Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Post
Post By
Dave Phelps

In Reply To

Subj: Re: Spider-Man Revisited 46: David Michelinie Part Two
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:53:33 pm EDT (Viewed 3 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Spider-Man Revisited 46: David Michelinie Part Two
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 06:23:44 pm EDT (Viewed 3 times)


      (Although it remains to be seen how they address the reasons why they didn't get married, never got married, and broke up in the end. If it's anything close to the reasons why MJ dropped Peter in the 70s, I ain't gonna be happy.)

    Ah, gotcha. Well, I've got my fingers crossed for you to be able to stomach it (I figured saying "like" was probably too extreme).

Yeah, I'm going for "stomach" myself. \:\-\) (See why I keep wanting them to get it over with? Although I'm still in "dread" mode rather than "eagerly antipating" virtually anything that's going on in the book. Heck, now I'm getting nervous that Sinister 666 will end with the original Kraven coming back...)

    Stan and Steve's run is my favorite, so I guess I kind of fall into that category, although I don't mind seeing him mature to an extent.

I think it worked great as a starting point... \:\-\)

    Well, the Clone Saga undid Norman's death at the same time, and that was well over five years (and is in your list of top five least favorites if I recall...)

I acknowledge openly my hypocracy where Norman's return is concerned, but rationalize it by noting a) his reappearance was a retcon in the first place and b) ASM #121-122 is a classic, which a description that has yet to be applied to any story he's been in SINCE then.

    I don't agree with putting a limitation on retcons, especially if the outcome is worth it.

It would probably help if I could think of an example where the outcome WAS worth it. But most storylines that I think were Truly Bad Ideas tended to get addressed within the five year window whereas stuff I really liked would get "fixed" 20 years down the road. :-/ (BTW, I'm talking the types of retcons designed to undo an old story. Adding details ala Roger Stern's reveal that Mysterio was one of the aliens in ASM #2 I have no issue with. Of course, it's all case by case anyway.)

    Oh, the bad ones will be bad no matter what. However, maybe if Pete was single, they wouldn't have tried as hard to force the issue of false drama.

Then we'd be back to "she's mad at me for missing our date, but how can I tell her I was busy fighting Electro" every issue.

    Nah, they'd still find a way to stink it up.

Oh. You agree with me. Nevermind, then.

    I think that the bumps of a normal married couple are less of a rollercoaster and less compelling than the ups and downs of a single person trying to make it in the world (from a storytelling perspective, I'm very happily married myself).

Happily married myself, but everything just seems enhanced (in both directions) since then simply because it's two people (more once reproduction comes into play) who are affected. I got laid off from work a year and a half ago and the stress was definitely higher than the previous time a few years prior, simply because as a guy with a wife (and two cats \:\-\) ) I didn't have the fallback notion of crashing on a friend's sofa while I got back on my feet if it came to that.

Besides, it's not about drama so much as it is entertainment. There's nothing wrong with having fun once in awhile, too, and Peter was a lot more fun post-marriage because he had someone to play off of.

    Yes and no back at you. Mostly cause I don't see the appeal of an older Spider-Man in the mainstream continuity being as strong.

Beats me. Depends on a) how much older he gets and b) how its played. He starts calling everyone "son," that would probably be a bit much.

    I think my most base argument is that by the very nature of serial fiction, Spider-Man at its core is limited to being Archie in a supersuit.

But that's not what made the character successful, or the company for that matter. What made Marvel stand out was that they were willing to mess with the formula once in awhile. Peter could graduate high school, Iron Man could get his heart fixed and change armors, Thor could split with his girlfriend, etc. For long term success, you need to do more "illusion of change" than "real change," but at the same time, half-assed undoings of changes can bust the illusion.

    Without an end point in sight, there are stories that must be off limits to protect the integrity of the product for years to come. That's why it was a mistake (IMO) to kill Aunt May or Harry, even though those are my two favorite Spider-Man comics.

Aunt May I can go with (but it was a bigger one to bring her back). Harry, no. There's nothing he brings to the table that another character can't bring. Aside from his father being Norman Osborn and all that came from that, a lot of his character arc was the Flash Thompson one with slight tweaks.

    But even then, you have to age the kid more rapidly than you would a twenty-something adult, because age differences are so noticable in kids,

You don't really have to. Keep them as an infant for as long as you can milk it. Then keep them as a toddler for as long as you can milk it. Etc., etc.

    and even if you stuck them in the 4-6 year age for decades, that's still another 4-6 permanent years tacked on to Peter.

But that'll be there anyway. The "weight" of past stories pushes him along the timeline slowly but surely regardless of what his biological age is supposed to be.

    It's definitely the key, alright. I agree that the marraige is just one aspect of the drama, but it's a significant one. Sure there are plenty of other stories and avenues for drama. I just think that long term, the stories suffer without having that relationship drama available.

Too much evidence in both directions for me. Some of the "single drama" got old, too...

    I think the one (and really only) thing that we can't agree on is that I think the marraige reduces / removes potential drama, where you just find it to be an alteration. I also think that it closes more doors and provides more restrictions than saying he can't get married, where you feel that not allowing marraige is a bigger closed door / restriction.

Sort of. I think being blatantly obvious that certain options for the characters are off the table is the biggest restriction. With marriage, there's the possibility of children or divorce. With cheesy retcons trying to pretend the last 20 years didn't happen, the only possibility ahead is break-up or futile attempts to wed. Yay.

Also, my thing about opening doors is that when you do a major change, you not only have access to uncharted territory, you also have access to previously charted territory when a story calls for it. By letting Peter go through various changes over the years you can tell stories where he's in high school, college, single, single with a girlfriend (pick the appropriate), married, etc. If they had kept him in high school the entire time, then that's all you'd have access to.

    No, they'd still be bad. I think it would be one less crutch for them to lean on and abuse, and it's my biggest pet peeve, so I'm thinking it's better not to have it for them to lean on.

I'd call it a scapegoat more than crutch...

    With only 22 pages (tops) to cover a story, I feel she was definitely stealing screen time from someone, more so than she would have if they weren't married.

I didn't really see that. A lot of the supporting cast got more time to shine post marriage than before so if anything the marriage helped the cast get screen time. With exceptions, obviously.

    I don't really buy this, especially when the significant other knows of the dangers involved.

Just changes the dynamic, that's all. It's not like knowing your loved one is about to risk their life is necessarily easy. (Plus there's still plenty of people in the book who don't know. Get your "mad at Peter for being away without a good explanation" kicks from them. Plus that gives the rest of the supporting cast something to do and an excuse for more screen time for them. ;\-\) )

    I suppose it could go either way. I tend to believe he'd retire based on personal experiences, but I do see how he could have trouble letting go. I guess that's why Tom forced his retirment with the leg removal over in Spider-Girl.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software