Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Comic fans fume as Marvel erases Spidey-MJ marriage
By David Colton, USA TODAY
Those who know Spider-Man only from Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst in the movies might be surprised to learn that in the comic book, the web-spinning hero has been married for almost 21 years.
That's why the comic world is in an uproar over Marvel Comics' decision to undo the marriage of Peter Parker and red-haired bombshell Mary Jane Watson, reversing two decades of storytelling.
In Amazing Spider-Man #545 last week, Peter and Mary Jane make a tearful deal with the devil-like character Mephisto: In exchange for saving Aunt May's life, Mephisto erases all traces of the Peter-Mary Jane marriage from memory.
In the issue out this week, subtitled Brand New Day, Peter Parker returns to his roots — young, nerdy and single. Aunt May is alive and well and Mary Jane is again just part of the cast. The marriage never happened.
"People are very upset. They erased a lot of stuff that had been set in stone," says John Newman, manager of Ultimate Comics in Chapel Hill, N.C., on Wednesday as customers came in to buy the opening chapter of Brand New Day. To help emphasize the new start, Amazing Spider-Man will go thrice-monthly.
"We knew it would be a very controversial thing to do," says Joe Quesada, Marvel's editor in chief, who believed so much in the project that he drew the crucial issues himself. "Looking into the future, this is really the right thing to do for the long-term health of the character."
Spider-Man, created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1962, was a hit, connecting with young readers because he was a geeky teenager, shy with girls and uncertain of how to use his powers. But in 1987, Peter and Mary Jane, by then a fashion model, got married. Marvel had instant regrets.
"I remember editors and editors in chief lamenting that a married Spider-Man was not where we want to be," Quesada says. "A married Peter Parker makes for a less interesting soap opera than a single Peter Parker going about his nerdy kind of life."
Writers tried everything: The couple separated for a while. She miscarried. And in a much-criticized story line, Marvel tried to convince readers that Peter Parker had not gotten married, but his clone. That didn't stick, either. Then Quesada took over and insisted the marriage just couldn't continue.
"Nobody wants to read about a married Spider-Man," says Craig Shutt, a columnist for Comics Buyers Guide. "But in the short run, it's a terrible idea. It disrespects the readers by saying everything they read is wrong."
At DC Comics, Superman is married to Lois Lane, disrupting that title's long-standing tensions. DC declined to comment for this story.
Quesada is steadfast that for Spider-Man, the move is the right one: "Ultimately we have to do this to keep this character fresh for this generation and generations to come."
------------------------------------------------
Ugh. I hate relaunches of classic titles, especially where the history that you've read/collected is basically meaningless.
How exactly does he fit in the current Marvel Universe if he is suddenly a young, nerdy and single. What about the continuation of Civil War, etc?
I wish they would have just killed off the other characters (Aunt May, MJ) and left them dead and replaced them with new characters in Peter's life.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Here's an e-mail conversation I had yesterday on the subject. It starts at the bottom and works up. They're fixing a broken character--THIS storyline isn't lame; it was lame to have him married to MJ in the first place and it was a mistake to reveal his identity.
JMHO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Much ado about nothing. Quesada's right--what made spider-man appealing to kids was his problems were their problems. He was a nerd. He got picked on. He had a crush on the hottest girl in school, but she was dating the quarterback.
In the short term, it might be a neat fantasy fulfillment to see him become a self-actualized, cool adult that married a supermodel, but long-term it's a boring character.
From: 'Pariah's Wife' Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:40 PM To: 'Pariah' Subject: RE: controversy
Uh huh. okay then.
The article is about people being pissed about it, so that is why I wondered. Read the whole thing when yu can.
Hasta!
From: 'Pariah' Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:37 PM To: 'Pariah's Wife' Subject: RE: controversy
Why would I have a beef? It's a chapter in a fictional characters' life. It's an interesting twist, and so far it's been handled with aplomb, I might add.
Yeah, it was sad the same way a sad movie is. You feel for the characters. I didn't read the whole article that you sent, so I don't know what detail it goes into or how much you know about what happens. But basically, Peter Parker's (spider-man's) aunt May is shot because Peter has revealed to the world that he's SM--she was shot as a way to hurt him by his enemies. She's dying. Mephisto (Satan) offers Peter and MJ (his wife) a chance to save May. He doesn't want their eternal souls, though. He wants their marriage, their love.
They agree to it--Peter because of his guilt over his aunt, and MJ because she loves Peter too much to see him torn apart by the guilt. Mephisto changes their past so that they were never married. I'm sure they'll "find" each other again.
What this storyline does is correct what I thought was more egregious to the character than this latest twist with the non-marriage: Peter's identity is once more a secret to the world as a part of the bargain with the devil.
From: 'Pariah's Wife' Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:25 PM To: 'Pariah' Subject: RE: controversy
Very sad? But you liked it and have no beef?
From: 'Pariah' Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:22 PM To: 'Pariah's Wife' Subject: RE: controversy
I just read that storyline in the past couple of days (I'd been waiting until I had all the issues so I could read it in one sitting). It was actually very said. Well written.
From: Pariah's Wife Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:16 PM To: Pariah Subject: controversy
Romeo was heartbroken when he thought Juliet was dead, and vice versa. Each killed themself because they couldn't bear the thought of living w/out the other. If a spell suddenly made them forget each other, that wouldn't be sad, IMO.
Another example: Losing a child is sad. Having no memory of that child wouldn't be sad. You can't miss what you never had.
Another example: Losing a child is sad. Having no memory of that child wouldn't be sad. You can't miss what you never had.
But what if you read about a couple who lost a child and had no memory of their lost love? Maybe THEY can't be sad, but as a reader you can be sad for them...because YOU as a READER know what they've lost.
You're taking this awfully literally....you know that even if these characters remembered their loses, they don't really because they're fictional anyway.
You can be sad for a character regardless of whether they are sad for themselves or not.
Last edited by Pariah; January 11th, 2008 at 02:42 PM.
But what if you read about a couple who lost a child and had no memory of their lost love? Maybe THEY can't be sad, but as a reader you can be sad for them...because YOU as a READER know what they've lost.
You're taking this awfully literally....you know that even if these characters remembered their loses, they don't really because they're fictional anyway.
You can be sad for a character regardless of whether they are sad for themselves or not.
I suppose. It just doesn't seem that sad to me. Maybe I am just dead inside.
When I read about the Spidey thing, I thought it was kinda disappointing. I mean, I can understand the thought behind why the characters agreed to it, but it still kinda sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pariah
I don't agree.
Was it not sad in Romeo and Juliette because they were both dead in the end anyway, so they couldn't mourn each other?
It's pathos; it's not that the characters are left with sadness, it's that the reader is left with the sadness for the characters.
Yes, yes. I totally agree and your wife, indeed, does rock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pariah
But what if you read about a couple who lost a child and had no memory of their lost love? Maybe THEY can't be sad, but as a reader you can be sad for them...because YOU as a READER know what they've lost.
You're taking this awfully literally....you know that even if these characters remembered their loses, they don't really because they're fictional anyway.
You can be sad for a character regardless of whether they are sad for themselves or not.
Again, I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renz
I suppose. It just doesn't seem that sad to me. Maybe I am just dead inside.
LOL. I love Renz. I hope you are not dead inside, lol.
__________________
Sometimes you just gotta remember ...
Tetris Champion!
Linear Mode
