Aunt May Fan here!
FIRST!

I LOVE Aunt May. Always have since Stan & Steve's day. They did a great job with the character, and she has to stay. She's great. Tom B, I am an ACTUAL FAN of Aunt May. Always have been, always will be. (Been reading for 3 years or so)

The marriage is NEVER EVER coming back and thank you for that!!!

Posted by pineappleprotein on 2008-10-13 16:37:30
I tend to disagree.
I love Aunt May too. At least, when she was interesting because she knew who Peter really was and didn't acting like the bumbling Auntie of the 60's. I reckon the majority don't want that anymore.

Your point about May getting brought back to life again and again does make sense, but in an ideal world I hope that someone has the guts in the future to let her die and let her die for good.

Oh, and Pineappleprotein, I HOPE the marriage comes back, because you ARE in the minority. The majority wants it back, regardless of whether Marvel wants to take its fingers out of its ears and listen to the majority. So I say to counter pp's negativity and the irritation of Marvel foolish decisions (eg. Now getting rid of Amazing Spider Girl and reducing MJ and Peter love to 8 pages in an already BNDised Spidey family) that the marriage MUST ALWAYS come back. They tried once and failed. They tried twice and failed. Tom, Marvel WILL fail again to get rid of the marriage. Enjoy the short-term while it lasts.

Oh and Tom, if my mother was on her deathbed and in her late 70's, and considering she's the religious type, she wouldn't want me to make a deal with the devil. Cheers for answering my question on Carlie though, I'll admit she hasn't done enough to strike me entirely as Gwen Stacy, its just her role and job seems to be what Gwen would be in were she alive.

Posted by Derek Metaltron on 2008-10-13 16:56:02
Hey Tom,
I kinda agree with you, and I kinda don’t about Aunt May. I didn’t care about her for years, but that didn’t stop her from having useful purposes plot wise. But, during the beginning of the JMS run, when she stopped being a plot device, and started being an actual character, I thought she finally became a part of Spidey’s most underrated asset; his supporting cast.

Now that she’s back to being a septuagenarian plot device, I’ve kind of lost interest again.

I still Believoort (Ya big Aunt May hating meanie ya!)

Posted by cjmcaree on 2008-10-13 17:34:39
Even though the end result is bad...
It was the MEANS that most of us rationally disagree with. Personally, as I read each new issue as it came out, I find no evidence from the writing that there was a strong desire to eliminate the marriage from the day the marriage took place. It had never crossed my mind that there was an editorial agenda to eliminate the marriage. There has always been that thought in the back of my mind that someday Mary Jane Parker may be killed off or divorced.

But the method, ugh, WTF! f stands for fudge

This is the true problem with OMD/BND.

Let's ignore that most of the new villains, in my opinion, are not at all interesting and are slight variations on villains from the past.

Let's ignore that there has been a greater suspension of belief, in my opinion, as to who Spider-man could be. I'm talking to you Norman Osborn (as you're currently written).

Let's ignore that Aunt May, in my opinion, is no longer worth having around, and that there was real potential to put the real Amazing Spider-man through an even darker period before a divine intervention brought him out of it after May's death.

Let's ignore that Peter, in my opinion, is far less confident and intelligent than the college graduate and science expert he once was (for an excellent example look at ASM Vol. 2 #30-35).

Let's ignore that this current allusion to Jackpot being Mary Jane Watson, in my opinion, is awfully gimmicky.

Let's ignore that Eddie Brock is no longer the personal threat, in my opinion, to Peter in the way he was when he and the symbiote knew who Spider-man was and had that special partnership or duality to destroy PP/SM. I can't imagine anyone believing that there is that same relationship between Eddie Brock/Symbiote and Spider-man. It's diminished to the point where he ranks alongside the Vulture and the Rhino as a deadly foe.

Let's ignore the resurgence of the webshooters as a recurring theme for this "Down on his luck" Peter Parker.

The OMD plot device is the true problem. Their marriage could have ended in a variety of ways.

(But let's be honest. OMD changed much more than the marriage. Let's not patronize the fan base by saying nothing else has changed from the deal.)

The deal with the Devil/Demon/"Antithesis of Good"/Mephisto scenario was cheap and easy.

The Scarlet Witch whispering no more marriage or everyone will forget the secret identity of Spider-man would have been more acceptable because of the established precedent of using that device. But that too is way too easy.

There were complex issues that were ignored for the quick and easy solution. Ending the marriage feels like an earmark on a piece of legislation that was designed to recover Spider-man's secret identity.

It's just lazy and a little sneaky.

There were three problems:

- The very real problem of a Spider-man who is known and is also a vigilante/outlaw.

- The recurring question of whether Aunt May should live or finally die.

- And the lingering personal vendetta against the marriage.

Now, the marriage problem was brought into the forefront by revealing Spider-man's secret identity. Dragged into the forefront. Honestly, looking back, it now seems like the marriage was on a purposeful collision course for destruction, which would be fine if it was done better. I can honestly say I didn't see it coming while I was reading it as it came out.

Why not divorce him and turn state's evidence with the hope of one day absolving Peter and maintaining a secret affair...

I'm sure collectively we can create a wide variety of scenarios where the marriage ended without this ridiculous deal.

The real focus should be on the raw deal we all received when the writers either got lazy or put there personal vendetta to the forefront and made a deal with the "Evil Entity."

I don't want any obfuscation of the true problem here.

The "Devil-deal" device was lame and it change everything in a way that I do not find palatable. We could be here only angry about all the things I asked us to ignore, instead of both that and the AWFUL plot device.

Fix it, will ya?

Make mine

Posted by coolhanddave on 2008-10-13 17:41:53
GAAAH! You said SCREEN TIME in your answer to the Carlie = Gwen question. GAAAAAAHHHH!!! These are comics. I am sick and tired of hearing people in the comic industry using expressins like screen time, camera angles, widescreen, cinematic, etc, BLEGH!!!

Posted by underscore on 2008-10-13 17:48:28
I only have one question.

Norah?

Posted by Michael Heide on 2008-10-13 17:52:46
Appreciation !
Tom,

Please tell Steve & the rest of the Spidey Brain Trust that I am enjoying Spider-Man BND/NWD immensely ! The Anti-Venom character is superb ! Keep up the good work !

Posted by Mon Morn Lunatic on 2008-10-13 18:04:34
On the introduction to “Spiderman: the Ultimate guide”, some guy named Tom DeFalco wrote that Spiderman is all about responsibility. I do not feel the “new” character “responsible”. Not in the way a regular guy, and the original Peter Parker was, meaning: working his @*%&%% out to pay rent, not borrowing money, staying out of Aunt May’s home.

This new Peter just seems like a selfish SOB, that dons the costume only for kicks, not for a real sense of responsibility.


Posted by freyes2000 on 2008-10-13 18:42:55
Hmm....
Interesting response Brevoort. I think this and any other Q/A response entries should just about answer any questions the fans in general have. I know the ones you've answered thus far have satisfied my curiosity thus far.

Posted by Aziroth on 2008-10-13 18:47:11
Coolhanddave, you're never going to stop are you! I have an idea, stop buying Spider-Man, start buying an X-Men title instead. Or maybe the Avengers. (Joke, I know you won't!) Seriously though, give it a decade or two, if you don't like it, write to the EiC and ask for it to be changed back, and do a fan-poll then...

Posted by thomas more on 2008-10-13 19:04:39
I really like JMS' Aunt May: Alive, knows who Spider-Man is, and isn't about to die of a heart attack.

Having Aunt May be the clueless complication factor all the time seems to mean that she can never really be a part of Peter's life. It also irks me a bit that she is constantly being lied to by the only person she's close to. That got really old, pre-JMS.

The situation isn't bad yet in BND though, so hopefully whatever plans you guys have in store keep things fresh.

Posted by tech knight on 2008-10-13 19:45:09
Thanks for answering more questions.

Posted by marvelman123456 on 2008-10-13 19:48:04
This reminds me of that episode of WEST WING in the last season, when Alan Alda is answering all the questions from the press in front of the Power Plant. It's inspiring.

I Believoort!

Posted by kyle-latino on 2008-10-13 19:54:42
Who do you think you are kidding?
ASM's numbers aren't crashing? Yeah, neither is the stock market ;-)

If your sales numbers aren't crashing, how do you explain that a year later you are selling half the number of copies? I don't know what else you call it other than a crash!

You said, "Aunt May exists to provide complications, to cause Peter's responsibiltiies as Spider-Man and as Peter Parker to smash up against one another." What the heck do you think the marriage did????

You said, "Who among us would condemn their own Mother to death to preserve an intangible? Would you? Really?" This shows that you simply don't get it. A marriage is sacred. To make a deal with the devil to undo something sacred is not noble. It's evil. It goes against everything that Spider-Man stood for. He made a deal with evil and gave up something sacred. Marvel even introduced Mephisto's intention was to "stick it to God". So Peter Parker makes a deal to "stick it to God". Who thinks that is noble???

Come one Marvel. Get real. You made a mistake. Fans are dropping this book like crazy. We don't want our hero to make deals with the devil.

Undo this and we'll come back.

On a side note: if someone personally insults Joe Q you would remove the post... but you won't remove a post insulting to Jesus? Wow.

Posted by HiddenVorlon on 2008-10-13 20:06:14
Underscore - agreed - tom should be saying "panel space". And it's not off-camera it's "between panels". :)

Tom - thanks for saying in your official voice what I've been trying to tell people for the past eight months - I rather wish you'd posted this sooner, it would have saved me a lot of time I suspect - Marvel's determined to see it through this time, only a stupid person would change things back at this point, and Peter Parker's actions in OMD were inherently heroic.

Posted by Fetsur on 2008-10-13 20:44:35
Thank you!
Tom,

Once again thank you for answering our questions and this time mine in particular.

In response to your question, "Who among us would condemn their own Mother to death to preserve an intangible? Would you? Really?"
If my mother, like Aunt May, said it was time to let her go, then yes. And I'm pretty sure that my mother taught me not to make deals with extra-dimensional beings, no matter the reason. Also, Peter was not condemning Aunt May to death, he had no choice and there was nothing he could do. It would not have mattered who was in that death bed in lieu of Aunt May. This is a real black mark on Spidey and MJ's characters. And saying a marriage/love is intangible, PLEASE. I feel really sorry for anyone who believes that. I wake up every morning and see my marriage, feel my marriage and living my marriage as I have been for years and will for years to come.
This past year I dealt with my mother and cancer, thankfully, we just found out after this whole year of treatments, she is in remission, but I just wanted to say that I love my mother and I would do anything for her, and once again she raised me to know that I shouldn't make deals with people or beings of a questionable character, no matter what. So no, I would not have made a deal with Mephisto to save her if it meant I would not have my wife, actually no matter what I was giving up.

I know, Tom, that you have to defend what is going on, that is your job. I do appreciate you taking the time to answer these questions even if it won't change things to my liking.

Posted by deadpool1977 on 2008-10-13 21:09:34
"And I'm pretty sure that my mother taught me not to make deals with extra-dimensional beings, no matter the reason."

I can't help but wonder how that came up in conversation...

Posted by Fetsur on 2008-10-13 21:49:19
HiddenVorlon beat me to it...
and I couldn't have said it more plainly and bluntly.

On the subject of Peter's "heroism" in OMD, might I remind you deluded people to re-read your copies. Peter couldn't bear to live with the fact that Aunt May died BECAUSE IT WAS HIS FAULT! That's not heroism at all, but GUILT, PLAIN AND SELFISH.

Not quite like the Peter we read about in Amazing Fantasy 15, huh? THAT SAME PETER WHO BORE THE GUILT OF HIS UNCLE'S DEATH EVER SINCE had nevertheless lived with the consequences and grown up to the man he had become.

Now, I ask you, why the sudden change in character? Why did Peter, who lived through the guilt of Uncle Ben's death all those years, suddenly have a change of heart regarding Aunt May's situation? I point you to the EXCEPTION to the general rule that EDITORS DON'T WRITE THE STORIES that you mentioned in your previous round of answering questions.

Face it. PETER ACTED OUT OF CHARACTER BECAUSE OF EDITORIAL MANDATE. To say that he acted out of heroism when the story presented his REAL reason for (uncharacteristically) taking the deal is ridiculously laughable. Really, who do you think you're kidding?

Oh, and marriage is intangible? That a fact, now? By that logic, I suppose family ties are intangible, too. A shame, since Aunt May is only related to Peter by family ties, not by blood. A life for a relationship, then? How about the life of Aunt May for the life of Baby May? Baby May didn't die, they still had her despite not being married? An illegitimate child, you say? Do you really want to go there while maintaining the company stand that nothing changed except the marriage?

On the reckless comment about Jesus, how is making fun of Him fair? The comparison isn't even close, and is even more remotely concerned with the topic. Anyone who's known Jesus can tell that the guy clearly didn't know what he was talking about. Then again, he's not the first one on this page.

Posted by rrargh on 2008-10-13 21:54:01
"Who among us would condemn their own Mother to death to preserve an intangible? Would you? Really?"
Tom, I'd condemn my own mother for a twinky. For a hot red-head would be a no-brainer.
But I still like the brain-trust and the stories they're making.

Posted by doncorswhazie on 2008-10-13 22:31:28
"Why did Peter, who lived through the guilt of Uncle Ben's death all those years, suddenly have a change of heart regarding Aunt May's situation?"

Yes, he lived through it... and was miserable. He thinks about it every day, and the guilt of it weighs on him ALL the TIME. It does not seem out of character to me that he would try to avoid that happening all over again with his OTHER parental figure.

Perhaps it is selfish, not wanting the guilt of someone's death on your conscience... but that is not out of character, either. In House of M, Spider-Man's deep desire that was granted? Uncle Ben is still alive, and he is a carefree celebrity rather than a hero. He wishes he had NOT had to choose doing what was right in order to help others. It's a heavy burden.

This is a character whose whole core is about choosing between what would make him happy and what is best for others, and typically speaking, he chooses to help others at his own expense. I think it is arguable that he did that here, as well. He sacrificed something that caused him happiness so that another person could live... and so that he would not sit there in his marriage for the rest of his life, thinking "This marriage had better be good, or Aunt May died for nothing." Can you imagine that sort of pressure being on your relationship? If my wife let her parent DIE so that our relationship could continue... that would feel awful. I cannot imagine that much guilt, and I would never want to put that uch guilt or pressure on my wife.

Thankfully, I doubt this will ever come up.

Posted by Jordan D. White on 2008-10-13 22:32:47
"Can you please remove the post that compares a
comic book to "a cross between Jesus and a PB&J sandwich"?"

I'm sure Tom will do that right after you get done growing a healthy sense of humor. ;)

Posted by Dr. Chaos on 2008-10-13 22:51:40
Jordan D. White
That's the most lucid and compelling defense of The Deal I've read yet. Thanks.

So, what about Tom's other question? What DOES Brand New Day stand for? As much as I like some of it, and really enjoy NWTD, it doesn't seem to stand for very much. It returned recurring characters (Peter, May, Harry) to status quo situations while drafting a central narrative (the mayoral race, the rise of Mr.Negative) and rogue's gallery that could have just as easily been written at any point in the book's history. Although I didn't buy JMS' Spidey there was plenty that was New and shocking about it, but I agree that Pete and May's relationship was the better for it. A truly Brand New Day could have been anything. A new status quo, a new artistic direction, a new job (I thought Pete would make a great forensics analyst working both sides of the law a la Dexter) but it's been mostly more of the same while feeling a little bit less.

Posted by hamgravy on 2008-10-14 00:20:35
HiddenVorlon beat me to it...
and I couldn't have said it more plainly and bluntly.

On the subject of Peter's "heroism" in OMD, might I remind you deluded people to re-read your copies. Peter couldn't bear to live with the fact that Aunt May died BECAUSE IT WAS HIS FAULT! That's not heroism at all, but GUILT, PLAIN AND SELFISH.

Not quite like the Peter we read about in Amazing Fantasy 15, huh? THAT SAME PETER WHO BORE THE GUILT OF HIS UNCLE'S DEATH EVER SINCE had nevertheless lived with the consequences and grown up to the man he had become.

Now, I ask you, why the sudden change in character? Why did Peter, who lived through the guilt of Uncle Ben's death all those years, suddenly have a change of heart regarding Aunt May's situation? I point you to the EXCEPTION to the general rule that EDITORS DON'T WRITE THE STORIES that you mentioned in your previous round of answering questions.

Face it. PETER ACTED OUT OF CHARACTER BECAUSE OF EDITORIAL MANDATE. To say that he acted out of heroism when the story presented his REAL reason for (uncharacteristically) taking the deal is ridiculously laughable. Really, who do you think you're kidding?

Oh, and marriage is intangible? That a fact, now? By that logic, I suppose family ties are intangible, too. A shame, since Aunt May is only related to Peter by family ties, not by blood. A life for a relationship, then? How about the life of Aunt May for the life of Baby May? Baby May didn't die, they still had her despite not being married? An illegitimate child, you say? Do you really want to go there while maintaining the company stand that nothing changed except the marriage?

On the reckless comment about Jesus, how is making fun of Him fair? The comparison isn't even close, and is even more remotely concerned with the topic. Anyone who's known Jesus can tell that the guy clearly didn't know what he was talking about. Then again, he's not the first one on this page.

Posted by rrargh on 2008-10-14 00:54:22
Spidergirl
Why are you droping Spidergirl? It's the only Spider comic I even enjoy anymore. It's not like it breaks your budget with the millions you make in the Movie sector.

Posted by IGorean on 2008-10-14 01:08:23
Spidergirl
Well, can't seem to see my first try. Anyhow, it's a shame that Spidergirl is being cancled, since it's the only Spider title I enjoy anymore. Honestly, it's not going to break the bank considering the millions the movie side makes.

Posted by IGorean on 2008-10-14 01:11:36
Oops
There it is..musta been some kind of delay. Sorry about that.

Posted by IGorean on 2008-10-14 01:12:49
whoa, sorry about that double post...
no idea why that came about. Anyway, to answer Jordan's post...

Yes, he lived through it... and was miserable. He thinks about it every day, and the guilt of it weighs on him ALL the TIME. It does not seem out of character to me that he would try to avoid that happening all over again with his OTHER parental figure."

Can you imagine Uncle Ben teaching him this? "With great power comes great responsibility, but if the guilt is too much to bear, avoid it like the plague! Obtain ultimate power and forget responsibility!"

"He sacrificed something that caused him happiness SO THAT ANOTHER PERSON COULD LIVE... "

See, that's something we both agree on as characteristic of Peter. That's "with great power comes great responsibility" talking. THAT is his CORE, not "choosing between what would make him happy and what is best for others", something some people contend with daily. But see, with Peter, he already made up his mind to choose the latter, as consistent with his CORE.

Now, to paraphrase from OMD part 4:

"I don't want Aunt May to die, because If I let her die, I wouldn't be able to live with the fact that it would be MY FAULT!"

SINCE WHEN DID SAVING A PERSON'S LIFE BECOME AN ISSUE ALL ABOUT HIMSELF?

See, I can accept that Peter wanted to save Aunt May's life at any cost. But to put that as the PREVAILING MOTIVE? And make no mistake, it was clearly stated in the book. That is what I cannot accept.

It is uncharacteristically selfish of Peter, and untrue to his CORE.

But apparently, it was necessary because a certain editor-in-chief removed any other means to revive May, thus forcing Peter to uncharacteristically deal with Mephisto, and betray his CORE.

It all boils down to editors writing stories, doesn't it?

And BND is built on this? Sorry, but I'll pass.

Posted by rrargh on 2008-10-14 01:32:35
A cowardly character
Why do you get so much feedback on this? Your even saying the burnout on this will be for a COUPLE of years. This is a lot bigger than Green Lanter, as Spider-Man is Marvel's biggest character. One More Day showed that at the end of the day, Marvel is not a progressive company, they can't have their characters evolve.

I must say, for awhile, I thought Marvel was really going places. A new Captain America, Planet Hulk, and a black costume Spider-Man. Marvel was a pretty good place to be. Now Hulk is inexplicably back to "Hulk Smash", and Spider-Man is revealed to be a coward. I can't buy the comics anymore, as whenever I see the character now, I see a character who traded in his true love for someone (who told him in a separate comic at the same time I might add) that WANTED to die.

Can't his wife be a plot device? Can't the character grow organically? I thought change was good. What would Stan do back in the day? Oh yeah, the character would evolve. Now they are designed to sell toys and toilet paper.

I have to give you props for speaking out on this, and taking the time to speak personally with the fans. One More Day was terrible. The trust that many fans had in marvel was raped.

You've lost a reader on Spider-Man (until they fix this). I'll continue to enjoy other titles that actually enjoy some kind of change (Punisher MAX, and Captain America). I appreciate your candor on this though, and will continue to actively read your blog.

Posted by tallant85 on 2008-10-14 01:51:26
At the end of the day...
It all boils down to this. Everyone think about it... if Aunt May had been awake at the time that Peter was considering or making the deal with Mesie, what do you think she would have said?

Cause if you think she would have agreed with him, you are a very sick person.

Posted by Derek Metaltron on 2008-10-14 04:08:17
Alright, about that whole "is it stupid" thin
Going back to the pre-OMD status quo wouldn't be stupid.

When you're writing for a neverending book like Spider-Man, it is never wise to do things that you cannot undo. It's easy to write a story in which Batman kills the Joker. But unless you have a very good way of undoing it, why would you want to do that? All you'd do would be to deprive yourself of one of your most important characters.

When Marvel married Peter and MJ, they didn't have a plan in place to undo the whole thing.
And it doesn't matter if you liked the marriage or not, it couldn't be the status quo forever. Now I guess you'll give me examples of stories to tell with the marriage in place. A small percentage of them might even be original. But they couldn't last forever. At one point, the only way to tell new stories would be to introduce other un-undoable elements, like letting them have a child or killing off MJ.
You see, the thing is, comic books weren't made to entertain the same group of people for decades. People grow out of them, a new generation of readers comes in. By writing for the existing readership exclusively, you alienate potential new readers. But the existing readership can't buy the book forever. And if we continued on the pre-OMD course, there might now have been a Spider-Man comic series at all in 2080 or so.
Now I don't know how you feel, but I'd like my grandkids and great-grandkids to read Spider-Man.

So the only way of ensuring the future of the franchise was to undo the undoable. Going back to the pre-OMD status quo wouldn't be stupid, it would be insanely selfish.

Posted by Michael Heide on 2008-10-14 04:40:07
Yeah....
...because I'm sure your kids and grandkids will have no problem reading about a selfish, ageless man living with his 943 year old Aunt who is ok with making deals with evil incarnate.

Going back to Pre-OMD time is not selfish, it is essential to continue the survival of Spidey comics everywhere.

Posted by Derek Metaltron on 2008-10-14 04:48:31
The ONLY way? Really?
"So the only way of ensuring the future of the franchise was to undo the undoable. Going back to the pre-OMD status quo wouldn't be stupid, it would be insanely selfish."

The ONLY way? Really?

From what I've read and seen on the boards, the previews, and a couple of issues, the first six months of BND featured rehashed stories, plotlines, and even villains! Half a year, thrice the amount of issues, and nothing to brag about, nothing to justify the need for change, while alienated fans leave, and sales plummet, "ensuring the future of the franchise". If anything, OMD/BND just brought about unneeded complications, so much so that the writers couldn't even capitalize on the implications of the new status quo (after all, what's there to build on?).

Nay, I say HIRE BETTER WRITERS! Poor writing bogged down the marriage before JMS, and poor writing is bogging BND down as well. A truly good writer can take what's given (marriage or no), run with it, and STILL produce quality stories! A truly cognizant writer would do away with the mess spawned by OMD/BND, and explore the possible stories left hanging at the end of Civil War. At least Hulk had World War Hulk to conclude his adventures from Sakaar, regardless of the ending. Compared to that, OMD/BND just reeks.

Posted by rrargh on 2008-10-14 05:28:47
why don't you trust Tom?
I don't understand why so many of you insist that Tom must be lying about sales figures. Unless you have direct access to Marvel's systems you can't possibly have accurate sales information, even if you do have access to systems like BookScan. It seems so pretentious to argue that you know the industry better than the industry itself.

Posted by Zelda on 2008-10-14 08:41:26
"What is all "Brand new Day" stands for?"

I think for many of us, it stands for the idea that Marvel has eliminated the ongoing soap opera concept of Spider-Man, and has established that anytime editorial decides that it doesn't like what a previous regime has established, it can resort to a DC-style cosmic reboot. Previously, if you wanted to make a major change to the Spider-Man status quo, it had to be within the bounds of that ongoing soap opera. This precedent tosses that out the window and makes the series less "real"; makes the things that happen in it matter less, since it's now been established that they can be overturned so easily.

"there was absolutely no overwhelming need to bring Hal back at the point where DC did so. The readership had by-and-large accepted Kyle Rayner as Green Lantern--to the point where the Kyle version of the character had started turning up in licensing and media. That change-back was one of personal choice--somebody over at DC liked Hal better as a character and thought that he gave the series more potential long-term than Kyle. But there wasn't any great impel to switch back, all of the sturm und drang of the readership had long since died down and gone away."

The ferocity of the HEAT days had died down, but there was clearly still strong nostalgia for Hal Jordan, and few people were satisfied with how he'd been written out. If there hadn't been that level of demand for Hal's return, it wouldn't have been the sales event that it was.

"Bringing Hal back, though, didn't mire the series in an untenable status quo the way restoring the Spidey marriage would--so there'd need to be some overwhelmingly mighty impel to make that happen again going forward.)"

But again, you're assuming that everyone thinks, and always will think, the way you do. The people in charge ten years from now may not agree that the marriage is an "untenable status quo". They may have grown up reading 20 years of married stories and have a very different view of the character than you, who grew up in a different era. Is it really that hard to conceive that your view of the character may not the be-all, end-all, and that someone else with a different perspective might find a wealth of compelling stories to mine where you didn't?

Posted by CylverSaber on 2008-10-14 09:46:33
rrargh (fitting username, by the way) wrote:
"The ONLY way? Really?"

***

Yes.

Really.

By letting Peter finish High School all those years ago, Spider-Man was put on a slippery slope. You cannot age fictional characters unless you're writing a finite series with an ending in sight (like the Harry Potter books). If you're writing an infinite series about the same characters, the status quo should remain the same, more or less (Over in Springfield, characters like Lionel Hutz or Bleeding Gums Murphy might die, but Lisa is still in second grade, and Maggie will never grow older). Imagine how the Peanuts would be like if Charlie Brown grew up and Snoopy eventually died of old age. Yeah, that'd be a fun read for sure. And it's the same with Spider-Man. You can't keep pushing him forward, because the only possible ending scenario is death. I don't think new readers are interested in a septuagenarian wallcrawler. But if you keep aging him, that's the inevitable scenario.
So, yes, the only way of preventing that is to stop the aging, maybe reversing it for a bit. So instead of a married school-teacher in his mid-thirties, Pete is a twenty-something again, single and making photos of Spider-Man for a newspaper. And if the next writers can resist aging Peter again, then the "death of old age" scenario is prevented.

Alright, with that out of the way, let's face that other problem you have. You say that Spider-Man needs better writers.

Well, the line "From what I've read and seen on the boards, the previews, and a couple of issues..." pretty much disqualifies most of your rating of the writers. All of this second-hand "I read that this sucks, so it must suck"-drivel doesn't make much sense. Either you read the books, or you just don't have the right to have an opinion about them.

Yes, there have been new villains with parallels to classic antagonists. So what? You complain about classic elements like they are a bad thing. After several years of organic web-shooters, it was refreshing to see Peter go out of web-fluid again. And after the first two months, that problem hasn't reappeared, IIRC.

Nothing to brag about? Haven't you rea... oh right, you haven't.

The writing team has managed to make characters like Eddie Brock or Hammerhead cool again (I mean, Hammerhead, for peanut butter's sake! Hammerhead is a great character!). They introduced new characters like Screwball and Paper Doll. They moved the Daily Bugle vs Spider-Man feud to another stage. They gave Peter a Spider-Man hating cop as a roommate. They reinvigorated Pete's supporting cast.

Could some of those stories have been told with the marriage in place? Yeah, probably. But then Pete would still have that Sword of Damocles called "aging" over his head. The marriage was a dead end. Eventually, the only stories left to tell would have aged the characters even more. A child? Yeah, that could give you about two, three years worth of stories before you have to age the child, and the parents along with it. Infidelity? Yeah, right. As if Marvel would let you touch that one... Divorce? Without infidelity, a divorce wouldn't be very credible. Besides, it wouldn't really make the characters younger. And death? That leads us back to the Joker example in my previous post. Why would you kill a character like Mary Jane? It robs you of possible stories in the future - and makes Peter Parker a widower, which isn't all that relatable. The goal is to make Peter a timeless character again, not to age him even more. Because aging him can only lead to... (everybody now, sing along) death.

Posted by Michael Heide on 2008-10-14 10:03:13
First, Thank you Tom!
These Q&A sessions have actually done quite a bit to sate my previous dislike for BND. The more I listened to your answers and kept my mind open to the reasons behind BND, the less I disliked it, to where now I may end up buying the NWTD stories and possibly renewing the subscription I let run out.

So thank you.

To Michael Heide, your post was spot on and comical. As a previous hater of BND, I felt you had really nailed the points that needed driven home perfectly. Pete had been aged too much, and it was inevitable that he be written younger again.

And to the posters who feel that this disqualifies Spider-Girl in some way... How? The MC2 universe is an alternate future timeline. We all know that changes in 616 continuity don't affect the alternate future timelines. Spider Girl was not killed in 616, as she never existed. We see a glimpse into the possible future where they did indeed have a daughter... But Old Man Logan shows us one where he has had 3 wives and his grand-daughter is the daughter of one of Petes daughters and Hawkeye... So saying that he never married that third wife cheated his grand-daughter out of existence doesn't fly, why should the Spider-Girl thing?

And as for the PB&J thing... Really people? lol.

Someone crossed their two apparent favorite things in life, PB&J and Jesus, to describe how great they feel the comic is. That's it! Not some kind of insult to Jesus, not a comparison between PB&J and Jesus.... Just someone saying that it's as great as PB&J crossed with Jesus.



Posted by whos_the_champ on 2008-10-14 11:31:03
This is cool
Thanks for this Tom. Real good of you.

Are we still able to ask questions? If so:

Hypothetically speaking, if you were going to go about reversing OMD, how would you go about it? Not suggesting that you do it, but i'd be interested to know how you would

Posted by jenius on 2008-10-14 13:08:29
The ONLY way? Really?
"So the only way of ensuring the future of the franchise was to undo the undoable. Going back to the pre-OMD status quo wouldn't be stupid, it would be insanely selfish."

The ONLY way? Really?

From what I've read and seen on the boards, the previews, and a couple of issues, the first six months of BND featured rehashed stories, plotlines, and even villains! Half a year, thrice the amount of issues, and nothing to brag about, nothing to justify the need for change, while alienated fans leave, and sales plummet, "ensuring the future of the franchise". If anything, OMD/BND just brought about unneeded complications, so much so that the writers couldn't even capitalize on the implications of the new status quo (after all, what's there to build on?).

Nay, I say HIRE BETTER WRITERS! Poor writing bogged down the marriage before JMS, and poor writing is bogging BND down as well. A truly good writer can take what's given (marriage or no), run with it, and STILL produce quality stories! A truly cognizant writer would do away with the mess spawned by OMD/BND, and explore the possible stories left hanging at the end of Civil War. At least Hulk had World War Hulk to conclude his adventures from Sakaar, regardless of the ending. Compared to that, OMD/BND just reeks.

Posted by rrargh on 2008-10-14 20:27:15
Hey, Michael Heide
First of all, I didn't comment on your username. The moment you go down that path, this is no longer a debate, but mudslinging and name-calling. So, before your unwelcome sarcasm drives you to condescendingly dismiss me for my alleged lack of right to an opinion...

I did read OMD, and was disgusted. After reading the JQ interviews, I decided to try the first issue of BND, and was offended by the cussing. Never mind that other characters were saying it. This was a Spidey book! And mind you, in that issue, Peter chose not to chase a mugger as Spidey because he cared more to not give Jonah money from the eventual pictures he would take of Spidey foiling a crime. THE LAST TIME HE THOUGHT THIS SELFISHLY, HIS UNCLE DIED! Now, is that a way to start a brand new day, by completely going against how Spidey became a hero in the first place?

Then I read the first Freak issue, just to see if I was wrong. To elicit a few chuckles, they had Spidey rip the butt part of his costume for all to see. Now, they're resorting to toilet humor? Really?

THIS ISN'T THE SIMPSONS, PEANUTS, OR ARCHIE. THIS IS SPIDER-MAN! A character in the same universe as the X-MEN (grew up, some got married, died, unfortunately came back), AVENGERS (some got married, died, unfortunately came back), FANTASTIC FOUR (got married, divorced? I dunno), the HULK (married and widowed twice, has a son), even NOVA (graduated from the New Warriors, grew up, now a troop leader in space or something). He's in par with SUPERMAN (got married, possibly due to the positive reception of Spidey's marriage, that a married superhero can actually work) and BATMAN (two Robins dead, "aging" the character, but unfortunately they came back, has a son, though I dunno what happened to him). Surely DC plans for the longevity of two of their most recognizable comic-book characters, but it doesn't stop them from telling stories about a married Superman or a bereaved Batman with progeny.

By your logic, if you want to regress Spidey, then regress them all! Have Nova come back to Earth and join a superhero boy-band! After all, they should think about the longevity of the character, right? I'd hate to be the one to tell the Nova fans that the series they're following is nearly at an end.

JMS made Spidey worth reading again. Sure, some of his ideas were way out there, but they were truly innovative ideas that added to the Spidey mythos. Honestly, who before him tried to explore whether there was a mystical side to Spidey's powers? That in itself is a landmark! THAT'S GOOD WRITING! That's what I'd pay for.

I wouldn't waste any more of my money on The Archie Spider-Man. Would you?

Posted by rrargh on 2008-10-14 21:21:44
Whatever
You say, "Based on AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #545, the deal was supposed to screw God out of Peter and Mary Jane’s union."

Oh... OK. The whole "Screw God" concept is MUCH LESS OFFENSIVE than smoking. Whatever.

Get a clue. This is crap.

Posted by HiddenVorlon on 2008-10-14 22:57:57
T. Is Mutant Zero, Sara Grey?

Posted by thomas more on 2008-10-14 23:23:53
Tom
I for one can promise you I will start reading Spider-man again if you undo OMD and I'm sure many other readers would as well.



Posted by megamile15 on 2008-10-15 01:21:08
Alright, maybe I shouldn't have commented on your username, I'll give you that. But I didn't dismiss your opinion about Spider-Man because of that name. I dismissed your opinion about the writers because you wrote that you didn't read the majority of the issues.

I didn't know yesterday that you had read Amazing Spider-Man #546 and 552. I suspected that you had read One More Day and didn't like it, but to be honest: I didn't like that story either. On the other hand, I still think that the changes it brought were necessary changes.

I just skimmed over #546, and Jameson's "Dirtbag" and "Backstabbing Weasel" comments aside, pretty much every cussword in #546 was @#%ed out, as has been the standard for years. I can't see more cussing in Brand New Day than in other modern books on the stands, or in pre-OMD Spider-Man comics.

Oh, and there seems to be a misunderstanding: Peter DID follow that mugger, just not in his Spider-Man dress. Which makes sense, because Spider-Man is a wanted criminal for not supporting the Superhero Registration Act. So, yeah, the only thing the costume would do would be to provoke a confrontation with the police or even S.H.I.E.L.D., both of which would only help selling copies of the Bugle, none of which would benefit Peter in his situation. So he decides to follow the mugger in his civilian clothes. He confronts him, the mugger runs away, Pete loses him in the F.E.A.S.T. shelter, but not before he hits the guy with a Spider-Tracer.

I don't see how that can be read as dodging his responsibility. It was anything but selfish. If anything, he put himself at risk.

I'll give you the ripped pants in #551, though. That was a low point of the new run (even if the shredded pants became important later on), at least in my opinion. However, that one scene of low-brow humor wasn't enough to make me drop the book.

And I don't see why Spider-Man should be treated differently than the Simpsons, Peanuts or Archie. With the exception of the Peanuts (which sadly died along with their creator, but are still successful in reprint collections), all three of those franchises still produce successful new material. And yes, some of the X-Men have aged. Yes, some of the Fantastic Four have aged. But Marvel hit the brakes on those books years ago. Franklin and Valeria don't age anymore. Neither do Karma's kids. And if Cable hadn't been raised in the future, he would still be a little boy. And judging by Marvel's sliding timescale, I'd say that Skaar isn't older than six months, which hardly ages the Hulk.
And yes, it was important that Marvel slammed on the brakes for all of those books. Because just like Spidey, the characters can't age forever. Old Man Logan might be interesting for a single storyline in an alternate future, but would you really like something like that to be ongoing status quo? If you don't stop aging the characters, eventually the only story left to tell will be death of old age.

And to use Superman and Batman as examples isn't really fair, since DC is known for resetting continuity at a whim every couple of years. In fact, with all of the "imaginary stories" they had before the Crisis, continuity had been very loose anyway. Writing the Kent marriage out of the book is a matter of three panels.

+++

Panel One.
Exterior shot of the Daily Planet building, Bird's POV. Mxyzptlk is hovering over the Daily Planet globe. He's in the lotus position and scratches his head.

Caption:
Hmmm... How will I annoy that Super-nuisance today?

Caption:
Ah, I know. I'll just rewind the clock. That way, he will forget that he has ever met me.

Caption:
Hehehe.

Panel 2:
Mxyzptlk makes weird gestures and a funny face, the background consists of colorful dots, nothing more.

No copy.

Panel 3:
Interior shot, offices of the Daily Planet, Lois Lane's cubicle, she is sitting at her desk. Clark Kent enters from the left, holding a briefcase and waving his hand.

Clark Kent:
Hi, my name is Kent. This is my first day here. Can you tell me where I can find the office of a... uh... Mr. P. White?

+++
Superman, Lois Lane, Mxyzptlk and Perry White are trademarks and copyrighted by DC Comics, a subsidiary of AOL Time Warner.
+++

And that's it. Stranger things have happened in DC comic books.

Yes, I'd like to make most of Marvel's characters appear younger than they are to a certain point to prevent them from aging even further. In most cases, that has already happened. Cyclops, Wolverine, Bruce Banner, Hank Pym, Harry Osborn and other characters are single again. The children of Colossus', the Parkers, Jean Grey or Charles Xavier have never been heard from again.

But that doesn't mean that the heroes' adventures never happened or that they have to be regressed to high school. Let Nova stay in space with the Green Lantern Corps, for all I care. As long as he doesn't grow a beard and become a great-grandfather.

And if Spider-Man was worth reading only because of Joe Straczynski, then I suggest you follow him to Thor, The Twelve or his upcoming run of The Brave and the Bold. I liked most of Paul Jenkins' issues. A large part of Howard Mackie's stuff. John Byrne, J.M. DeMatteis, Todd DeZago, Tom DeFalco, Dan Jurgens, David Michelinie, Peter David, Roger Stern, Marv Wolfman, Roy Thomas, Stan Lee and all the other writers made Spider-Man worth reading. Sure, none of them were perfect, but Spider-Man has been worth reading for over 45 years. I liked the Straczynski run (even though I prefer the first half), but it was never the be-all, end-all of Spider-Man stories. And yes, I would spend money on what you call "The Archie Spider-Man". And I wouldn't consider it a waste. Because the alternative is a Spider-Man that grows older than Adrian Toomes.

The only fans who want Spider-Man to age are those that want him to age along with them. I marry, oh, and look, he marries as well. I get a son, and he gets a daughter. I retire, and he shoots his web out of his walker. I die, so does he, and my great-children don't get any new Spider-Man stories.

I don't want that to happen.

Posted by Michael Heide on 2008-10-15 08:05:13
Mr. Heide
I completely disagree with the aging comment from your last full paragraph.

I started reading at the age of 9 or so, and Peter Parker was already married with his "Webs" book out and still freelancing for photos while working in the labs at ESU.

I'm 27 now and within those 18 years Peter and Mary Jane got pregnant, miscarried, separated, and got back together.

Personally, I have done know of those things. My personal life at this time is more in line with Peter from 1980-1987, before his marriage.

Let me be clear, I want this character to age because, generally speaking, this makes him more human and more identifiable.

The specifics as to how he ages or what he does with his life is less material to what makes this character more human. I wouldn't expect for him to age at the same pace as me. It took him a decade to get through high school and another decade or so to finish college. Its unreasonable and unrealistic to expect this character to age with me.

If "Reign" is the end of Spider-man, I would reasonably expect that to happen decades after I pass away (hopefully several decades from today).

We want as personified a human who was bit by a radioactive spider can be.

Less obfuscation, more constructive criticism

Make mine mutha lovahs.

Posted by coolhanddave on 2008-10-15 14:04:19
Hey Michael,

I am one of those fans who wants Spider-Man (and all of the other Marvel characters) to age with me. You know why? Because that is the storytelling engine created by Stan Lee. These are "real" characters who age SLOWLY over time. I want all the characters to be the sum of their experiences. Also, there is nothing that prevents Marvel from having multiple versions of a character. Just imagine a book with an older, married Spider-man, and another book that feature a younger, single one. Oh...wait...we had that before OMD...my bad. For your great-children, as you called them, the same thing applies. Right now there are several different versions floating around. Why wouldn't these be here when they come into comics?


Posted by rebeldragon on 2008-10-15 14:24:01
Marvel vs DC
Marvel is so better than DC i have almost all the marvel comics i know some people are new to marvel but i am 12 years old and i know everything about

Posted by Marvel comix on 2008-10-16 16:45:39
Thank you , Michael Heide...
... for turning in a much more favorable response. Regarding your last paragraph...

I'm not one of those who think Spidey should age as we age and die as we die. That's kinda possessive.

Fifty or even a hundred years from now (assuming I live that long), I don't expect to read stories about Grandpa Spidey. I'm not at all worried that there will inevitably be no other stories about Spidey to read than those of him misplacing his dentures. In my honest opinion, THAT'S THE WRITER'S PROBLEM. OR IN THE CASE OF A GOOD WRITER, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL! THEREIN LIES THE CHALLENGE of how a good writer can still tell progressive stories WITHOUT resorting to deus ex machina.

That goes for cuss words, too. Seeing @&%$ on the page just reads, "Insert favorite expletive here." Even the moderators here tell us that if we can find a way to censor foul language, we can find a way to write without it.

Get it? You don't have to worry about running out of stories of thirty-something Spidey (marriage or no, dead aunt or no) if you're confident that the character is in the hands of a GOOD WRITER.

For me, OMD/BND obliterated that confidence.

Oh, and Tom, or whoever cleaned up my double-posts, thank you! I honestly have no idea how that happens. Hopefully you won't have to do that again with this post. :)

Posted by rrargh on 2008-10-16 22:19:52
rrargh I love and agree with pretty muche verything you have written. I have several problems with both OMD and BND one of whihc is the regression of the character. It feels like TPTB have some arrested development of their own and think that stories form the 60s and 70s need to be done over again. What amde Spidey (and pretty much every Marvel book) great and better than the others was the character growth which includes some very slow aging. Graduating dating, even amrriages and deaths. I wnat ot see SOME semblance of continuity. It doesn't have to be perfect. That's near impossible with the sheer amount of material featuring the character) but some growth is wanted and to be hoenst, expected since the early days when Stan et al started things by having characters graduate, marry etc.

As others have said what Aunt May does accoring to you Tom is what MJ did and could do when done properly. Be a foil in his Spidey vs Peter lives. Having her reduced to "Aunt May is sick but Rhino is attacking" is just a tired, tired re-tread of stories done 40 years ago. She deserves better than that and got it when JMS was writing her a s a smart woman who knew who Spidey was and was a useful member of his supporting cast.

Speaking of which being married didn't whittle away the supporting cast: the writers and eidtors did. You don't need to be single to have co-workers, friends and frenemies.

Posted by coconutphone on 2008-10-18 15:05:55