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




Marc Guggenheim's response to fans who are still upset over "One More Day:"

"Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done. Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened. Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."

Dear Marc Guggeinheim,

I'm against "One More Day." And, even though I'm a heterosexual man, I also support the right of homosexuals to marry.

You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.

Please shut your hole.

Thank you.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
mjyoung




Man, that's great.

The two issues are completely unrelated. I expect Guggenheim will make a backtrack/apology in the next couple of days.

Marvel must be really disappointed in BND. Every time we see an interview, its about how the fans are "wrong in their feelings". Wacker and Breevroot were saying how people shouldn't let OMD prevent them from picking up BND, saying the two were unrelated and the current creative team had nothing to do with OMD. How it's unfair to judge them for the work of previous creators.

And now Guggenheim keeps whining about how "fans don't understand" what BND is all about.

My suggestion, Marvel and their creators should just stop bringing it up and "begging" people to read Amazing Spider-Man. Let the work stand on it's own.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on Windows XP
stillanerd




> Marc Guggenheim's response to fans who are still upset over "One More Day:"
>
> "Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done. Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened. Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."
>
> Dear Marc Guggeinheim,
>
> I'm against "One More Day." And, even though I'm a heterosexual man, I also support the right of homosexuals to marry.
>
> You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
>
> Please shut your hole.
>
> Thank you.

As I said over on the Spider-Man Crawlspace boards, why should we be the least bit surprised considering that this non sequiter was stated by a guy who used to be a full-time lawyer.

Plus, if you have people who are confused about the exact nature of the relationship between Peter and MJ was over the past 20 odd years after you retconned it due to editorial decree, then what does that say about about Marvel's over all ability to actually tell a story that requires no explanation via press releases and comments made in interviews?


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
stillanerd




I got a real kick out of this mea culpa he gave:

"Although he stands behind everything that's happened since Brand New Day, playing Monday morning quarterback, there is one element that the scribe wishes were done differently. "If I had any regrets it would be the character of Menace," he revealed. "Menace wasn't intended to be so 'Goblinesque.' We had a lot of tug of war and back and forth over the design of Menace. If I had to do it all over again, I would have taken greater steps to ensure the design didn't go in quite such a 'Goblin-like' direction. Originally that character was supposed to have more of his own identity. The idea was you would look at Menace in a skewed way and see kind of this 'Goblin' quality to him. That note kid of got overblown in the design process. As a result, we ended up with a character that looks like a 'Goblin' knockoff instead of what was originally intended."

"The hope was to give Menace a little more identity," Guggenheim continued. "My long term plan is to rehabilitate the character in reader's minds and get it working a little more successfully."

Translation: even the guy who helped come up with Menace thinks he's too much of a Goblin rip-off and kind of sucks.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
Grumpy





Hahahaha that is the funniest thing I have heard all weekend, simply because it makes absolutely no sense - thanks for the post!

> Marc Guggenheim's response to fans who are still upset over "One More Day:"
>
> "Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done. Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened. Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."
>
> Dear Marc Guggeinheim,
>
> I'm against "One More Day." And, even though I'm a heterosexual man, I also support the right of homosexuals to marry.
>
> You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
>
> Please shut your hole.
>
> Thank you.



Posted with Apple Safari 3.1.2 on MacOS X
Andrew




> Marc Guggenheim's response to fans who are still upset over "One More Day:"
>
> "Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done. Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened. Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."
>
> Dear Marc Guggeinheim,
>
> I'm against "One More Day." And, even though I'm a heterosexual man, I also support the right of homosexuals to marry.
>
> You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
>
> Please shut your hole.
>
> Thank you.

Agreed. Well said.

Personally, I am both in favor of the Spider-marriage as well as the right for homosexuals to get married, but what do these two things possibly have in common? Absolutely nothing. This isn't even a form of circular logic; it's total non-logic.

Oh man, these are the types of people that we have writing the Spider-Man books now? Makes me even more happy I'm staying far away from the trash that is BND.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
clayton




But if you're going to be loud and outspoken to creators who had nothing to do with the story for over a year...

don't be surprised when they A) stop taking you seriously and B) start answering with quips instead of making genuine arguments like they did directly following OMD.

And there is a grain of sense there. If you perceive a civil union as marriage, then yes, by living together for 5+ years, Peter and MJ were still married in a legal sense.

The only way anyone loses anything is if you view marriage as something that has to do with a ceremony, perhaps in a church. That didn't happen anymore. The former did.

> Marc Guggenheim's response to fans who are still upset over "One More Day:"
>
> "Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done. Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened. Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."
>
> Dear Marc Guggeinheim,
>
> I'm against "One More Day." And, even though I'm a heterosexual man, I also support the right of homosexuals to marry.
>
> You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
>
> Please shut your hole.
>
> Thank you.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on MacOS X
Smithville Thunderbolt




> But if you're going to be loud and outspoken

I'm not sure how anyone can be loud considering that most of the feedback has been written. And I don't see anything wrong with being outspoken. (And you obviously don't either, as you are quite outspoken in this post).

>to creators who had nothing to do with the story

These creators are giving approval to the current status quo. That makes criticism of those approvals appropriate.

>for over a year...

It hasn't been over a year, but I hope the "outspokenness" goes for years and years. I've equated fan response to the boy who cried wolf. I am not surprised that Marvel underestimated the negative fan reaction initially, since negative fan reaction is a normal thing. But I think that Guggenheim is slowly learning that this time a lot of fans are not following the normal pattern of criticize, complain, and move on and keep buying.

> don't be surprised when they A) stop taking you seriously and B) start answering with quips instead of making genuine arguments like they did directly following OMD.

They never made genuine arguments (with the possible exception of Brevoort). If you go back and read Quesada's CBR interview it consists of strawmen, false dilemmas, slippery slope, and condescension.

> And there is a grain of sense there. If you perceive a civil union as marriage, then yes, by living together for 5+ years, Peter and MJ were still married in a legal sense.

If that's true, why has Marvel gone to such great lengths to wipe out the "m" word?

> The only way anyone loses anything is if you view marriage as something that has to do with a ceremony

I don't think that is anyone's definition of marriage, anywhere, ever.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on Windows Vista
stillanerd




> But if you're going to be loud and outspoken to creators who had nothing to do with the story for over a year...
>
> don't be surprised when they A) stop taking you seriously and B) start answering with quips instead of making genuine arguments like they did directly following OMD.
>
> And there is a grain of sense there. If you perceive a civil union as marriage, then yes, by living together for 5+ years, Peter and MJ were still married in a legal sense.
>
> The only way anyone loses anything is if you view marriage as something that has to do with a ceremony, perhaps in a church. That didn't happen anymore. The former did.
>

A) If there was no difference between Peter and MJ getting married and them getting a civil union, then why then did Marvel, and specifically the story itself, make such a big deal out of One More Day?

B) Guggenheim is still making a fallacious argument by saying that if A, then B; if not A, then not B.




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
scottsnewpostingname




The only word in Guggenheim's ridiculous statement here that makes any sense whatsoever is "downgraded." Unfortunately the word applies more to the books themselves than the relationships in the books:-(



> Marc Guggenheim's response to fans who are still upset over "One More Day:"
>
> "Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done. Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened. Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."
>
> Dear Marc Guggeinheim,
>
> I'm against "One More Day." And, even though I'm a heterosexual man, I also support the right of homosexuals to marry.
>
> You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
>
> Please shut your hole.
>
> Thank you.



Posted with Apple Safari 3.1.2 on MacOS X
scottsnewpostingname




The only word in Guggenheim's ridiculous statement here that makes any sense whatsoever is "downgraded." Unfortunately the word applies more to the books themselves than the relationships in the books:-(



> Marc Guggenheim's response to fans who are still upset over "One More Day:"
>
> "Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done. Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened. Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."
>
> Dear Marc Guggeinheim,
>
> I'm against "One More Day." And, even though I'm a heterosexual man, I also support the right of homosexuals to marry.
>
> You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
>
> Please shut your hole.
>
> Thank you.



Posted with Apple Safari 3.1.2 on MacOS X
Smithville Thunderbolt




>The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married.

And the fact that she doesn't know he is Spider-Man?

>Judging from the letters and death threats we received,

Is it really necessary to claim that you got death threats?

>I think some people were confused.

Yes. We are still confused.

>Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."

I wonder if the comics media will pick up on this. Unbelievable.

I just can't believe the sheer ineptitude that these guys show in P.R. I actually think it would make for a very good academic study. I can't think of any precedent for the sheer number of insulting or idiotic statements that any company spokespeople have made to their customer base.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on Windows Vista
CrazySugarFreakBoy!




Courtesy of haikuninja:




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
CrazySugarFreakBoy!




Good to know! I guess that means that, the next time overly defensive Spider-Man writers say something stupid, I'm entitled to slur black people! Except, no, wait, that's NOT what it means, because I'M NOT AN IDIOT.

> And there is a grain of sense there. If you perceive a civil union as marriage, then yes, by living together for 5+ years, Peter and MJ were still married in a legal sense.

Um, no, you fail for definitions of "civil union." A "civil union" is more than "living together for a few years." There's, like, actual PAPERWORK and LICENSES and stuff that are required. You're thinking of "common-law marriage." If that's what Guggenheim was thinking of, too, then both you AND Guggenheim fail for definitions of "civil union," which would be yet another reason why he shouldn't have said anything about this, because he literally doesn't know what he's talking about.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
stillanerd




> Good to know! I guess that means that, the next time overly defensive Spider-Man writers say something stupid, I'm entitled to slur black people! Except, no, wait, that's NOT what it means, because I'M NOT AN IDIOT.
>
> > And there is a grain of sense there. If you perceive a civil union as marriage, then yes, by living together for 5+ years, Peter and MJ were still married in a legal sense.
>
> Um, no, you fail for definitions of "civil union." A "civil union" is more than "living together for a few years." There's, like, actual PAPERWORK and LICENSES and stuff that are required. You're thinking of "common-law marriage." If that's what Guggenheim was thinking of, too, then both you AND Guggenheim fail for definitions of "civil union," which would be yet another reason why he shouldn't have said anything about this, because he literally doesn't know what he's talking about.

If Guggenheim doesn't know the legal differences between a "civil union" and a "common law marriage," then it makes his comments even more ridiculous. He was a friggin' LAWYER by profession and the writer of numerous legal dramas for crying out loud!


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,711


> Marc Guggenheim's response to fans who are still upset over "One More Day:"
>
> "Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done. Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened. Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."
>

I suspect it is part of Marvel's continuing strategy of "if we can't convince all fans of approving of our new direction, then at least we'll set them against each other" (divide and conquer). In this case by bringing in a completley unrelateded issue that at least in an American context is very divisive.

And it also fits in with the way IMO Quesada et al. keep talking out of bouth sides of their mouth re. the retcon of the marriage. On one hand they tell fans of the marriage that everything still happened etc. (see Guggenheim's version above), but on the other hand it is painfully obvious that Quesada chose the route of a deal with the devil etc. (cue for his acolytes to point out that Mephisto is not "the" devil) instead of a divorce is because that way whatever happened 1987-2007 would be so cheapened in his (and, he hopes, the readers') eyes, that the break-up between Peter and MJ is no big deal, that just because they lack the relavant legal paperwork their marriage or common-law marriage would not be worth preserving or restoring, even though e.g. we've seen during JMS's run that Peter felt incomplete without Mary Jane. And now Marvel expects at least a large part of fans to cheer for Peter getting involved with some other woman and more or less ignore that Peter and MJ were a couple for over 20 years and still could (should) be reunited.

To clarify: For me personally it would have made little difference whether there had been a wedding or not if their relationship had been portrayed in exactly the same way 1987-2007. In real life, both among people I know and from people I learn about in the media, I've seen unmarried relationships that are more deep and enduring than some marriages (to use extreme examples from showbiz, compare Britney Spears' 58-hour marriage with Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins living together since 1988). But Quesada has made it abundantly clear that OMD is a manoeuvre to weasel out of a divorce and it is a bit much to believe that they went to all this trouble to end up with something that emotionally would be the equivalent of a divorce.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16 on Windows 98
Brand New Hobgoblin




Huh. Weird. You know, there's no bigger fan of OMD/BND than me, and I also think Guggenheim's a great talent (I love his Spidey work and I'm hooked on Eli Stone, too) but this... makes no sense to me. I just don't see the connection. If he'd said something about common law marriages, maybe. But gay marriage and civil unions? I don't get it.

Can't we all get along? I'm against the spider-marriage but in favor of gay marriage... and I have no idea what any of those things has to do with each other?

Regardless, if Guggenheim keeps churning out good stuff like Kraven's First Hunt, I don't care what he says in these interviews!


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Comp 

Moderator

Location: Owings Mills, MD
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,976



> Good to know! I guess that means that, the next time overly defensive Spider-Man writers say something stupid, I'm entitled to slur black people! Except, no, wait, that's NOT what it means, because I'M NOT AN IDIOT.
>

I see what you're saying, and you're making your points well, but you seem to be getting kind of heated, too. Relax--just a message board debate.

-Comp





My first novel, The Listeners, is in bookstores now! Check it out at www.harrisondemchick.com!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16 on Windows XP
Comp 

Moderator

Location: Owings Mills, MD
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,976



> You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.

Let's try to avoid comments like this.

-Comp





My first novel, The Listeners, is in bookstores now! Check it out at www.harrisondemchick.com!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16 on Windows XP
Andrew C




>
> > You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
>
> Let's try to avoid comments like this.
>
> -Comp
>


Considering Guggenheim gave a backhanded slap to all gay people and those who support their rights, and trivializing their ordeal by comparing it to a fictional character's retcon, I think it's warranted in this unique circumstance. Plus, even taking all that aside, what he said doesn't make a lick of sense. And I'm actually pro-BND. This demands a retraction and an apology.




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Ned Leeds Jr. 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat Aug 17, 1996
Posts: 1,334


> >
> > > You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
> >
> > Let's try to avoid comments like this.
> >
> > -Comp
> >

>
> Considering Guggenheim gave a backhanded slap to all gay people and those who support their rights, and trivializing their ordeal by comparing it to a fictional character's retcon, I think it's warranted in this unique circumstance. Plus, even taking all that aside, what he said doesn't make a lick of sense. And I'm actually pro-BND. This demands a retraction and an apology.

Wow. Are you gay? If not, than how can you speak for an entire population? I don't see this as a backhanded slap either way. It is an extreme example of the kind of faulty logic that many people are using for their hatred of the current direction. Probably not the smartest way to make his point, but it was not doubt done sarcastically and to make a point.




Go buy my cheap eBay stuff! *I'm selling off most of my comic collection!* http://shop.ebay.com/nedleedsjr/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=100&_sop=12&_rdc=1
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
The MOnocle

Moderator

Location: Montreal
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 194


> >
> > > You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
> >
> > Let's try to avoid comments like this.
> >
> > -Comp
> >

>
> Considering Guggenheim gave a backhanded slap to all gay people and those who support their rights, and trivializing their ordeal by comparing it to a fictional character's retcon, I think it's warranted in this unique circumstance. Plus, even taking all that aside, what he said doesn't make a lick of sense. And I'm actually pro-BND. This demands a retraction and an apology.
>
>





The MOnocle
"Wallopin' websnappers!! I've asked 650 Stupid Questions!!!!"
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on Windows Vista
Andrew C




> > >
> > > > You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
> > >
> > > Let's try to avoid comments like this.
> > >
> > > -Comp
> > >

> >
> > Considering Guggenheim gave a backhanded slap to all gay people and those who support their rights, and trivializing their ordeal by comparing it to a fictional character's retcon, I think it's warranted in this unique circumstance. Plus, even taking all that aside, what he said doesn't make a lick of sense. And I'm actually pro-BND. This demands a retraction and an apology.
>
> Wow. Are you gay? If not, than how can you speak for an entire population? I don't see this as a backhanded slap either way. It is an extreme example of the kind of faulty logic that many people are using for their hatred of the current direction. Probably not the smartest way to make his point, but it was not doubt done sarcastically and to make a point.

The only faulty logic I see here is coming from Guggenheim. If you don't support BND, you DO support gay marriage? As if that's a bad thing? Why is he inserting culturally divisive politics into a discussion about Spider-Man? I don't see the sarcasm that you apparently see, just a man saying something incredibly stupid and ill thought-out. And really, I might be gay for all you know. Whether I am or not is immaterial to this discussion. I am white too, but I think I could wade into a debate on racism all the same.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Common-Sense, Tingling!






It’s a wonder that Phil Jimenez can stand to work with these people. The poor guy must have REALLY wanted to work on Spider-Man considering that he’s willing to put up with this. Poor guy.


(Never mind that I STILL don’t get the connection between gay marriage and satanic annulment.)



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Brand New Hobgoblin




> It’s a wonder that Phil Jimenez can stand to work with these people. The poor guy must have REALLY wanted to work on Spider-Man considering that he’s willing to put up with this. Poor guy.

Agreed that Guggenheim's statement is bizarre, but in what way is it homophobic?


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Ned Leeds Jr. 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat Aug 17, 1996
Posts: 1,334


> > > >
> > > > > You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
> > > >
> > > > Let's try to avoid comments like this.
> > > >
> > > > -Comp
> > > >

> > >
> > > Considering Guggenheim gave a backhanded slap to all gay people and those who support their rights, and trivializing their ordeal by comparing it to a fictional character's retcon, I think it's warranted in this unique circumstance. Plus, even taking all that aside, what he said doesn't make a lick of sense. And I'm actually pro-BND. This demands a retraction and an apology.
> >
> > Wow. Are you gay? If not, than how can you speak for an entire population? I don't see this as a backhanded slap either way. It is an extreme example of the kind of faulty logic that many people are using for their hatred of the current direction. Probably not the smartest way to make his point, but it was not doubt done sarcastically and to make a point.
>
> The only faulty logic I see here is coming from Guggenheim. If you don't support BND, you DO support gay marriage? As if that's a bad thing?

He, in no way, stated that gay marriage was a bad thing. That is your assumption. It is not implied in the least in his comment.

>Why is he inserting culturally divisive politics into a discussion about Spider-Man?

Why? To get the attention of those that have that viewpoint and with the intention of making one stop and reconsider their viewpoint.

>I don't see the sarcasm that you apparently see, just a man saying something incredibly stupid and ill thought-out.

As I stated already, I don't disagree with you about it being ill-conceived.

>And really, I might be gay for all you know.

Yes, you may. Which is why I asked rather than assumed one way or the other.

>Whether I am or not is immaterial to this discussion.

No it isn't. You are speaking for an entire population.

>I am white too, but I think I could wade into a debate on racism all the same.

No doubt, though your comment that his statement was an insult to all gay people is a generalization and generalizations are tricky. On top of that, if you said that an entire race was offended by *blank*, and you are not of that race, you are speaking out of turn.




Go buy my cheap eBay stuff! *I'm selling off most of my comic collection!* http://shop.ebay.com/nedleedsjr/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=100&_sop=12&_rdc=1
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Ned Leeds Jr. 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat Aug 17, 1996
Posts: 1,334


> > It’s a wonder that Phil Jimenez can stand to work with these people. The poor guy must have REALLY wanted to work on Spider-Man considering that he’s willing to put up with this. Poor guy.
>
> Agreed that Guggenheim's statement is bizarre, but in what way is it homophobic?

It isn't. The response that it is speaks more of the posters' biases than it does of Guggenheim's, since they are making aussuptions based on a neutral statement, flawed as that statement was or not.




Go buy my cheap eBay stuff! *I'm selling off most of my comic collection!* http://shop.ebay.com/nedleedsjr/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=100&_sop=12&_rdc=1
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Mr Honey Bunny




> > >
> > > > You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
> > >
> > > Let's try to avoid comments like this.
> > >
> > > -Comp
> > >

> >
> > Considering Guggenheim gave a backhanded slap to all gay people and those who support their rights, and trivializing their ordeal by comparing it to a fictional character's retcon, I think it's warranted in this unique circumstance. Plus, even taking all that aside, what he said doesn't make a lick of sense. And I'm actually pro-BND. This demands a retraction and an apology.
>
> Wow. Are you gay? If not, than how can you speak for an entire population? I don't see this as a backhanded slap either way. It is an extreme example of the kind of faulty logic that many people are using for their hatred of the current direction.

It goes both ways : You see nothing wrong with Guggenheim's words just maybe because you are a BND supporter and you like the current direction ...


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Mr Honey Bunny




> > > It’s a wonder that Phil Jimenez can stand to work with these people. The poor guy must have REALLY wanted to work on Spider-Man considering that he’s willing to put up with this. Poor guy.
> >
> > Agreed that Guggenheim's statement is bizarre, but in what way is it homophobic?
>
> It isn't. The response that it is speaks more of the posters' biases than it does of Guggenheim's, since they are making aussuptions based on a neutral statement, flawed as that statement was or not.

Though, you are as biased since you also make assuptions about BND haters when you claim that...


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Wraith




> Marc Guggenheim's response to fans who are still upset over "One More Day:"
>
> "Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done. Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened. Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."
>


That doesn't even make sense. The implication of what he's trying to suggest is, I think, juvenile and offensive... and on top of that, apparently he can't even manage to properly articulate it.

Judging from how dumb his comments are, I think Mr. Guggenheim is himself "confused." Yikes.

*Wraith


Posted with Camino 1.6.3 on MacOS X
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,711


> > >
> > > > You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
> > >
> > > Let's try to avoid comments like this.
> > >
> > > -Comp
> > >

> >
> > Considering Guggenheim gave a backhanded slap to all gay people and those who support their rights, and trivializing their ordeal by comparing it to a fictional character's retcon, I think it's warranted in this unique circumstance. Plus, even taking all that aside, what he said doesn't make a lick of sense. And I'm actually pro-BND. This demands a retraction and an apology.
>
> Wow. Are you gay? If not, than how can you speak for an entire population? I don't see this as a backhanded slap either way.

By the same token you could be asked if you are gay because if not, how can YOU speak for an entire population etc. etc., because otherwise you not seeing it as a slap either way would be just as irrelevant as you make out the above comment if voiced by a straight person.

> It is an extreme example of the kind of faulty logic that many people are using for their hatred of the current direction. Probably not the smartest way to make his point, but it was not doubt done sarcastically and to make a point.

It is an example of extremely faulty logic, but only on Guggenheim's part. It depends on confusing "living together" with "civil union" (a far from trivial legal distinction - "living together" is what e.g. gays will do even in states which do not allow civil unions, much less same-sex marriages, and, if you want to get technical, I guess legally it is closer to what Peter was doing with Harry Osborn when he was in love with Gwen Stacy than to a marriage). And what point was Guggenheim trying to make anyway? That people objecting to the Parker marriage being retconned away are hypocrites because they don't support gay marriage? That they are bad persons because they support gay marriage? Even if the analogy worked instead of being utter nonsense, Guggenheim simply does not know how OMD sceptics think about the issue of gay marriage.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16 on Windows 98
1 2 3  >> All

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