Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Thread
1 2 3  >> All
Author
xanderharris




He makes some really good points.

"I've said this to a bunch of fans at this point, so I'll repeat it again... I don't care how they get there, the Brand New Day Spider-man is something that's been needed for a long long time. Marrying Peter and MJ was a huge mistake and not even the people who wrote the books back then thought it was a good idea, they were just forced to do it by Shooter.

And every single creative team since then has wished it never happened, but just sort of rolled with it, because getting rid of it was not easy. They didn't all try to get rid of the marriage, but you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who wrote Spider man that wouldn't have rather written the pre-marriage version of the character. And regardless of what Erik Larsen is apparently saying on newsarama, I have spoken to all the Spiderman writers of BND, and they are all completely thrilled about what they have to work with now.

The thing is, after years and years of the marriage, changing it is just a HUGE DEAL, and was never going to be a popular thing even if in the end we get a more "Spiderman" book out of it. Because it had years of continuity now, and getting rid of that in any way is going to anger fans.

Look at the Clone storyline, that was all started to get rid of the marriage somehow, but it was terrible, and it didn't stick.

It's not that a story about a married couple can't be interesting, it's that Peter Parker shouldn't be that guy. It takes him too far from the basic idea of what being Spiderman is about.

A true Spiderman story, to me, is Peter and MJ about to get married, and him having to leave her at the alter because of some Spiderman thing, and it being a huge tragedy that being Spidey cost him his chance at a happy married life. That's the burden of being Spiderman, and since the marriage happened, it's been one thing after another removing the burden and responsibility from Spiderman.

I'm personally really excited about the new stuff, but then I've been very vocal in the past about not liking the marriage because as a life-long Spiderman reader up to that point, it just felt forced and wrong."


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Spider-Sense




> He makes some really good points.
>
> "I've said this to a bunch of fans at this point, so I'll repeat it again... I don't care how they get there, the Brand New Day Spider-man is something that's been needed for a long long time. Marrying Peter and MJ was a huge mistake and not even the people who wrote the books back then thought it was a good idea, they were just forced to do it by Shooter.
>
> And every single creative team since then has wished it never happened, but just sort of rolled with it, because getting rid of it was not easy. They didn't all try to get rid of the marriage, but you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who wrote Spider man that wouldn't have rather written the pre-marriage version of the character. And regardless of what Erik Larsen is apparently saying on newsarama, I have spoken to all the Spiderman writers of BND, and they are all completely thrilled about what they have to work with now.
>
> The thing is, after years and years of the marriage, changing it is just a HUGE DEAL, and was never going to be a popular thing even if in the end we get a more "Spiderman" book out of it. Because it had years of continuity now, and getting rid of that in any way is going to anger fans.
>
> Look at the Clone storyline, that was all started to get rid of the marriage somehow, but it was terrible, and it didn't stick.
>
> It's not that a story about a married couple can't be interesting, it's that Peter Parker shouldn't be that guy. It takes him too far from the basic idea of what being Spiderman is about.
>
> A true Spiderman story, to me, is Peter and MJ about to get married, and him having to leave her at the alter because of some Spiderman thing, and it being a huge tragedy that being Spidey cost him his chance at a happy married life. That's the burden of being Spiderman, and since the marriage happened, it's been one thing after another removing the burden and responsibility from Spiderman.
>
> I'm personally really excited about the new stuff, but then I've been very vocal in the past about not liking the marriage because as a life-long Spiderman reader up to that point, it just felt forced and wrong."


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11;MEGAUPLOAD on Windows XP
OZ




> He makes some really good points.
>
> "I've said this to a bunch of fans at this point, so I'll repeat it again... I don't care how they get there, the Brand New Day Spider-man is something that's been needed for a long long time. Marrying Peter and MJ was a huge mistake and not even the people who wrote the books back then thought it was a good idea, they were just forced to do it by Shooter.
>
> And every single creative team since then has wished it never happened, but just sort of rolled with it, because getting rid of it was not easy. They didn't all try to get rid of the marriage, but you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who wrote Spider man that wouldn't have rather written the pre-marriage version of the character. And regardless of what Erik Larsen is apparently saying on newsarama, I have spoken to all the Spiderman writers of BND, and they are all completely thrilled about what they have to work with now.
>
> The thing is, after years and years of the marriage, changing it is just a HUGE DEAL, and was never going to be a popular thing even if in the end we get a more "Spiderman" book out of it. Because it had years of continuity now, and getting rid of that in any way is going to anger fans.
>
> Look at the Clone storyline, that was all started to get rid of the marriage somehow, but it was terrible, and it didn't stick.
>
> It's not that a story about a married couple can't be interesting, it's that Peter Parker shouldn't be that guy. It takes him too far from the basic idea of what being Spiderman is about.
>
> A true Spiderman story, to me, is Peter and MJ about to get married, and him having to leave her at the alter because of some Spiderman thing, and it being a huge tragedy that being Spidey cost him his chance at a happy married life. That's the burden of being Spiderman, and since the marriage happened, it's been one thing after another removing the burden and responsibility from Spiderman.
>
> I'm personally really excited about the new stuff, but then I've been very vocal in the past about not liking the marriage because as a life-long Spiderman reader up to that point, it just felt forced and wrong."

Great comments! Brubaker's Captain America is a brilliant title and he would do a HELL Of a Spider-man. I've heard many excellant writers such as Brubaker, Roger Stern and Kurt Busiek say the marriage was a mistake. With that quality of writer decrying it, the argument that only bad writers don't like the marriage completely falls apart.
'They just don't know how to write a married Spider-man! The Hacks!'

heh.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 98
Victor




> He makes some really good points.
>
> "I've said this to a bunch of fans at this point, so I'll repeat it again... I don't care how they get there, the Brand New Day Spider-man is something that's been needed for a long long time. Marrying Peter and MJ was a huge mistake and not even the people who wrote the books back then thought it was a good idea, they were just forced to do it by Shooter.
>
> And every single creative team since then has wished it never happened, but just sort of rolled with it, because getting rid of it was not easy. They didn't all try to get rid of the marriage, but you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who wrote Spider man that wouldn't have rather written the pre-marriage version of the character. And regardless of what Erik Larsen is apparently saying on newsarama, I have spoken to all the Spiderman writers of BND, and they are all completely thrilled about what they have to work with now.
>
> The thing is, after years and years of the marriage, changing it is just a HUGE DEAL, and was never going to be a popular thing even if in the end we get a more "Spiderman" book out of it. Because it had years of continuity now, and getting rid of that in any way is going to anger fans.
>
> Look at the Clone storyline, that was all started to get rid of the marriage somehow, but it was terrible, and it didn't stick.
>
> It's not that a story about a married couple can't be interesting, it's that Peter Parker shouldn't be that guy. It takes him too far from the basic idea of what being Spiderman is about.
>
> A true Spiderman story, to me, is Peter and MJ about to get married, and him having to leave her at the alter because of some Spiderman thing, and it being a huge tragedy that being Spidey cost him his chance at a happy married life. That's the burden of being Spiderman, and since the marriage happened, it's been one thing after another removing the burden and responsibility from Spiderman.
>
> I'm personally really excited about the new stuff, but then I've been very vocal in the past about not liking the marriage because as a life-long Spiderman reader up to that point, it just felt forced and wrong."


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 98
AJ




> > He makes some really good points.
> >
> > "I've said this to a bunch of fans at this point, so I'll repeat it again... I don't care how they get there, the Brand New Day Spider-man is something that's been needed for a long long time. Marrying Peter and MJ was a huge mistake and not even the people who wrote the books back then thought it was a good idea, they were just forced to do it by Shooter.
> >
> > And every single creative team since then has wished it never happened, but just sort of rolled with it, because getting rid of it was not easy. They didn't all try to get rid of the marriage, but you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who wrote Spider man that wouldn't have rather written the pre-marriage version of the character. And regardless of what Erik Larsen is apparently saying on newsarama, I have spoken to all the Spiderman writers of BND, and they are all completely thrilled about what they have to work with now.
> >
> > The thing is, after years and years of the marriage, changing it is just a HUGE DEAL, and was never going to be a popular thing even if in the end we get a more "Spiderman" book out of it. Because it had years of continuity now, and getting rid of that in any way is going to anger fans.
> >
> > Look at the Clone storyline, that was all started to get rid of the marriage somehow, but it was terrible, and it didn't stick.
> >
> > It's not that a story about a married couple can't be interesting, it's that Peter Parker shouldn't be that guy. It takes him too far from the basic idea of what being Spiderman is about.
> >
> > A true Spiderman story, to me, is Peter and MJ about to get married, and him having to leave her at the alter because of some Spiderman thing, and it being a huge tragedy that being Spidey cost him his chance at a happy married life. That's the burden of being Spiderman, and since the marriage happened, it's been one thing after another removing the burden and responsibility from Spiderman.
> >
> > I'm personally really excited about the new stuff, but then I've been very vocal in the past about not liking the marriage because as a life-long Spiderman reader up to that point, it just felt forced and wrong."
>
> Great comments! Brubaker's Captain America is a brilliant title and he would do a HELL Of a Spider-man. I've heard many excellant writers such as Brubaker, Roger Stern and Kurt Busiek say the marriage was a mistake. With that quality of writer decrying it, the argument that only bad writers don't like the marriage completely falls apart.
> 'They just don't know how to write a married Spider-man! The Hacks!'
>
> heh.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Pablo D.




> Great comments! Bubaker's Captain America is a brilliant title and he would do a HELL Of a Spider-man.

He wrote a Spider-Man What If...? a couple years back, as I recall. I think it was What If Aunt May Had Died Instead of Uncle Ben?


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
OZ




> > Great comments! Bubaker's Captain America is a brilliant title and he would do a HELL Of a Spider-man.
>
> He wrote a Spider-Man What If...? a couple years back, as I recall. I think it was What If Aunt May Had Died Instead of Uncle Ben?

I think i heard about that, but my local shop never bothered ordering it. They only order to fill their advance order pull lists. Only the biggest titles get extra copies for the rack.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 98
Erik!





> Great comments! Brubaker's Captain America is a brilliant title and he would do a HELL Of a Spider-man. I've heard many excellant writers such as Brubaker, Roger Stern and Kurt Busiek say the marriage was a mistake. With that quality of writer decrying it, the argument that only bad writers don't like the marriage completely falls apart.
> 'They just don't know how to write a married Spider-man! The Hacks!'
>
> heh.

Well, they were (are) fans too. Typically, from their age, they got into the character in the 60s-70s.

Ten years from now, take an excellent writer who started with married Spidey and see what kind of a response you get.

The argument isn't "don't know how to write married Spidey" so much as it is "would prefer the relative ease of single Spidey." From a storytelling POV it is MUCH easier.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows Vista
OZ




I agree. I Love Captain America and think his Daredevil is pretty good. Brubaker's stint at Uncanny isn't holding up as well. Me may just not be suited for team books.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 98
AJ




> I agree. I Love Captain America and think his Daredevil is pretty good. Brubaker's stint at Uncanny isn't holding up as well. Me may just not be suited for team books.

I know his Uncanny gets a lot of criticism, but I still really like it. I bought the hardcover of 'The Rise and Fall of Shiar Empire' and really enjoyed it. The Extremists arc was a bit dull, but his contributions to Messiah Complex have been good (in fact, the entire crossover has been excellent).

AJ


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
OZ




>
> > Great comments! Brubaker's Captain America is a brilliant title and he would do a HELL Of a Spider-man. I've heard many excellant writers such as Brubaker, Roger Stern and Kurt Busiek say the marriage was a mistake. With that quality of writer decrying it, the argument that only bad writers don't like the marriage completely falls apart.
> > 'They just don't know how to write a married Spider-man! The Hacks!'
> >
> > heh.
>
> Well, they were (are) fans too. Typically, from their age, they got into the character in the 60s-70s.
>
> Ten years from now, take an excellent writer who started with married Spidey and see what kind of a response you get.
>
> The argument isn't "don't know how to write married Spidey" so much as it is "would prefer the relative ease of single Spidey." From a storytelling POV it is MUCH easier.

I don't agree with that argument either. The root of the issue isn't that selfish. These comments and many others are more about what is best for the character instead of personal preferances or making things easier. I don't think that getting into the character during the marriage would change everyone's views around. When I started reading during the marriage, i never thought things should stay that way forever. At age 11-14 I enjoyed reading the current issues and Spider-man Classic/Marvel Tales reprints the same.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 98
AJ




>
> > Great comments! Brubaker's Captain America is a brilliant title and he would do a HELL Of a Spider-man. I've heard many excellant writers such as Brubaker, Roger Stern and Kurt Busiek say the marriage was a mistake. With that quality of writer decrying it, the argument that only bad writers don't like the marriage completely falls apart.
> > 'They just don't know how to write a married Spider-man! The Hacks!'
> >
> > heh.
>
> Well, they were (are) fans too. Typically, from their age, they got into the character in the 60s-70s.
>
> Ten years from now, take an excellent writer who started with married Spidey and see what kind of a response you get.
>
> The argument isn't "don't know how to write married Spidey" so much as it is "would prefer the relative ease of single Spidey." From a storytelling POV it is MUCH easier.

That's a really good way of putting it. Whatever we might think of the marriage it's undeniable that it makes storytelling harder. A single Peter has more possibilities and there is more flexibility. A great writer will thrive whatever the status quo, but the marriage just makes it that much harder.

AJ


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Victor




But I think the reason single Peter is easier to write is because the swashbuckling, hard luck hero archtype fits a single male more than a married one.

Its not imagined or arbitrary. I can list many coming of age, or swashbuckling-style characters whose writing suffered when they got hitched or were essentially hitched.

Its because the search for love is one of the biggest hills we climb in life. When we get married the summit has been reached. Everything after that is either tragedy, family drama, babies and chores, or happily ever-after.

None of that goes well with swashbuckling, coming of age, or happy-go lucky.

All that having been said, a great writer could write a great married Spider-Man. I sure did get sick of waiting for that to happen though.

Victor
>
> > Great comments! Brubaker's Captain America is a brilliant title and he would do a HELL Of a Spider-man. I've heard many excellant writers such as Brubaker, Roger Stern and Kurt Busiek say the marriage was a mistake. With that quality of writer decrying it, the argument that only bad writers don't like the marriage completely falls apart.
> > 'They just don't know how to write a married Spider-man! The Hacks!'
> >
> > heh.
>
> Well, they were (are) fans too. Typically, from their age, they got into the character in the 60s-70s.
>
> Ten years from now, take an excellent writer who started with married Spidey and see what kind of a response you get.
>
> The argument isn't "don't know how to write married Spidey" so much as it is "would prefer the relative ease of single Spidey." From a storytelling POV it is MUCH easier.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 98
OZ




> > I agree. I Love Captain America and think his Daredevil is pretty good. Brubaker's stint at Uncanny isn't holding up as well. Me may just not be suited for team books.
>
> I know his Uncanny gets a lot of criticism, but I still really like it. I bought the hardcover of 'The Rise and Fall of Shiar Empire' and really enjoyed it. The Extremists arc was a bit dull, but his contributions to Messiah Complex have been good (in fact, the entire crossover has been excellent).
>
> AJ

It may have something to do with his choice of lineup then. I just can't get that interested in Hepzibah and Warpath. With Messiah Complex, I have only read the Uncanny and Regular X-Men parts.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 98
Erik!




> I don't agree with that argument either. The root of the issue isn't that selfish. These comments and many others are more about what is best for the character instead of personal preferances or making things easier. I don't think that getting into the character during the marriage would change everyone's views around. When I started reading during the marriage, i never thought things should stay that way forever. At age 11-14 I enjoyed reading the current issues and Spider-man Classic/Marvel Tales reprints the same.

So did I. But I view marriage and family as a natural outgrowth of the type of character Peter is at his core.

Of course, there are arguments about what Peter's core as a character is. See it one way, and you would easily find those statements selfish. See it another, and you'd wonder why Peter was ever aged enough to be allowed into a bar.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows Vista
Mr Honey Bunny





> A true Spiderman story, to me, is Peter and MJ about to get married, and him having to leave her at the alter because of some Spiderman thing, and it being a huge tragedy that being Spidey cost him his chance at a happy married life. That's the burden of being Spiderman, and since the marriage happened, it's been one thing after another removing the burden and responsibility from Spiderman.
>

I have to disagree with him completely on that point.

What's the point of reading the same stories over and over again ? If we know how it will always ends up, what's the point ?

Ten years ago, the magic was to wonder if MJ and Peter will be parents.
Twenty years ago, the magic was to wonder if MJ and Peter will get married.
Now, there's no more magic on here ... oh well, yeah "it's magic". Yeah, we still have "this" one.
But we know how it will always ends.

And Brubaker is maybe not fit for Spider-Man after all. (Noticed how he is writting "Spiderman" for a supposed Spider-Man fan ? ... :-@ )
As much as he is good on Captain and Daredevil, he is not that great with Uncanny X-Men for exemple IMHO.

And, quoting Madgoblin :

"But in summary, I have been reading Spider-Man comics for over 30 years, and the LEAST interesting part of the Spider-Man mythos to me, (and yes, I realize I may be singular in this opinion), even before I was a teenager, was Peter Parker’s trials with women. Maybe I am unique in that situation, but I found the typical “Parker luck” with women to be as boring as Aunt May’s recurring heart attacks."

I completely agree with that.




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alexhulk




Clone saga bad, huh?

Not this bad. But.... whatever.

> He makes some really good points.
>
> "I've said this to a bunch of fans at this point, so I'll repeat it again... I don't care how they get there, the Brand New Day Spider-man is something that's been needed for a long long time. Marrying Peter and MJ was a huge mistake and not even the people who wrote the books back then thought it was a good idea, they were just forced to do it by Shooter.
>
> And every single creative team since then has wished it never happened, but just sort of rolled with it, because getting rid of it was not easy. They didn't all try to get rid of the marriage, but you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who wrote Spider man that wouldn't have rather written the pre-marriage version of the character. And regardless of what Erik Larsen is apparently saying on newsarama, I have spoken to all the Spiderman writers of BND, and they are all completely thrilled about what they have to work with now.
>
> The thing is, after years and years of the marriage, changing it is just a HUGE DEAL, and was never going to be a popular thing even if in the end we get a more "Spiderman" book out of it. Because it had years of continuity now, and getting rid of that in any way is going to anger fans.
>
> Look at the Clone storyline, that was all started to get rid of the marriage somehow, but it was terrible, and it didn't stick.
>
> It's not that a story about a married couple can't be interesting, it's that Peter Parker shouldn't be that guy. It takes him too far from the basic idea of what being Spiderman is about.
>
> A true Spiderman story, to me, is Peter and MJ about to get married, and him having to leave her at the alter because of some Spiderman thing, and it being a huge tragedy that being Spidey cost him his chance at a happy married life. That's the burden of being Spiderman, and since the marriage happened, it's been one thing after another removing the burden and responsibility from Spiderman.
>
> I'm personally really excited about the new stuff, but then I've been very vocal in the past about not liking the marriage because as a life-long Spiderman reader up to that point, it just felt forced and wrong."


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Erik!




> None of that goes well with swashbuckling, coming of age, or happy-go lucky.

Swashbuckling? Marriage can go with.

Coming of age? Well, I'd argue that... hey, he's no longer a student, he's no longer a child, and he's no amateur hero. He has come of age.

And Spider-Man, while humor has been part of the book for quite some time, has NEVER BEEN a happy-go-lucky hero.

So the only thing to quibble over is coming of age, and that just depends on where you want to put the graduation into manhood. Perhaps Marvel just needs to integrate classic and ultimate Spidey into one character... "youthanize" him. (Pun's intentional.)


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows Vista
GetridofJoeQ




In the end of the day, Ed Brubaker is a Marvel employee and he will not have the guts to say different if he felt what Joe Q did was wrong. Take everything from Marvel in face value and Brubaker is only trying to spin what was done in order to try to sell what happen.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
jeffgamer




>
> > A true Spiderman story, to me, is Peter and MJ about to get married, and him having to leave her at the alter because of some Spiderman thing, and it being a huge tragedy that being Spidey cost him his chance at a happy married life. That's the burden of being Spiderman, and since the marriage happened, it's been one thing after another removing the burden and responsibility from Spiderman.
> >
>
> I have to disagree with him completely on that point.
>
> What's the point of reading the same stories over and over again ? If we know how it will always ends up, what's the point ?
>
> Ten years ago, the magic was to wonder if MJ and Peter will be parents.
> Twenty years ago, the magic was to wonder if MJ and Peter will get married.
> Now, there's no more magic on here ... oh well, yeah "it's magic". Yeah, we still have "this" one.
> But we know how it will always ends.
>
> And Brubaker is maybe not fit for Spider-Man after all. (Noticed how he is writting "Spiderman" for a supposed Spider-Man fan ? ... :-@ )
> As much as he is good on Captain and Daredevil, he is not that great with Uncanny X-Men for exemple IMHO.
>
> And, quoting Madgoblin :
>
> "But in summary, I have been reading Spider-Man comics for over 30 years, and the LEAST interesting part of the Spider-Man mythos to me, (and yes, I realize I may be singular in this opinion), even before I was a teenager, was Peter Parker’s trials with women. Maybe I am unique in that situation, but I found the typical “Parker luck” with women to be as boring as Aunt May’s recurring heart attacks."
>
> I completely agree with that.
>

Y'know, I'm sick and tired of some writers and editors saying, "But Spider-man is SUPPOSED to be [insert cookie-cutter mold here]." What a load of bleep. People grow. Characters grow. I liked Spidey the way he was before he was married. But my love for him deepened when the character matured into a marriage. And deepened more over the ensuing two decades. Erasing all of that to go back to what some people deem are the "glory days" or "true Spider-man" is erasing a huge chunk of what has made me so committed to this character over the years. I defined myself in high school by racquetball and studies. I defined myself in college by the magazine for which I was editor, my studies, and my friends. I define myself in my current life stage by my wife, my son, and my career. Jeffgamer in high school was a different beast than Jeffgamer in college than Jeffgamer in his post-college life. So, too, is Peter Parker...except in the minds of too many creators who seem to think that the definition of a character must remain mired in ages that have been part of the dustbins of the past for over 20 years.

They've ruined Spider-man for me. And for a lot of other readers. And I will - NOT - return to Spider-man as long as the marriage and the character development of the past 20 years remains absent. When they restore that ADULT RELATIONSHIP, they'll restore my readership.

But, then again, Joe Quesada has already made it clear that he doesn't give a rat's tail about long-time readers. He already told us to kiss off. I hope most of them join me in accepting that invitation.


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
Doc Shallot




> He makes some really good points.
>
> "I've said this to a bunch of fans at this point, so I'll repeat it again... I don't care how they get there, the Brand New Day Spider-man is something that's been needed for a long long time. Marrying Peter and MJ was a huge mistake and not even the people who wrote the books back then thought it was a good idea, they were just forced to do it by Shooter.

Hey, Bru's entitled to his point of view. He's a great writer and some of what he says I agree with. But if everyone at Marvel knew that the marriage had to go and the EIC was the main advocate of that point of view, then why in the world did JMS, if anything, strengthen the marriage and the family theme? Why didn't Quesada yell "Stop Joe! Your killing Spider-man". But he didn't. Well, maybe on Newsarama and conventions he whined and complained about how he was trapped in a no-win situation. Sales increased though. Quesada ranted and raved about how JMS's run will go down in history. Then on JMS's way out Quesada states "Thanks Joe, great run and all but we really think we need a complete change in philosophy and, by the way, we're changing your script". Talk about being forced to do something by your EIC...

I say all of this as someone who was never a fan of JMS's work.

So Bru may not care how it happened, but I think maybe he should. Make sure your ideas and scripts are in line with what the Q-Man wants because there are larger issues than whether or not Peter is married. How they got there does matter, and lets hope some future EIC doesn't think that bringing Bucky back ruined Cap. Maybe Cap, Sharon and their bastard child will make a deal with a cosmic cube-wielding Red Skull to fix it all.


Photobucket


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
stillanerd




Don't believe me? Well, according to Joe Quesada himself, Brubaker was one of the guys that was brought in as part of creating Spidey's new status quo:

Quote:

"Well, to be completely clear, the idea for "OMD" WAS ACTUALLY CREATED BY A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE. From the very first day I was in the EIC chair, I made no secret of the fact that I felt that a married Peter Parker wasn't the best thing for an ongoing Spider-Man universe. The problem was that we never had a decent methodology to get ourselves out of it. I always said that if we ever found a way to do it, I would pursue the avenues to get us there.

Close to two years ago at one of our creative summits, the seeds of that idea began to blossom. Those ideas were then taken and a two week long e-mail chain began where we started to throw around ideas until we got the story kind of where we wanted it to be. The guys involved in all of this from the beginning were Joe, Bendis, Millar, Loeb, Tom Brevoort, Axel Alonso and myself. It then all carried over to the next summit, at which ED BRUBAKER and Dan Slott also had some stuff to add."

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12673

How much Brubaker contributed is a question, but the fact that he DID make contributions shows that he has a vested interest in seeing Brand New Day succeed, since it appears he helped to bring it about. So of course, he's going to justify the decision to break up the marriage in order to make the new status quo work because he was a part of it. His comment of "I don't care how they get there" is, in that regard, disingenuous because he knew from the beginning how they were getting there.

> He makes some really good points.
>
> "I've said this to a bunch of fans at this point, so I'll repeat it again... I don't care how they get there, the Brand New Day Spider-man is something that's been needed for a long long time. Marrying Peter and MJ was a huge mistake and not even the people who wrote the books back then thought it was a good idea, they were just forced to do it by Shooter.
>
> And every single creative team since then has wished it never happened, but just sort of rolled with it, because getting rid of it was not easy. They didn't all try to get rid of the marriage, but you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who wrote Spider man that wouldn't have rather written the pre-marriage version of the character. And regardless of what Erik Larsen is apparently saying on newsarama, I have spoken to all the Spiderman writers of BND, and they are all completely thrilled about what they have to work with now.
>
> The thing is, after years and years of the marriage, changing it is just a HUGE DEAL, and was never going to be a popular thing even if in the end we get a more "Spiderman" book out of it. Because it had years of continuity now, and getting rid of that in any way is going to anger fans.
>
> Look at the Clone storyline, that was all started to get rid of the marriage somehow, but it was terrible, and it didn't stick.
>
> It's not that a story about a married couple can't be interesting, it's that Peter Parker shouldn't be that guy. It takes him too far from the basic idea of what being Spiderman is about.
>
> A true Spiderman story, to me, is Peter and MJ about to get married, and him having to leave her at the alter because of some Spiderman thing, and it being a huge tragedy that being Spidey cost him his chance at a happy married life. That's the burden of being Spiderman, and since the marriage happened, it's been one thing after another removing the burden and responsibility from Spiderman.
>
> I'm personally really excited about the new stuff, but then I've been very vocal in the past about not liking the marriage because as a life-long Spiderman reader up to that point, it just felt forced and wrong."


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Coolmvm




> In the end of the day, Ed Brubaker is a Marvel employee and he will not have the guts to say different if he felt what Joe Q did was wrong. Take everything from Marvel in face value and Brubaker is only trying to spin what was done in order to try to sell what happen.

Yeah, I mean even I can believe that Brubaker is telling us this just so that he could keep his job on Captain America. \:\-\(

I mean there's got to be even one writer at the current Marvel Staff that supported the marriage, but they are all afriad of Joe Q and that they may get fired. \:\-\(

There's got to be at least one writer who suported the marriage






Please help out with the webcomic entitled: Girls with Slingshots. \:\-\(

For more info click on the offical website for the webcomic: [url]
http://www.daniellecorsetto.com/gws.html[/url]




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Pablo D.




> Hey, Bru's entitled to his point of view. He's a great writer and some of what he says I agree with. But if everyone at Marvel knew that the marriage had to go and the EIC was the main advocate of that point of view, then why in the world did JMS, if anything, strengthen the marriage and the family theme? Why didn't Quesada yell "Stop Joe! Your killing Spider-man".

As I understand it, JMS "brought the marriage back", that is to say, he wrote Peter and MJ as a nice, loving married couple, at Joe Quesada's request. This was stated in, I think, the special Wizard did on the marriage before OMD hit.

> But he didn't. Well, maybe on Newsarama and conventions he whined and complained about how he was trapped in a no-win situation. Sales increased though.

Actually, they didn't. They actually started going down soon as MJ returned. I'm sure many people here will have a hard time believing that, but it's true. You can see it in the sales charts estimates from that period.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
jwd




I don't agree with it and I don't give it anymore clout than the next guys. I'm sure he could write a single Peter Parker better than I ever could a married Peter Parker too.

If Peter Parker wasn't ever suppose to age he would've been left in High School or never been allowed to graduate college at the very least.

I've heard the argument that Stan and Steve aged him quickly because they didn't expect the series to last that long. Who writes something expecting it to get cancelled? Why would he think it would get cancelled if the whole reason they got an Amazing Spider-Man was the popularity of Amazing Fantasy 15?

Everything since the beginning of the series has been progressing Spider-Man through life. Some will argue at some point you have to stop or the character ages to much. Why? I mean the average age of the comic reader is larger. So you try to make him younger for another group of readers? Again I'm wondering why? I thought creating new titles like Ultimate and Marvel Adventures were for that. People want their kids to read about the character they grew up with and not some new age version? Okay so grab those back issues out or lets see Marvel release some tpbs collecting classic stories.

jwd



ninja.monkeylord.org (12.345.67.89)
using Interwebs Stealth Engine 2.0 (0.5 points)
Pablo D.




So...okay, wait, you guys are saying that Joe Quesada is some sort of terrifying evil boss who has put the fear of God into his writers and told them that unless they get in line with his vision for Spider-Man, he's going to fire them from the books? Maybe blackball them within industry? Seriously?


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Eric Teall




> So the only thing to quibble over is coming of age, and that just depends on where you want to put the graduation into manhood. Perhaps Marvel just needs to integrate classic and ultimate Spidey into one character... "youthanize" him. (Pun's intentional.)

You know, the pun works both ways, though, because to de-age, de-marry, de-grow the character is to essentially kill the character that we've all been reading for the last twenty-five years. Was the marriage a mistake? Yes. Does it ruin Spider-Man? No.

The way the Marvel Universe is right now, they'd do better to have a Marvel CRISIS and start over.

- Eric Teall

What happens when a man rereads every Spider-Man series since 1962? Check out...


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
AC-WEB




Joey Q might be fine with writers disagreeing with him as long as its behind closed doors, and as long as you write what he wants you to write. I guess it's his right as EIC to do whatever the hell he wants, but it doesn't make him right. It might take a while, but I really do hope the numbers go down and that he is shown the door. Maybe he'll find some golf time with his pal Jemas.

> So...okay, wait, you guys are saying that Joe Quesada is some sort of terrifying evil boss who has put the fear of God into his writers and told them that unless they get in line with his vision for Spider-Man, he's going to fire them from the books? Maybe blackball them within industry? Seriously?


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Comp




> In the end of the day, Ed Brubaker is a Marvel employee and he will not have the guts to say different if he felt what Joe Q did was wrong. Take everything from Marvel in face value and Brubaker is only trying to spin what was done in order to try to sell what happen.

Why assume that? Brubaker can have an opinion of his own, as can we all. And he didn't have to come out in the affirmative--he could have said nothing. That he chose to step forward and say he supports this suggests to me he really does. And that's valid, however much you or I may disagree.

-Comp


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Comp




> > So the only thing to quibble over is coming of age, and that just depends on where you want to put the graduation into manhood. Perhaps Marvel just needs to integrate classic and ultimate Spidey into one character... "youthanize" him. (Pun's intentional.)
>
> You know, the pun works both ways, though, because to de-age, de-marry, de-grow the character is to essentially kill the character that we've all been reading for the last twenty-five years. Was the marriage a mistake? Yes. Does it ruin Spider-Man? No.
>

Here's what I realized recently, and it ties in with what you said. Sometime after my last trip to the comic book store, which ended empty-handed (no new Spider-Man books out last week), it occurred to me that, if I like married Spider-Man, which I do, and if I want to follow his adventures, which I do, I now have no options. None.

Single Peter Parker? Yeah, sure, there's Ultimate Spider-Man, Marvel Adventures Spider-Man, Spider-Man Family, and now New Avengers alongside Amazing Spider-Man. Lots of choices.

But the Spider-Man I grew up with, the one I've read about since I was a little kid and followed consistently since I was in sixth grade, is gone. And he may be gone forever.

A number of readers may feel as though they've gotten their childhood back now, but doesn't mine count for something, too?

-Comp


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Blargh





> I've heard the argument that Stan and Steve aged him quickly because they didn't expect the series to last that long. Who writes something expecting it to get cancelled? Why would he think it would get cancelled if the whole reason they got an Amazing Spider-Man was the popularity of Amazing Fantasy 15?

I don't know, but it's what Stan keeps saying. Marvel was a pretty small company at the time and up against legacy characters from DC. That and well, most comics didn't go on forever at the time.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
1 2 3  >> All

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software