Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum Page of 22 Next >>
Topic: Joe Q to end Peter Parker Marriage? (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Mig Da Silva
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 900
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 3:02am | IP Logged | 1  

So it seems.

And already getting flamed all over the place by the weirdos up until now, he pampered to...


 QUOTE:
JQ: This is an interesting story. Back when I was merely a casual fan, I was floored when I heard that Marvel married off Spider-Man, even then I felt it was a strategic mistake. It just seemed strange to me that they would consider something of the sort with Marvel’s #1 icon. To me it was the equivalent of marrying off Archie and having it become the ongoing continuity for the character.


Link to interview and thread

Edited by Mig Da Silva on 29 April 2006 at 3:02am
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Next!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 91326
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 4:30am | IP Logged | 2  

At least it's not Reed and Sue.

Oh, damn, wish I hadn't said that. . .
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Linton
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 December 2005
Posts: 2022
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 4:47am | IP Logged | 3  

Joe Quesada also said this in the same interview:

"But all that said, divorcing, or widowing, or annuling the marriage would only be worse, that would only serve to make Peter and MJ seem even older."

and

"What am I going to do about it?  What can I do about it?  Folks here at Marvel have been wrestling with this long before I took over.  How do you fix it without saying that years of Spider-Man stories don't count?  That's been the lingering question."

So that would discount divorce, MJ dying, or any kind of "cosmic" solution.  I'm guessing that's why they didn't use House of M to end the marriage, as many thought they would.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Ian Evans
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 September 2004
Posts: 2433
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 5:10am | IP Logged | 4  

Continuity should be fun, not a straight jacket...what's wrong with saying years of Spider-man stories didn't 'count'?  Count how?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Wallace Sellars
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 13704
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 5:23am | IP Logged | 5  

Mysterio
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Darragh Greene
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 March 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1812
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 5:40am | IP Logged | 6  

 Joe Quesada wrote:
How do you fix it without saying that years of
Spider-Man stories don't count?


 Matt Linton wrote:
So that would discount...any kind of "cosmic"
solution.


There's an interesting philosophical question implicit here, and that is,
could God, or an omnipotent Shaper of Worlds in the Marvel Universe,
change history, that is, in this case, Peter and MJ's marriage, so that it
never happened? Is it possible to remove a past event from history
so that that event never happened?

There was huge debate about this in the Middle Ages when the question
entailed consequences for understanding the nature of God's
omnipotence and the finite or infinite nature of time. Thomas
Bradwardine appears to hold the field for the most cogent analysis of and
solution to the problem.

Today, most philosophers who study the question still agree with
Bradwardine's answer, and so they say that although God may be
omnipotent, nevertheless He cannot will an impossibilty, that is, a
contradictory state of affairs, so it would be impossible for Him to alter
history so that an event that had taken place had never taken place.
(God's omnipotence is not affected by this apparent limitation because He
can still do everything that is possible whereas the impossible is
inconsistent with the simplicity and unity of His intellect and will.)

It seems, therefore, that if the Shaper of Worlds were to effect a 'cosmic
solution' to the problem of Peter and MJ's marriage, it would entail a
logical absurdity whereby an historical event that happened once now
never happened.

In any case, when we consider the problem of Peter and MJ's marriage, it's
comics fiction we're dealing with, and in fiction anything's possible, even
the impossible, right?

Edited by Darragh Greene on 29 April 2006 at 5:40am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jay Matthews
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2468
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 5:54am | IP Logged | 7  

It's a relief to have Joe Q admit what a huge blunder it was to have Peter marry MJ.  Just having that "out there" makes me feel like I'm planet earth again, though I'm about 20 steps removed from coming back to Spider-Man, my favorite character.

Fixing it?  I don't know how you do that.  He's right -- turning off the marriage in any conventional way is an even more "innocence lost" thing than marrying to begin with.

I think somebody's gonna have to be a clone.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Linton
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 December 2005
Posts: 2022
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 6:07am | IP Logged | 8  

Jay Matthews said:

"I think somebody's gonna have to be a clone"

Interestingly, Quesada does mention Johnny Storm's marriage being a mistake, and one that was later "fixed".  Given the way in which that was done, MJ being a clone isn't out of the realm of possibility, and would obviously be far less contraversial than Spider-Man being a clone, divorcee, widower, or having the marriage cosmically reset.  And since clones are already (for better or worse) an established part of Spider-Man's history, it's not too bizarre a solution.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Joe Hollon
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 11853
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 6:16am | IP Logged | 9  

The entire Marvel Universe needs to be "Man of Steel-ed"....but not by the current regime.  Wake me up when this happens...
Back to Top profile | search | www | email
 
Francesco Vanagolli
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 June 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 3081
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:07am | IP Logged | 10  

When I was a child, my last Spider-Man story was "Requiem!" from ASM #196.
Years later, with the Sega videogame "Spider-Man Vs. the Kingpin" and the comics storyline "Maximum Carnage" (my first modern story) I discovered that, in the meantime, Peter married Mary Jane. This never disturbed me. Peter is an adult, and so MJ, and they have known each other for years. The marriage was normal, for me. The problem was the engagement, one of the fastest events ever in the Marvel Universe (Peter leaves Felicia, then makes the proposal to MJ, then the wedding. Phew!)... But for me the rest worked very well.

One of the things that I have noticed often is that in the US the Spider-Man's marriage is less accepted than here, and that readers still complain about it. I can understand your position... Peter married MJ when he was young, and marriying a super model he lost something: an everyman usually doesn't marry a model! That was the first step for Peter's separation from the reader (that process which gave us fake parents created by the Chameleon, the clone saga, the totems and Spider-Man in the New Avengers).

By the way, I would be very sad if the marriage were broke by Marvel. I have been used to see Peter and Mary Jane together for years, and I can't imagine Mr. Parker without his lovely red headed wife. It already happened (from ASM Vol. II #13 to #50... 3 years!) and I don't need this again! 

Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Charles Nago
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 23 January 2006
Posts: 191
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:20am | IP Logged | 11  

The marriage is part of the story, and should not be changed.  If people want the old "more innocent" stories, all one has to do is read the old stories.  Personally, I think marriage can be handled well with the correct writers.  I think a good example was in Friends when Monica and Chandler wed.  It seemed a natural progression.  An example of where a marriage killed the show would be Moonlighting.  My feeling is that most fans view it as more Moonlighting then Friends.

I also don't blame the marriage for all the bad stories that happened afterwards.

Wasn't the idea of the marriage started by Stan Lee in his newspaper strip?  I remember being at the Comicon in Chicago and Shooter asking the audience if normal Marvel continuity should follow the newspaper strips.  The audience applauded with a rousing YES.  And, shortly thereafter it happened.



Back to Top profile | search
 
Günther Seydlitz
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 June 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 142
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:20am | IP Logged | 12  

I guess M.J. must die.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Bill Lukash
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1762
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:23am | IP Logged | 13  

MJ is a skrull?
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Next!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 91326
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:25am | IP Logged | 14  

If ^^***** had the stones they'd say "Screw continuity! As of January 2007, we're hitting 'rewind' and resetting all the books to where they were in 1972 -- just set in modern time."

No "cosmic events", no 100 issue crossovers. Just an editorial fiat, like MAN OF STEEL. Only way to get things done.

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Next!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 91326
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:29am | IP Logged | 15  

Wasn't the idea of the marriage started by Stan Lee
in his newspaper strip? 

****

Yes. Stan was then writing the strip as almost pure
soap opera, and he thought that would be a way to
go. As far as I know, he did not intend this to "slop
over" into the books.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Next!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 91326
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:30am | IP Logged | 16  

Quesada does mention Johnny Storm's marriage
being a mistake...

***

He probably thinks it was something I did.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4446
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:32am | IP Logged | 17  

If Quesada had any stones at all he's say "Screw
continuity! As of January 2007, we're hitting 'rewind'
and resetting all the books to where they were
in 1968 -- just set in modern time."

No "comsic events", no 100 issue crossovers. Just
an editorial fiat, like MAN OF STEEL. Only way to
get things done.

********************************

Comics used to do this all the time. Bad stories or plot developments were ignored. Superman's biological parents are still alive in suspended animation? Bruce Wayne has a brother? And so on.

When I hear complaints from fans about "stories not counting" (how can a story not count?) or demands for explanations of changes in "continuity," it seems as if these fans don't get that the characters aren't real (that might explain the requests for real "aging").

And I hate when people say "just read the old stories". It's selfish in the sense that new readers should be able to encounter stories involving characters who haven't been diluted by years of bad creative decisions. More hypocritical is that most of these fans are around my age and thus grew up on comics that had tossed old, barnacled continuity.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 8269
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:44am | IP Logged | 18  

Didn't Stan Lee et al. also kill off Gwen Stacy because it was decided that Peter Parker really shouldn't be married?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mig Da Silva
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 900
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 8:41am | IP Logged | 19  


 QUOTE:
If ^^***** had the stones they'd say "Screw continuity! As of January 2007, we're hitting 'rewind' and resetting all the books to where they were in 1972 -- just set in modern time."

No "cosmic events", no 100 issue crossovers. Just an editorial fiat, like MAN OF STEEL. Only way to get things done.


'Nuff said.

JB for president!

And in most M***** books, it's that simple, if all the garbage that's been done for almost decades now, isn't returned i will simply never be a regular costumer ever again, i simply have no interest in this product as it is.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Ian Evans
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 September 2004
Posts: 2433
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 9:05am | IP Logged | 20  

Peter is an adult, and so MJ, and they have known each other for years.

**********

Each statement here is wrong...

Back to Top profile | search
 
Ian Evans
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 September 2004
Posts: 2433
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 9:13am | IP Logged | 21  

This quote from the article should go into the thread about punctuation

********

Remember, he had a bunch of girlfriends before even meeting MJ, Gwen, Betty, and Liz.

++++++

D'you see...?

Of course, I mean 'quotation', not 'quote'.....



Edited by Ian Evans on 29 April 2006 at 9:14am
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Next!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 91326
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 9:18am | IP Logged | 22  

Remember what I said in another thread, about how there are, proportionately, far more stupid fans than there used to be? I mean, hey! when I was a kid, I was a long way from being the brightest bulb in the box, but at least I understood one thing: there are only three "times" in comics -- the past, the present, and the future. None of these are clearly defined, unless they relate to specific epochs, such as with Captain America's ties to WW2. The present is always "now". If a story took place last year, and is referenced in a current comic, it happened "months ago". If it was ten years back, also "months ago". Forty years? "Months ago."

This is not rocket science.

Yet a whole flock of fans, and fans-turned-pro are unable to grasp this most simple conceit of the form.

(And before some chipmunk hops up to squeak that Stan, Jack and Steve had "real time" in the early Marvel books -- that is correct. In the early Marvel books. But when they realized Marvel was going to be around for a while, the brakes went on.)

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Next!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 91326
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 9:21am | IP Logged | 23  

Remember, he had a bunch of girlfriends before even meeting MJ, Gwen, Betty, and Liz.

++++++

D'you see...?

***

Referencing that is should be "Betty and Liz", without the comma?

I think that may be a function of where you learned punctuation. I was certainly taught that no comma was needed before the "and", but then I was also taught that punctuation goes outside quotation marks, unless it is part of the quotation. That's another one that seems to vary with geography (and the personal quirks of the English teacher!)

Back to Top profile | search
 
Jay Matthews
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2468
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 9:24am | IP Logged | 24  

The issue of Peter's marriage (to keep or undo), and how to fix it, reminds of the problem I had with the whole Ultimate line -- it could have served a useful purpose.

When the Ultimate concept was being talked about, I thought it would be a "back to basics" line of titles which allowed its creators to do pure stories about the core characters, without worrying about things like "What do we tell them happened to the marriage?"  Kind of like the word "ultimate" being used in the sense of "quintessential."

It could have functioned as a fail-safe for the characters:  preserving a platform for Marvel's greatest characters, and being accessible to new readers at the same time.  If you did that, the Ultimate title would be a great place to "revert" to if you decided to go back to basics in the main line.  You could easily explain:  we're dropping the Ultimate tag, and it's the current Spider-Man.

Instead, they made the Ultimate titles be based on the Marvel characters, but with a bunch of arbitrary differences, just to be different.  The Ultimate Universe is a sort masturbatory writer's paradise to put stories of "what if things were different for no real reason?"  It's hardly "ultimate" anything.

So now they have no "revert" titles.  Wasted opportunity for a useful concept.


Edited by Jay Matthews on 29 April 2006 at 9:24am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Monte Gruhlke
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3244
Posted: 29 April 2006 at 9:27am | IP Logged | 25  

So Joe (piss on continuity) Q. is going to have a go at the Parker marriage? It's one thing to try and rework a writing arc that happened recently, but to erase or tear down something that's been going on for years? I suppose that he and MJ will be 'just friends' after that? LOL! Better yet, what if it never happened? That way we can write off any story in which MJ played a pivitol role. Sigh.

Next I suppose J.Q. will have felt that killing off Uncle Ben was "a mistake" and kill off Aunt May instead. Maybe Peter will be hit with some sort of cosmic ray that resets him to being about 16 again.

Or better yet, discontinue all Spider-Man books and make the Ultimate one the new 'canon' character. After all, apparently Ultimates are prone to cross-overs now...

Sigh.

Back to Top profile | search | email
 

Page of 22 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login