youth gone by
First off, let me establish that I'm looking to talk about this, not promote a point of view. I'm not claiming the decision was good or bad, I just want to discuss a single point.

Here's a line from your post that stuck out to me, Tom:

"As Steve Ditko once pointed out, being High School age meant that it was acceptable for Peter Parker to screw up, to make mistakes and learn from them, in a way that would have been pathetic for more established, more heroic super heroes."

I think that raises a problem. Spider-Man *is* the more established hero now. Married or not, he isn't a teenager and never will be. So how do we show him making mistakes and learning from them without looking pathetic?

Posted by CodeGuy on 2008-01-21 20:56:02
The Archetypal Spider-Man
Hey Tom !

Enjoyed your extended comments on why Spider-Man works as a single teen. What sells me on the idea is how you compared him to Batman (revenge), X-Men (prejudice) and of course the Fantastic Four (family). I believe one of the best ways to explain what "something" (in this case SM/PP) is . . . . is to explain what that same something is not. You've done that very well here, and it will go along way towards establishing SM/PP's character, especially for the newer readers.

Some alternative thoughts:

#1. Although I agree with your assessment above, I will honestly miss the "Spider-Marriage". Perhaps it's inception in the 80's was "rushed" and was not given the right amount of thought (long range ramifications, etc). That said, I would like to express heartfelt gratitude to JMS, who I personally feel did the best portrayal of the Spider-Marriage! There were some beautiful and tender moments that worked very well between Peter Parker & Mary Jane in the midst of all the turmoil. Thanks for all of those moments JMS !

#2. Joe Quesada has said at least once, and probably many more times, that for every "Spider-Marriage Story", the same story could be told with PP as a single man. I would like to offer a challenge to that which both works and doesn't work! Obviously it's a little late to be thinking about this. But, let me explain my idea first and then offer a future possibility.

A story that could be told with the Spider-Marriage that could not be told with Peter as a single, would be to have Peter & MJ give birth to a child that is and will be mentally and/or physically challenged for the rest of it's natural life. I am not sure what the PC term is these days. It used to be "handicapped", but at the moment I just can't remember. Any way . . . . having known a family that raised a child like this, and having observed both the joys and sorrows, the laughter and frustrations, I have often thought to myself, "WOW! This would be very interesting within a fictional, superhero context, especially Spider-Man & MJ". Now Peter would have his aunt, his wife and an extremely vulnerable child to love, care for and protect from all of his enemies. Plus the dynamic of having this kind of child could lend itself to Peter feeling like he had somehow failed by bringing a "vulnerable" child into the world, instead of a son or daughter (i.e. Spider Girl) who is a "superhero".

And I don't think this story could be done with a single Peter Parker without violating some "serious" continuity and having him "all of a sudden" have this long lost "brother" or "nephew" come into his life. This would mean he never knew that he had this relative, and it would be extremely difficult, in my mind, to make this work in a meaningful way. In other words, if the child is a relative, and Peter is single, how is ever going to find time to care for this person and bond with them in a meaningful way? Peter would have plenty of opportunities to be doing his superhero gig to the point that he would give the child to the state, or Robbie Robertson or (deep breath) JJJ ! [Wouldn't that be a kick!]

But if the child was his own, and he had MJ and Aunt May to help him care for this "precious little one", then he could truly love this person, bond with them and still feel guilty (the "loser syndrome" of PP) for not being there enough as a dad, as well as the failure for giving birth (in Peter's mind) to someone who would never be able to go wall crawling with him! In other words, for better or for worse, Peter is "stuck" with this child. I don't mean that in a bad way. Nor do I mean to say that having "mentally/physically" challenged children is a "bad thing". I just know from observing others, that it is a huge responsibility, filled with lots of sorrow, sometimes to the point of overwhelming the joys. And isn't that what the archetypal Spider-Man is all about?

Now as I said above, it's too late to do this kind of story line. But I just wanted to offer it as an option to show that stories can be done with the Spider-Marriage, that couldn't be done with a single Peter Parker.

One more thing. Perhaps you and the Marvel hivemind can work this concept into another Marvel character (s), perhaps even the Fantastic Four, since their archetype is "family" ! Something to consider!

Have a great day !

Monday Morning Lunatic !

Posted by Mon Morn Lunatic on 2008-01-21 20:58:17
Yes, but why did it never happen?
Though I enjoyed reading a married Peter, I do see your reasons for wanting him single. What I still don't understand is why the return to a previous status quo required an erasure, rather than a destruction of the unwanted elements. Don't want Mary Jane? So kill her, or have her leave Peter. Even if it is for the purpose of telling new stories, how can erasing so much of Spidey's history be anything other than a step backward? Spider-Man may be about youth, but that shouldn't make him a static character. I just feel that things should have been done a little more selectively. Surely not every aspect of Peter that has been developed over the years is not an obstacle in attracting new readers?

Posted by Vastion on 2008-01-21 21:11:33
Youth is fine, but...
I love that Peter has his secret identity back. I have no problem with him being single. Keeping his "youth" is acceptable. But the reason i have dropped "Amazing" is how you got there. All of the talk of more stories for a young single Spider-man doen't change the fact that he made a deal with the devil; and 20 years of stories were wiped out. It wasn't a slight shift in history, it was a wholsale rewriting. It pains me to drop this title; but until we get out of this new Marvel 666 universe, i have to abstain.

Posted by Motumbo on 2008-01-21 21:33:06
Irresponsibility
A hero for whom responsibility is not an element? That's easy: Groo! :)

Posted by tech knight on 2008-01-21 21:42:26
Sorry tom you editors have it all wrong
A kid doesnt want to read about a down and out Spider-man kissing a bunch of pointless women having hard times. A kid would like to see Spider-Man being a hero a long with having a hot wife. That is what kids would like to read and a real role model.

Posted by mre2u on 2008-01-21 22:39:56
Wha?
A kid doens't want to read about Spider-Man getting lots of different girls? Kids prefer reading about married life?

What kind of teenagers have you been hanging out with, mre2u?

Posted by CodeGuy on 2008-01-21 22:46:06
well colour me stupid
i never thought Spider-Man was about Youth, Youth isn't even really a theme at all

i always thought Spider-Man was about Perserverence in the face of Tragedy. That no matter what happens no matter how hard life becomes you can always pick yourself and dust yourself off and keep going. I never thought that Aunt May getting shot would be the one thing that was too much for him, especially after the seance that Madame Web set up where Aunt May told Peter that she was ready to die (Sensational Spider-Man #38-39)

sure he started out as the young kid on the block but now he has (roughly) 12 years of experience under his belt, don't you think it's time to hand the Youth angle off to your Gravity's, your Arana's your Runaways, etc.?

Posted by scorpionspupil on 2008-01-21 23:15:54
Youth
Spider-man is about youth now, huh? Thats a new one and really only your interpretation, Tom. I agree with Scorpionspupil, I always thought it was about perserverance, not how great it is to be a young. So what you have told me is Spider-man as you see it will always be this loser who will never really succeed, but its supposed to be fun watching him try? Sorry that sounds pretty lame and pointless.

Just because he is not married does not mean he is a teenager unless Mephisto did that too while nobody was looking, its just not the same to see a twenty something screw up living with his aunt and it still be fun. Its just sad.

Still I guess after Civil War you guys painted yourself in a corner and could not think of anything else to do with Peter but start over, maybe a little more foresight next time will avoid you haveing to say "it was magic."

Posted by jefseg77 on 2008-01-21 23:58:28
I don't know where this "youth" stuff came fr
Tom, I don't know how any of you can justify this garbage direction like you're doing. Spider-Man is about YOUTH?

I've still yet to hear you address just how logical it is for BND and Spider-Man in New Avengers to make any sense.

While we are at it, the "loner" element was a FAR more important aspect of Spider-Man. He was an outcast, something many could relate to. He wasn't only an outcast as Peter Parker, but also as Spider-Man.

How is him being a part of New Avengers a logical thing, and how is it supporting this "youth" theme? It certainly kills the important misfit theme of Spider-Man. I think anybody that knows Spider-Man would completely agree with me about youth not being a theme anywhere near the level of the outsider theme.

Posted by Dusty. on 2008-01-22 00:37:35
Kids want to read about
Spidey on top of the world with a hot wife. Which kid wouldnt dream of being with a model when they are older. As a kid i thought it was cool that spidey had a model wife.

Posted by mre2u on 2008-01-22 00:47:02
"As Steve Ditko once pointed out, being High School age meant that it was acceptable for Peter Parker to screw up, to make mistakes and learn from them, in a way that would have been pathetic for more established, more heroic super heroes."

By that logic, all these OMD/BND changes are futile. He's still 25 years old.

I respect Ditko's perspective, and there's validity to it as evidenced by USM, but clearly Stan wanted something different. With these changes, you've got the worst of both worlds; a character who isn't the archetypical teenager as described, and for whom change and development mean nothing because the cosmic reset button has been established as a valid part of the storytelling toolbox.

As for responsibility; that is something that uniquely defines Spider-Man because he learned the hard way the consequences of not acting. No other major superhero is driven or motivated in this way.

It's interesting that you cite the '80s and '90s storylines as influencing this perspective; that may be true, but at the same time, I think you underestimate the extent to which growing up in the '70s has influenced the perspective of the people in charge right now; there's an almost holier-than-thou tendency to claim that "This is the way Spider-Man is supposed to be and we're protecting that" (even when it isn't supported by what Stan did with the character) rather than acknowledging that it's really just the state the character was in when you were growing up.

Posted by CylverSaber on 2008-01-22 04:30:59
I Couldn't Disagree More
One of my best friends was huge fan of the rock band Stabbing Westward. Their first three albums were very dark and depressing. They were all about a women who had hurt the singer deeply. The fourth album was different, it had a lot of acoustic melody as opposed to the synthesized sounds of the first three, and it had a much more upbeat message. My buddy hated it and never listened to it after the first time. My reply to him was this: “Sooner or later, he HAD to get over her.”

The same principle applies to Spider-Man. Sooner or later, he HAS to grow up. All forms of art will just wither and die if you keep treading the same stories over, and over again. Yes Spider-Man was once about youth, but like all great works of art, that clearly defined pigeon hole no longer applies. Peter has since learned from his youth. He has done the very things Ditko says he could do as a teenaged hero. Learn from his mistakes. Peter is an adult now, and has to make adult decisions. OMD does not reflect that. An adult makes a rational decision based on many different variables. And the adult decision was to let Aunt May die.

Look, Marvel will obviously do what they want and they are bent on destroying Spider-Man. So be it, but quit trying to create these lame justifications for what you did because the fans are rightfully upset at your terrible decision.


Posted by thewyrm on 2008-01-22 05:54:15
I can't agree with you, Tom
Things change and evolve. Comics is not about just a theme, it is about the character being portrayed. Yes, Spider-man was a youth when he started, but long before the marriage he had already left school and entered college and was living with his best friend, away from his aunt.

The character was growing since its beginning. The theme is aways evolving and changing. If we were talking about keeping Spider-man forever young, then we would never be able to tell any meaningful stories with him. Look at Ultimate Spider-man: despite being young, he saw so many deaths that he evolved beyond what he was in the first issues. He is more: more responsable, more experienced, less naive, and even more adult, despite his age.

OMD made the character go backwards instead of forward. You forced a change that was unnecessary. Instead of seeing what makes Spider-man work NOW, you decided to change him to what worked 20 years ago. I know that a lot of people were saying that Spider-man was too different lately, to gritty and full of desperation, but that was because you decided to kill and reborn him, and then unmask him and shot his aunt. All of those things were just tools to open the way to OMD, so they were completely unnecessary. Look at the stories before The Other, and you will see that Spider-man was not needing a revamp. Marvel's "Event Crazy" broke the character, not the marriage.

The only thing that Spidey was truly needing was a bigger and better support cast, and you could have done that without events or a revamp. You could have used Peter David's FNSM book to bring back Betty, JJJ and Flash without this revamp. You could have put Peter looking for a job without him working for Stark. You could have given Peter a new best friend without bringing Harry Osborn back from the dead.

So far, except for him kissing a random girl, I've seen nothing in BND that could not be done with a married Spider-man. And I'm pretty sure that, besides forced "romance" that will never lead anywhere, nothing else that will come in BND would be impossible to do with a married Spidey.

Posted by Deicide.UH on 2008-01-22 06:37:35
Well said, Mr. Brevoort. I get where you are coming from with this. I remember a few years ago when Brian Bendis took over Avengers, he made a point of saying in every interview that each character had a meaning and "aboutness" associated with them -- the example always being that Iron Man is "The Future." As a long time Iron Fan I found that very insightful. Similarly, what you posit here is very insightful as well about the core "aboutness" of Spider-Man.

Posted by ljacone on 2008-01-22 06:44:49
I never thought I would read something this vapid, Something that made so little sense. Hide behind the golden loeb because it's the only thing where people aren't reminding you how much your hated now. This is the worst peice of crap since the clone saga.

The posters above me made great points, But Spiderman isn't a teenager in BND he's 25. I know plenty of married 20 year olds let alone 25 year olds.

And whats to keep someone who's married and older from having a youthful spirit? If your so tied to that?

Spiderman is as much ours as he is yours tom, stan new that. So I'm asking you, What gives you the Right tom?

Posted by Seru1 on 2008-01-22 08:11:06
the problem here seems to be that people are internalising a peice of art that is meant to be available to everyone. spiderman does not belong to the fans, spiderman belongs to spiderman. it is what it is.
just because you dont like what is being done with the concept at the moment doesnt mean that a decision that has been made regarding him is wrong, just that its wrong for you. In which case STOP READING IT. Just as you sometimes cant change what happens in your own life, neither should you be able to change what happens in peters.
im starting to get more annoyed with the self important people who think that they have a right to demand, defy and offend people who work hardto create something amazing than the fact that a story has been written that i wouldnt have written myself.
Lastly, you dont know the ramifications this story is going to have. We're only ONE issue into brand new day and its being disavowed as a travesty. dont judge a book by its cover. in fact dont judge, its not your place to judge someone elses art. Get over yourselves.

Posted by ozdixon1 on 2008-01-22 09:54:25
Well, I have to say I don't agree with you Mr. Brevoort. I keep hearing this nonsense about attracting new readers. When I go to the comic shop I don't see kids in there. Maybe it's unique to my area but I only see adults whether it's a weekday/weekend. OMD was a terrible story. It was poorly written and executed. And yes all those involved did slap everyone in the face who has been with the character for so long. If we had not been reading the comic books you guys wouldn't have jobs and now you tell us to go find something else to read because we need a new audience. Why do you want a new audience. The same thing is going to happen 10-15 years down the line. Another version of OMD will wipe out whatever is created by BND. I'm sorry but I think Marvel screwed up. Now Marvel may not care but I'm not giving you any more money. For crying out loud get people who write stories. If you can't write good stories about a married spider-man what in the name of god makes you think you can write about a single peter parker? OMD is garbage.

Posted by abeatticus on 2008-01-22 09:56:56
Cant Win
Sorry Tom no matter how you spin or present OMD/BND to the public, it's not going to work. I respect you,but you couldn't be more wrong. A youthful Spider-man works in other media's because its fresh, but it doesn't have the longevity,it can't,I enjoyed the movies, but I disliked some of the changes. But I enjoyed them. The argument over whether or not single works better is erelevant, he could have been made single, and sure there would be angry fans but not like there is now. There is an alternate Spiderman title that's fresh and appeals to younger audience more, I dont read it. They have there continuity and i had mine. I enjoyed Spider-girl for a few issues but, where its not TRUE events i cant get into it. I'm not a fan of Archie style comics. I love change, I enjoyed the Clone Saga, and really miss Ben the young/single take as it were, but I would have been much happier to have them both around. But that would still have been a change that moved forward, this is not...and the deal that done it....sorry Tom Marvel need to take a step back on this swallow there pride, and fix this. You've lost the faith of the fans, undid too much with no regards to the fans, please make mine MARVEL again.

Posted by DS2008 on 2008-01-22 11:53:42
You are wrong, Tom
How long did it take to come up with this yarn? Because that's what it is. We wanted a reason for the big change and YOUTH is what you offer? Sounds like more bad story telling to me.
Calling Spider-Man YOUTH and not perserverance (which others have stressed) is not a fair assesment of the character. How is it that so many of us disagree with you? I commend you for trying to come up with something logical, but I don't think you did.
From what you are saying, Spider-Man is supposed to be constantly misserable. Sure, we love the drama, but that's just not the way it works. Character development, Tom. You guys should look into that. You can argue all day that the character takes steps forward, but this is just 10 steps back.

Posted by the darkone on 2008-01-22 12:24:17
What if Tom's right?
Because I have really enjoyed BND so far. I haven't enjoyed Spider-Man this much ever. It just seems fun again.

Sorry to interject. Get back to crucifying everyone.

Posted by bigdaddyhub2 on 2008-01-22 13:13:20
If only...
If only there was some series with a teenage Spider-Man that the youth of today and tomorrow could recognize with. Imagine if such a thing were written by Brian Michael Bendis! Why, such a comic would sell at least 63,000 in the direct market alone!

If only.

Posted by Rawnzilla on 2008-01-22 14:49:55
Well BND sold out so ...
Tom must be right. He has a job to do which is maximizing sales.
If that means trading one 40 something for 10 20 somethings, so be it.

I have to agree that the first 50 issues of Spiderman have a feel to them that has never really been recaptured, though. However,
the writers and editiors didn't anticipate the comic running for 40+ years and made a conscious decision to have the character age and complete school through the graduate level.

Besides taking away the marriage and the Spider totem stuff, they also need to have had him get some degree other than chemistry, or not have a degree at all to explain his still working at the Bugle.

Posted by izzatrix on 2008-01-22 15:05:31
You still don't get it.
Sorry Tom,

the more you go on with this, the further you get away from the facts.
Spider-Man was never, ever about youth. Spider-Man has always been and should always be about RESPONSIBILITY. It just helped clarify that aspect when the character was introduced as a teenager.

It is true that kids are not overly responsible, but they also have the advantage of having a mentor of some sort in their lives. Peter has had many of these.
It also helped that back in the '60s, the average reader age was 7-17 years old. Nowadays the average reader age is 15-35. I know this because I used to work in my friends Comic Shop. The only time Young kids came in was with their Comic reading parents who wanted to get them involved. Sadly most of those kids were only interested in Pokemon and Yeugio cards.

Responsibility is the key here not youth. Responsibility for your decision's. Responsibility for your actions.
Do you know who has less of a sense of responsibility than a teenager? A college student thats who. They are on their own away from the parental figure who helped to keep them in line for the first time in their lives. All of the things that the parents told them not to do are now right there for them to experience without someone telling them no.

the reason everyone is upset about all of this has nothing to do with Peter being married. It has to do with poor storytelling. Bad plot devices that are out of character are the true problem.
Go look at your first blog on this subject. I put a little variation of JMS's story in one of my responses that i thought would have made for a much better read and change for the character.

Peter unmasked. A move that even the character felt was irresponsible. but he did it because he was lead to believe that it served the greater good. Instead it only increased his problems.

In my variation i said that MJ should have died in Peter's arms after attempting to stop a killer from finishing off Aunt May. Not only would her and Aunt May's tragic end driven home to Peter the error of his decision (even though it was MJ and May that talked him into it)
But it also would have Allowed MJ to be seen as heroic and self sacrificing because of how she has always perceived Peter to be. Because it is what Peter would have done.

You said that Peter should not have someone who loves him unconditionally that would accept him no matter what happens.
Yet you put him back in the bosom of Aunt May. Someone who loves him unconditionally and remains a mentor figure to him.

I would also like to say that the reason Peter should not be able to settle down or have time for love in his life has nothing to do with his age or mental immaturity. It should have to do with the fact that he spends all of his time being Spider-Man. Because he feels like he is the only one that can do it and because he feels...wait for it..."With great power comes great responsibility." Something S. Raimi pointed out in all three films. Because THAT IS THE MESSAGE BEHIND THE CHARACTER. By the way Peter went from H.S. to college in those films and they i am sure are far from finished.

Here is something to put in your pipe also.
Nerds, which Peter has always been more specifically 'intelligent nerds' do not make many poor choices in life. Don't agree with me? Then explain Bill Gates. The most successful 'nerd' on the planet. How about Dean Kamen? Another highly successful 'nerd'. Comic nerds and gamer nerds generally are a different story because we enter these worlds for escape. A Gates or Kamen type of nerd doesn't care so much about shallow things like being popular or even with fitting in with the 'in' crowd.
Peter on the other hand wanted to fit in with others and made poor choices early on because of it. Choices that lead to the Death of his greatest mentor, his Uncle Ben.

Peter as Spider-Man however causes most of his situations by becoming involved in the situations. He creates his own enemies because of his decision to save the day.

That there is why he doesn't stop. Because he always feels responsible. He always feels the need to correct his mistakes.

I am among those that prefer Peter single. I am married and can attest that while it is always an adventure, it's not always fun.
That said, i will stick to my guns and say again that the method taken to return Peter to this position was just poorly conceived and a complete waste.

Stop trying to come up with reasons as to why this storyline was a good idea, because the more you do it the more you give the perception that it is you and not us who doesn't understand the character.

In closing, i would like to remind you that you already have two Spider-Man series dedicated to the youthful teenage Peter. Ultimate Spider-Man and Marvel adventures Spider-Man. It is not a bad idea that the other three series deal with a slightly older and dare i say it wiser Spider-Man.

Posted by BIGW1966 on 2008-01-22 15:21:32
But can't Peter Parker still be considered young? Even after having graduated from College, being married, getting MJ pregnant (and at one point teaching), I still assumed Peter and MJ were like, at MOST approximately 25 year olds. All of that stuff can happen to someone who is still in their mid twenties--which is still VERY young even though not "teenager-young". Yet at the same time, I also can't consider one in their mid twenties to be a total loser just because their living with an aunt or grandparent, jobless, and doing post grad studying, and living the single bachlor life. I know many people in their early to mid twenties who live lifestyle A and a lot who live lifestyle B. Both, in my opinion, are reasonable situations for a 25 year old to be in. I don't think that Pete should have been considered 30+ years old based on the pre-OMD status and I also don't think Pete's current post-OMD status should be considered ridiculous unless he were 20- years old.

Posted by underscore on 2008-01-22 15:34:56
Wha???
I don't know how my post managed to appear twice in this thread, but i guess your website felt it was important enough to list it twice.

But since it did, I will use this time to point out that Peter/Spider-Man continued to evolve as a character all the way up to the point of getting married. after that he circled around for years with no signifigant growth until the OTHER storyline and more importantly the unmasking during Civil War. A choice made for him by someone he respected and saw as a mentor until he realized that his 'mentor' did not have his best interests at heart.

Posted by BIGW1966 on 2008-01-22 16:15:46
May as well give up
Tom, I thought that was a great post, as was Karl's. But at this point you (and Marvel in general) should give up trying to defend OMD. I think there have been many intelligent, well thought out, rational explanations put forth over the past few weeks from yourself, Joe Q, Wacker, Slott, and others, but the fact is that the only thing further explanations are accomplishing is to give those fans who are ticked off yet another opportunity to post the same arguments they have been posting for weeks.
I never realized how old I am, and that so many people were first introduced to Peter as a married man. The idea of a young, single Peter is as foreign to them as the idea of a married Peter was to me when it happened (my first Spider-Man comic was #97, in the mid-70s). They don't want to hear about how this gets Peter/Spidey closer to his original roots, or how this will attract new readers, or anything else that attempts to justify why the current Spidey is not the Spidey they have known since the 80s. You guys did what you felt you had to do in order to keep Spider-Man a viable character now and in the future, and I think in the long term you will be proven correct.

Posted by joeshan on 2008-01-22 16:43:07
Superheroes in The Post-Industrial Age
A little while back I was thinking about why certain characters have stuck in the public's consciousness and have lasted as part of our POP Pantheon. In addition to the power of a sticky theme song or catch phrase it seems to like up that each of the superheroes with the most multi-medium appeal, widest recognition, and sheer dollars each have resonated as a distinct response to modern living. Via the skyscraper, and starting from the top down, Superman is the idealist who flies over a city, Batman is a cynic who seeks revenge from the shadows of the rooftops, Spider-Man swings through the ups and downs with humor and buoyancy (read: resiliance), and, on street level, a raging Hulk just SMASH! the whole thing down. I'd even include the Ninja Turtles as a bunch of counterculture oddballs who live UNDER the city. Spidey = Youth comes into play because the young are constantly facing new obtacles and Spidey does so with a youthful energy. But, IMHO it is the interplay of power, responsibility, and panache that define him as a character and a hero.

Posted by hamgravy on 2008-01-22 17:16:17
Agree to disagree
I think joeshan is right. The most important part of this issue isn't the continuity and it isn't the marriage. The most important part is that it is *complex*. And talking about that complexity is a lost cause by now.

There are advantages to the change and disadvantages, pros and cons. But every time the issue comes up it quickly becomes oversimplified with everyone only presenting one side of the argument. Tom, I have no doubt in my mind that the people involved with OMD knew all the cons going in. Some people keep yelling, 'You just don't get it, the real issue is-" and then naming one particular point out of a see of points. But I haven't heard any real issue that it isn't laughable to say you didn't already know that before the fans did.

So you guys know all the cons, but you have to present the pros in order to keep people from yelling "See, even so-and-so said he hates it!" Meanwhile everyone on the other side probably has some sense of the pros buried in the back of their heads, but they only want to talk about the cons.

If there's no balance to the conversation, then it isn't really a conversation, just a yelling match. And a yelling match doesn't serve anyone, so we might as well table the discussion.

Posted by CodeGuy on 2008-01-22 17:18:31
a matter of age
I have been reading Comics since just before i turned seven years old.
In 1973. What Marvel is trying to return the Character to is exactly what i grew up with. Yet here i am complaining with the rest of the responders.
I am complaining because i can recognize poor storytelling when i read it.
I am making this response in regards to joeshan's post. Its a nice assumption that you have there that everyone here has only been following the character since the 80's which was Tom's era if i am not mistaken.
I recommend that everyone go over to comic book resources and read Erik Larson's response to the storyline and decision to use this as the vehicle to move Spidey back to his 'roots.'
His response is far from positive. remember, he used to write the character also.
He also mentions something that i wanted to avoid which is that getting rid of MJ has been going on since Howard Mackie and the Clone Saga.

Posted by BIGW1966 on 2008-01-22 17:30:16
Who are the new readers?
Outside from a bump in sales due to some press, regular fix readers, and the speculation market that still exists to a degree, I am really curious how this move will have attracted new readers to the book. I do sympathize with a desire to keep the character viable, but, has a new audience been drawn to the book? How did they hear about it and was their reaction "Finally, THIS is a Spider-Man I can get into!" There are excellent creative teams on the book and I wish the New Day was coupled with a new format (digest or Shonen Jump-style magazine), in non-comic retailers, and actual advertising of the product instead of the still continuity-complicated, three times a month to the same audience that was just alienated, route.

Posted by hamgravy on 2008-01-22 18:05:52
Truth
I find it interesting that people are telling a man who has worked for the company for quite a while that he is wrong about one of the company's biggest characters. Spider-Man should be younger. The true spirit of the book is youthful. When I was a kid, marriage was the last thing on my mind, and while I was interested in girls, I wasn't thinking about a long term relationship with them. Kids don't care about a married Spider-Man. They care about a wise-cracking, rebellious, web-slinger that they can relate to. What kid is going to relate to a married or divorced Spider-Man? Spider-Man was a unique character because he wasn't like every other character. He didn't have a big house, a lot of money, girls falling all over him, the adoration of the public, or the approval of anyone. He went out there, did the best he could, and even in victory he still came up short at times. That was what made and makes Spider-Man special. I don't want a Peter Parker married to a supermodel and having things go well for him, while living in Stark Tower and having the approval of the superhero community. That isn't Spider-Man.

Posted by ZacGoyette on 2008-01-22 18:17:04
Bargaining with the Devil
Perhaps instead of having Peter and MJ go to Mephisto, Joe Quesada (or whoever wants to take "responsibility" for this devilish decision) could have just had the totemic nature of Peter's/The Spider's dual existence "reboot" Peter's mentality and body back to when he first became Spidey, a delayed reaction to his having "died" in the "The Other" storyline. So you can make PP be young and teenagerish again. No need for making deals with a corrupt being with red skin and horns. You could have Peter be disoriented and amnesiac and him be examined by Reed Richards and Dr. Curt Connors and they could both concur that Peter has regressed biologically to a younger age.

Peter could then become more like Wolverine/Logan/The Best There Is At What He Does/Patch/Yellow Spandex Man and thus your storytellers can have him suffer from total amnesia/physical regression every decade or so and he has to keep learning about his history, his powers, his villains, his friends/allies and his "responsiblity". You can re-name him "Peter 'Pan' Parker" (this is a deliberate triple reference if you're keeping count). . .

[I'm not posting this mean spiritedly. I'm trying to be helpful without being critical and also crack jokes about the situation. It may be beyond my powers of expression.]

Posted by N.Mackenzie on 2008-01-22 18:37:43
BIGW - I understand, I didn't particularly enjoy OMD as a story either, but I am willing to overlook it and move on since I think it gets SPidey back to a place where he needs to be. As one blogger noted, it's like ripping the band-aid off - quick, messy, and hurts like hell but worth it in the end.
And your post kind of proves my point - those who are negative about OMD (whether it is what Marvel did, or how they did it) are going to be negative no matter what Tom, Joe, etc say and at this point (as CodeGuy noted) everyone is basically just talking at each other, using the same arguments, and serving no purpose. Better everyone (those dropping the book and those staying with it) just move on and see what BND brings.

Posted by joeshan on 2008-01-22 18:46:35
Question
I'm a big fan of Marvel (and this blog in general), but this one really bugs me. Let's say this is true. You're basically arguing that Marvel editorial is capable of missing the primary essence of it's flagship character for, not months or years, but whole decades.

As a fan, this does not fill me with confidence.

(And this is Spider-man! God only knows how much longer it will be before someone remembers what Moon Knight or Dr. Strange is about.)

Posted by Muldrate on 2008-01-22 19:35:00
Yadda Yadda Yadda
Man...that's a lot of talk in response.

I'm still going to have to agree with Tom. Spider-Man's theme does revolve around youth. And part of being young is feeling like an outcast, not succeeding, and - I still attest - learning responsibility. Which ties up all the "no, you're wrong! It's about [blank]" comments. Seriously, one word like youth contains a lot more than simply the dictionary definition, people. And its definition will be different for everyone and one artistic perspective will only appeal to a certain group of people.

Speaking of other forms of media, I think the best thing the Spider-Man movies did (I'm paraphrasing/agreeing with Tom) was constantly put Peter Parker through the ringer and make him continually suffer while we watched him fight through it all. I think that's exactly what makes Spider-Man interesting. Being happily married is fine, for another super hero (of which there are PLENTY to choose from), but Spider-Man needs to be on his toes or else he might as well be retired.

Really, children don't want to read marital bliss for years in an action comic. That's boring.

Oh, and Tom, I hope you don't feel too bad about every sixth person on here who yells about how they're never buying a Spider-Man comic again and that you don't realize that you've lost their business forever. If it makes you feel better, I work at a call center at a bank, and just about every tenth person calls in and tells me how MY bank is the worst bank ever and how they're taking ALL their money out of my bank and we've lost a customer FOREVER, and they're going to another, better bank!

And I'm quite certain that said other bank receives the exact same calls, daily, to their customer service reps as well. Welcome to America...

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2008-01-23 07:36:56
MArvel HAtes Marrige
Tom And quesada Apparently hate marrige and children. Apparently they are saying With this, once your married your life is over, you have no more stories. Which is the biggest lie on the planet

Married people Struggle tom, Married people can certainly be youthful. Spiderman being a jobless 20 something? What kind of message is that for kids? Irresonsibility is not okay for people that Age tom, despite what Girls gone wild may tell you.


So Listening to the fans just makes Diminishing returns? Once you get us you could care less if you keep us? Your like a whore tom. A whore with his legs spread wide always looking for greener pastures.

Posted by Seru1 on 2008-01-23 10:11:04
joeshan;- Sorry but i really don't think you got my point, or the point of many others.
First, Making Peter single is the right move. It works with the character and it increases his level of struggle -vs- being married and having someone to back him up. Peter is the everyman and that is why we relate to him.
The majority of his struggles could be our own., or in the case of a reader in my age category it can bring back memories of our own bygone days.
I could honestly care less about OMD. these comics recycle and reboot all of the time. Tom is doing his job by trying to keep the character relevant to what they hope will be a new generation of readers while still being enjoyable to those that have been around for years and grew up with a single Peter Parker.
OMD is no different than any other reboot that has ever been attempted.v the OTHER was a reboot.
Peter unmasking was an attempt to reboot him and introduce more struggles.
Do they always work? No, they don't.
Captain America is a favorite of mine and i honestly love what is going on with him. I thought the way Bucky returned was inspired and i did not at first see them making him the new Cap, but i think that is a great idea because it allows the 616 universe to have its own version of Ultimate Cap. (a more realistic idea of the character IMO)
The Secret Invasion is another excellent idea and nice to finally see the Skrull's being used the way they should be.
The complaints leveed against the OMD story in every blog on this site revolve more around peoples feelings that the event that brought the character to this point were a plot device that sadly was just out of character.
I am also sorry that i will still disagree with everyone that Spider-Man is about youth. It is and always has been about responsibility. Stan Lee himself has said it in many interviews and feels that the quote is probably the single best line he ever wrote.
After Uncle Ben got killed by Peter's inaction (a sign of a callous youth) Peter didn't decide to remain Spider-Man because he was young and thought it would make him cool. He did it because of the overwhelming sense of responsibility he felt and still feels to this day over Ben's death.
Peter trying to make money with his new abilities at first is more a sign of youth.
In a post above zacgoyette wrote that Peter goes out and does the best he can Even though he comes up short in his victories sometimes.
Do you think Peter does that because he is young, Or do you think it sounds more like something a responsible thinking individual would do? Responsibility does not mean that you are the cause or reason for an event or situation happening, it means that you are willing to step up and make the sacrifice that needs to be made whether or not anyone approves of you doing it or not.
Getting out of bed in the morning to get to school or work on time is a sense of responsibility. So to is putting on a costume and saving lives.
Trying to join the FF in hopes of making a nice fat paycheck for your abilities is a youthful and more importantly immature direction to go and also a sign of moral weakness because he is putting his own issues ahead of the greater good.
Tom pointed out that Batman is about Vengance. that is true, but after vengance has been achieved and you continue on it becomes more about obsession. Of vowing never to be helpless again. Which is what Bruce was when his parents were murdered.
The Punisher is about revenge. and psychotic obsession. He got vengance, but it wasn't enough. so he continued. Go watch the first two Death Wish movies to see Castles inspiration.


I have already stated that Marriage is not always fun. Trust me i know lol.
I do not want to read a comic about a married character. To me having Peter married and going out fighting crime and risking his life nightly is more of a youthful irresponsible decision than a responsible decision since he is not considering the emotional toll his actions are taking on his wife.
do you understand?

Peter being single is great!
New romantic avenue's is great!
Bringing back long dead supporting cast members so that old stories can get a retread, not so great.
I don't know about any of you, but in my long life i have made many friends. I have lost a few and forgotten many more as well. I have some that have become friends with some of the others and some who have never and probably will never meet each other. My point is that Peters social interaction doesn't need to be confined to 5-10 supporting characters.
Create new ones and new situations.

you want to know why i titled my previous post "You still don't get it" It is because when the backlash first started, Tom said the Marvel Universe handbook was wrong because Peter only lifted a heavy item in one story and has trouble with normal humans.
Then he tries to create a parable to this backlash by pointing out how Jim Shooter's decision to move Yellowjacket more towards a villain role made him not read Avengers until he started at Marvel.
(Even though what Shooter did actually was moving the character forward and also fit in line with Hank Pym's serious inferiority complex at being overshadowed by others.
Then he starts this post about how Spider-Man is about youth.

All three of these blogs have been an attempt to explain and justify the reasoning behind OMD. At least from where i am sitting it seems that way.
He doesn't need to justify it. He just needed to realize that the fans did not like the plot device. Which wiped away everything and will probably cause problems in the long run in the other titles he is a part of.
Ultimate Spider-Man works because Peter is younger and learning his powers, but it Is successful more so because of B. Bendis's spot on characterization.
I would go on but i think i am starting to ramble.

Posted by BIGW1966 on 2008-01-23 13:11:06
You mentioning Tom's "attempts" to justify OMD can be turn on why certain fans don't like the new direction. I am not saying you are one of them, but in general I have seen more people change their minds about why they are upset. First it was the marriage. The threads indicate it by the amount of posts the Save Spidey's Marriage have seen. Then after the marriage thing simmered a little, it was about losing 20 years of continuity. They said they will explain it and that there was that much continuity lost. Then it was about the deal with the devil, and it being out of characterization. Now it's bad story telling. I'm starting to think people just want a reason to be pissed off. Bad story telling happens sometimes. 40+years of stories and a dud is bound to come out once in a while. There is s lot more to why people are upset than the story. If it was just the story, this would have gone away by now. BND can and does work. How do you know Slott and the gang won't be able to hit that same characterization that Bendis has achieved? It is really good, and if given a chance, I think it would win a lot of people over. Reviews have been good for the book, and most of the people who have read it seem to really like it. Most of the negative comments I have seen about it give no reason why it isn't good. All I see is "It's garbage", "It sucks", "Fire Joephisto", and "Marvel and Quesada hate marriage". This leads me to believe that they haven't even read it, and are just spewing angry uninformed responses. Tom has said that he stands by his original assessment. While I don't always post and haven't been posting as long as others, I have been reading the blogs for little while, and he has never struck me a liar or a guy who would endorse something he didn't like. He's been with the company for a while and he know most of these characters better than we probably know some of our relatives, so I find it ridiculous and laughable that people are telling he is wrong about his view on the character.

Posted by ZacGoyette on 2008-01-23 20:17:11
I'm Confused
When I read Joe Quesada's interview with CBR, he said the same thing that Tom is saying here about "core concepts." But he didn't say Spidey was "about" youth, he said it was "about soap opera." Has there been a new editorial mandate already?

Posted by theazor on 2008-01-24 09:53:26
@zacgoyette.

I have no doubt that the new direction or should i say the return to the core direction will be successful and even produce many good stories in the coming...well however long it lasts.
That said, I have repeatedly mentioned poor plot devices, and actions that are completely out of character. These two things go hand in hand with poor storytelling.
Many people that have posted the disgust, dislike or overall disapproval at how Marvel chose to bring the book to this point have their own reasons for disliking it. That is why there are so many complaints. everyone is looking at what they feel the problem really is. Truthfully, poor storytelling in OMD is the bottom line.
Yes 'I' feel that the last 3 blogs have been Tom's attempts to justify the way they brought the characters to this point.
I personally have not said anything about firing anyone or made negative comments on the art. Which even though JQ has long been a favorite was not very good or very consistent. I sum that up to his having to run a Major comic publisher and not being able to continually practice his craft like he did when he was doing monthlies.

I like Tom as an Editor and the few occasions that i briefly spoke with him at conventions were all good experiences.
Trust me, i would much rather come on here and blow smoke up his backside about everything instead of what seems to be a constant stream of complaining.
Sadly there is more to complain about.
For me personally it has continually revolved around the whole poor storytelling choices.
I want to hear a reaction from JMS. Even though i was only a moderate fan of the majority of his run on ASM, i am curious to know how he feels about having to write the story used to remove every facet of the character that he added over the last few years.

Don't get me started on this Jackpot character.

Posted by BIGW1966 on 2008-01-24 13:15:07
Youth = Time Dependent
I don't want to sound like a whiny Spider-Man fan. I'm not crazy about the changes, but I am along for the ride. The first arc was fantastic, so I'm encouraged that future arcs will be a lot of fun too. What I really wanted to talk about is that all of the examples you brought up outside of Spider-Man are timeless.

There will always be mutants, and regardless of the lineup they will be oppressed. How many incarnations of the X-Men have we seen? New teammates come in all of the time, and they deal with the same sentiments that previous teammates endured.

The Fantastic Four have been and will always be a family. Even after Franklin graduates from college, they'll still be a family. These characters are allowed to grow up because that means they'll have more members of the family and more stories that bring them together. Family always exists.

Batman will never be satisfied, and he will always try to defend Gotham City from criminals. Because he's a little nuts, even if Batman caught the guy that murdered his parents he would still fight crime. Random jewel thief becomes the every-criminal for the caped crusader. That theme never runs out of gas.

And lastly we have youth. Being young is time dependent. Spider-man can never grow up if that's the way Marvel wants to perceive him. Rather than keeping him young at heart, you've opted to keep him just plain young. That's up to you guys to interpret youthfulness this way. The only problem that I see is that every 10-15 years Spider-Man will have to reboot. To keep stories interesting you will have to introduce elements of growing up and dealing with situations on a more adult level. At some point, those stories will age Spider-Man too much and then the youth reset button will get pressed. I just think it might be unfair in the grand scheme of things to label Spider-Man with the one label that requires him to stay the same while everyone else is allowed to change.

Like I said, I'm here for the ride and you don't have to convince me one way or another to read Amazing Spider-Man. Keep putting good creative teams on the book that tell worthwhile stories and I'll keep buying them. I don't want to sound whiny or anything, but I felt that I had a good take on the subject and decided to post something. Thanks for reading.

Posted by tsmcknight on 2008-01-25 09:10:17