character? Just the fact that she's been around since the early days? And having her play a role far removed from who she was in those early days is the best way to pay tribute to the character?

Personally, I think she was more like Mary Jane after she married Peter. Plus, she had a different childhood and living situation. Ultimate Peter Parker wasn't exactly the same as his 616 version. Ultimate Gwen is NOTHING like 616 Gwen either. (Thank God). Anyway, it's an alternate universe. They can do whatever they want. And Bendis did whatever he wanted. Was Mary Jane his trusted, intimate, confidante who he was in love with? Yes. Then she played MJ's role in the franchise. At least that's the way I looked at it.

[DCordo74]

https://twitter.com/gerryconway/stat...06944960593923

That is amazing.

[Spider-Tiger]

So the discussion went from "Anyone can replace MJ" to "A confidant isn't fundamental to the comic" ?

You're right, the relationship between Peter and Gwen really didn't work in those last 10 minutes when she was a corpse. Good point. I never stopped to consider that.

I concede that Mary Jane is a more effective character than a corpse.

It didn't work in terms of the long term success of the franchise. One of the only reasons that they used Gwen Stacy was so they could kill her off. Building her up to the level that they did only to kill her off, killed the franchise. No matter how popular Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was, they weren't going to diverge from the comic so much by keeping Peter and Gwen together forever.

If they had just gone ahead with MJ or Ultimate MJ (she had a lot in common with that character anyway) they could have kept Emma around indefinitely (at least without any pressure to end the relationship) and the franchise might still be alive. They could have married Andrew's Peter and Emma's MJ and the Stonefield fans would have gone nuts.