My envy as a Spider-Man fan over the quality of the best comic book story of the last decade led me to ponder the best Spider-Man stories, especially when considering the wisdom of recent changes.
Peter Parker’s probably the best character in comics. Excellent writers (Stan Lee, Gerry Conway, Roger Stern, JM Dematteis, Brian Michael Bendis, Paul Jenkins, Dan Slott, Peter David, etc) have worked with some of the most talented artists the medium has ever seen (Steve Ditko, John Romita‑ either one, Todd Mcfarlane, Mark Bagley, Ross Andru, Gil Kane, etc) to produce their best work on the character in a few of the greatest comic book stories ever. Given the quality of the character, I’m still left with one question: Why aren’t there more great Spider‑Man stories? Why don’t we have any Spider‑Man stories produced in the last generation as acclaimed as the absolute best of Batman?
The pre “One More Day” Spider‑Man books were good, but could have been better, especially when compared to Captain America or All‑Star Superman. It’s odd that the best Spider‑Man stories haven’t been topped in 20+ years, which is a damn shame given the quality of the best books produced today. In the last twenty years, I don’t think anyone has done a Spider‑Man story as good as Amazing Fantasy #15, or the Master‑Planner three parter. This is disappointing.
I hoped that a good relaunch should eventually result in stories better than “The Night Gwen Stacy Died,” “Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut," "The Kid Who Collected Spider‑Man" and the supposedly outdated Lee/ Ditko tales. It hasn't quite happened yet (despite the awesomeness of some of the post-OMD stories) but I remain optimistic. Perhaps I overrate the classics, or it could just be a matter of the old great Spider‑Man stories being better than any pre-Miller Batman stories I’m aware of, but I haven’t seen any Spider‑Man stories published in my lifetime which are arguably better than The Dark Knight Returns, Batman: Year One or The Killing Joke, even if Kraven’s Last Hunt (which came out more than twenty years ago) and Bendis’s first year on Ultimate Spider‑Man (not exactly the adventures of a married Spider‑Man) come somewhat close.
This isn’t a problem with other superhero franchises. The acknowledged best Superman stories were written after Roger Stern left Amazing Spider‑Man including “For the Man Who Has Everything,” The Man For All Seasons, All‑Star Superman, Kingdom Come, John Byrne’s Supergirl saga, “Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?” and “What’s so Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way?” The usual Top Five Batman stories list includes material published since Stern left ASM (Year One, The Dark Knight Returns, the Killing Joke, the Long Halloween, Arkham Asylum.) Captain America has Earth X, The Winter Soldier arc and The Ultimates, in addition to his excellent appearance in Daredevil: Born Again. The Avengers have both volumes of The Ultimates, Ultron Unlimited and the Avengers Forever mini‑series.
While pondering the question of why Spider‑Man hasn’t had an All‑Star Superman a few years ago, I came to the conclusion that even though Spider‑Man has been married in the comics, the majority of great recent Spider‑Man stories feature a single Spider‑Man, either existing in worlds in which Peter and MJ weren't married, as Untold Tales, or during the periods in which Peter and MJ were briefly separated or MJ was believed dead. If it’s not just an odd coincidence, or a matter of less opportunities to tell stories with a single Spider‑Man resulting in better writers getting the chance to tell those stories, you’re left with one of two possibilities. Either better writers are drawn to stories with a single Spider‑Man, or Peter Parker being single allows the writers to tell better stories. If either is true, I reasoned that erasing the marriage should increase the percentage of upcoming acclaimed Spider‑Man stories.
Examples of great recent pre-OMD stories (in the years before One More Day) with an unmarried Peter Parker include the best of Ultimate Spider‑Man, the first two Spider‑Man Movies, most of Spider‑Man: Blue (with the exception of the last three pages), the first four issues of Dan Slott’s Spider‑Man/ Human Torch mini series, Darwyn Cooke's Valentines Day Tangled Web, Lee Weeks’ Death and Destiny mini series, Joe Kelly’s prom story in Webspinners, Negative Exposure, Dematteis and John Romita Sr’s “The Kiss” and even Kaare Andrew’s alternate future tale Reign. Going back a few years, you could add Busiek’s Amazing Fantasy mini‑series and the best of Untold Tales of Spider‑Man to the list.
One time there was a disproportionate amount of great Spider‑Man stories was when when Mary Jane was believed dead, or immediately after she moved to California, as long as Howard Mackie wasn't writing. During that period, you had Paul Jenkins's first two standalone issues, The Revenge of the Green Goblin crossover (even Mackie's issue of that was exceptional), Jenkins's Robot Master and euthanasia storyline, his Fusion three‑parter, Straczynski’s first nine issues of Amazing Spider‑Man (with Morlun, and Aunt May learning Spider‑Man’s identity) and "Heroes Don't Cry" and the Ultimate Punisher three‑parter.
There were some excellent and beloved Spider‑Man stories since the 1998 relaunch featuring a Peter Parker married to Mary Jane, but there just weren’t as many of them. The list would include Jenkins’s last issue of Spectacular Spider‑Man, his Chameleon three‑parter in Webspinners, the fifth issue of Spider‑Man/ Human Torch, the last three pages of Spider‑Man: Blue, the Sensational Spider‑Man annual, Straczynski’s “Happy Birthday” and “Book of Ezekiel” three‑parters, Sins Past (some people loved it so I’ll include it), Mark Millar’s twelve issue stint on Marvel Knights Spider‑Man, the best of Spider‑Girl (I’d argue that the best of Ultimate Spider‑Man more than makes up for this one), the Civil War tie‑in of Amazing Spider‑Man, the Friendly Neighborhood Spider‑Man Vulture storyline, “My Science Teacher is Spider‑Man,” and Beland’s Web of Romance one‑shot. And that’s pretty much it.
While there are readers who believe that the stories listed are amongst the worst in comic book history, most of the stories I listed are fairly popular. Opinions could differ, but it's difficult to deny the success and popularity of Ultimate Spider‑Man, Spider‑Man 2 or JMS's first nine issues of Amazing Spider‑Man amongst general Spider‑Man readers. At the same time, I’ve yet to hear anyone make a convincing case for a Spider‑Man tale being as acclaimed as The Dark Knight Returns. This isn't me just defending random Spider‑Man stories I happen to like. It's a trend I notice amongst many of the most successful and acclaimed Spider‑Man stories, stories which I happen to enjoy.
As Peter and Mary Jane are married in the regular comics, there are more stories featuring that status quo, so a greater percentage of pre-OMD great Spider-Man stories should be from that period. It’s significant if there seem to be more great stories in which they are single. Spider‑Man: Blue, one story which made both lists, exemplifies the possibility that the marriage represents an ending, not a plot that can go somewhere exciting. It features Peter reminiscing about his relationship with Gwen Stacy, and ends with him happily married to Mary Jane, presumably forever. It works for a single TPB, but not for a never‑ending serial.
Some of the stories that I've mentioned don't have romantic tension, but there are other things the marriage removed. A few came from a period when Mary Jane had essentially left Peter, bringing their relationship to an uncertain place- right after Mackie's last arc. While Peter wasn't really romantically interested in anyone else at the time, there was more tension in those stories because he lacked a supportive wife to go home to when a story arc was done.
There is the question of how much any change to the status quo would contribute to good stories, and the comparison has been made between Peter’s marriage to Mary Jane and his job as a photographer for the Daily Bugle. This doesn’t work as well since the latter has been a big part of many of the best Spider‑Man stories ever, even if it was just the scrapbook of Jonah’s retractions in “The Kid Who Collects Spider‑Man.” Peter Parker working for the Daily Bugle doesn't limit the stories you can tell with him and opens up new stories, with the Bugle providing the perfect excuse to put Peter Parker in situations in which Spider‑Man is needed. His usual position as a freelance photographer also meant that he didn’t have job security, which kept the Bugle from bringing stability to his status quo. Post-OMD, he has been blacklisted from any photography positions. Presumably his marriage was more stable.
There were certainly clunkers with the single Spider‑Man, but they compare rather favorably to the worst of married Spider‑Man: "Peter Parker No More!" "Live and Let Die," the worst of the Clone Saga and post‑reboot Howard Mackie. There have been fantastic Spider‑Man writers since the marriage (JM Dematteis, Paul Jenkins, and Mark Millar immediately come to mind) so the question of why we haven’t seen Spider‑Man’s Killing Joke is not a matter of the past creative teams not being good enough. Peter’s marriage to Mary Jane and the way it limits the writers is one of the reasons the books simply weren't as good as they could be.
<<PREVIOUS NEXT >>
Showing posts with label more. Show all posts
Showing posts with label more. Show all posts
Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely's twelve-issue run of All-Star Superman is probably the best comic book of the last decade. It's when I discovered that The Dark Knight Returns can be surpassed. It made me realize I prefer Superman to Batman. And I'm kinda jealous that there isn't yet an equivalent Spider-Man story.
In a Newsarama interview, Grant Morrison explained his approach to the series, clarifying an earlier statement that the title would be his take on the Superman books if Crisis of Infinite Earths had never happened. I admit that writing this piece would be slightly easier for me if Morrison hadn't let on how his position on the matter is more nuanced than he had initially described it.
When I introduced the series in an interview online, I suggested that All Star Superman could be read as the adventures of the ‘original’ Pre-Crisis on Infinite Earths Superman, returning after 20 plus years of adventures we never got to see because we were watching John Byrne‘s New Superman on the other channel. If ‘Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?’ and the Byrne reboot had never happened, where would that guy be now?
This was more to provide a sense, probably limited and ill-considered, of what the tone of the book might be like. I never intended All Star Superman as a direct continuation of the Weisinger or Julius Schwartz-era Superman stories. The idea was always to create another new version of Superman using all my favorite elements of past stories, not something ‘Age’ specific.
I didn’t collect Superman comics until the ‘70s and I’m not interested enough in pastiche or nostalgia to spend 6 years of my life playing post-modern games with Superman. All Star isn’t written, drawn or colored to look or read like a Silver Age comic book.
All Star Superman is not intended as arch commentary on continuity or how trends in storytelling have changed over the decades. It’s not retro or meta or anything other than its own simple self; a piece of drawing and writing that is intended by its makers to capture the spirit of its subject to the best of their capabilities, wisdom and talent.
Which is to say, we wanted our Superman story be about life, not about comics or superheroes, current events or politics. It’s about how it feels, specifically to be a man...in our dreams! Hopefully that means our 12 issues are also capable of wide interpretation.
So as much as we may have used a few recognizable Silver Age elements like Van-Zee and Sylv(i)a and the Bottle City of Kandor, the ensemble Daily Planet cast embodies all the generations of Superman. Perry White is from 1940, Steve Lombard is from the Schwartz-era ‘70s, Ron Troupe - the only black man in Metropolis - appeared in 1991. Cat Grant is from 1987. And so on.
P.R.O.J.E.C.T. refers back to Jack Kirby’s DNA Project from his ‘70s Jimmy Olsen stories, as well as to The Cadmus Project from ’90s Superboy and Superman stories. Doomsday is ‘90s. Kal Kent, Solaris and the Infant Universe of Qwewq all come from my own work on Superman in the same decade. Pa Kent’s heart attack is from ‘Superman the Movie‘. We didn’t use Brainiac because he’d been the big bad in Earth 2 but if we had, we’d have used Brainiac’s Kryptonian origin from the animated series and so on.
I also used quite a few elements of John Byrne’s approach. Byrne made a lot of good decisions when he rebooted the whole franchise in 1986 and I wanted to incorporate as much as I could of those too..
Our Superman in All Star was never Superboy, for instance. All Star Superman landed on Earth as a normal, if slightly stronger and fitter infant, and only began to manifest powers in adolescence when he’d finally soaked up enough yellow solar radiation to trigger his metamorphosis.
The Byrne logic seemed to me a better way to explain how his powers had developed across the decades, from the skyscraper leaps of the early days to the speed-of-light space flight of the high Silver Age. And more importantly, it made the Superman myth more poignant - the story of a farm boy who turned into an alien as he reached adolescence. I felt that was something that really enriched Superman. He grew away from his home, his family, his adopted species as he became Superman. His teenage years are a record of his transformation from normal boy to super-being.
As you say, there are more than just Silver Age influences in the book. Basically we tried to create a perfect synthesis of every Superman era. So much so, that it should just be taken as representative of an ‘age’ all its own.
In the end, however, I do think that the Silver Age type stories, with their focus on human problems and foibles, have a much wider appeal than a lot of the work which followed. They’re more like fables or folk tales than the later ‘comic book superhero’ stories of Superman when he became just another colorful costume in the crowd...and perhaps that’s why All Star seemed to resemble those books more than it does a typical modern Marvel or DC comic. It was our intention to present a more universal, mainstream Superman.
Spider-Man is different from Superman in that there has always been one main continuity, even with all the side adaptations. It's tougher to figure out who the real Superman is. While some fans prefer the Pre-Crisis Superman, the Golden Age Superman was the original and Christopher Reeve's take on the character has influenced the public consciousness the most. Despite a few retcons and changes to the setting, the Spider-Man in the current comics is the same one who was in Amazing Fantasy #15.
The Illusion of Change allows the writers and editors to pick and choose which elements of the backstory to use. So it can be similar to what Grant Morrison did with All-Star Superman. Post-One More Day, most of the stories that occurred when Spider-Man was married can still be referenced. Which means less explanations are necessary when reconciling the backstory.
CBR's Stephane Garrelie had one of the most insightful comments about Brand New Day, suggesting that the creative team of Amazing Spider-Man was trying to accomplish something similar to the "If the Crisis of Infinite Earths never happened" take on Superman.
As long as you choose to ignore OMD, BND is a good read. As far as I'm concerned, I read it as if we got only the illusion of change since 1985. So no problem.
OMD poses some moral problems that should be adressed later, but no matter how crappy the Joe Q stuff was, or the fact that this EIC made all he could to make a reboot inavoidable during the last 7 years, that change nothing to the quality of the new stories. You can read Dan Slott's BND as if it was the Marv Wolfman or the Roger Stern Spider-man with 2008 refs. It works.Under the Illusion of Change, we would still have new villains like Venom. Roderick Kingsley would still be exposed as the Hobgoblin, minor characters like Lance Bannon could still die, and major characters like Norman Osborn could still return from the grave.
Some elements of the backstory remain tenuous. While Spider-Man has always had one core continuity, things do get complicated thanks to the sliding timescale, which means that stories written in the 1960s happened several years ago. Another factor is the effect of other media. Some of the adaptations tend to define the characters to a greater extent than the original comics.So the Brand New Day Harry Osborn might seem to be closer to James Franco's take on the character than the guy with the weird ties in comics published in the late 1960s. Because the movies, cartoons and Ultimate Spider-Man have shown it, readers could assume that the alien costume caused Spider-Man to become more aggressive, when that was never the case in the original saga. In some cases, Marvel has to deal with readers misremembering the backstory. And it's more confounding when the unofficial version might just be an improvement.
There is a Cary Bates Superman vibe from the Brand New Day/ Big Time comics, although a major distinction is that things tend to change more from issue to issue. But the transformation of the Rhino reminded me of how Lex Luthor became even angrier after he accidentally destroyed an alien world along with his wife and infant son. It's something for future writers to use at their discretion, the result of the illusion of change compromise between no issue to issue continuity and characters eventually changing in irrevocable ways. Doing it right is the way Marvel (and readers) can have it both ways.
The illusion of change works best if the readers don't know how the story is going to end, or where the characters are going to end up. One of the things that worked about One More Day is that it muddied the water about whether Peter and MJ will end up together. That provides a lot of flexibility in the future, in both the regular Spider-Man comics, and other renditions of the story.
For example, the first issue of the post-Ultimatum Ultimate Spider-Man had Peter Parker fooling around with Gwen Stacy. This did upset some readers who liked a book where Peter and MJ were a couple, especially after the events of One More Day. But it represented an advantage of getting rid of the spider-marriage in the 616 universe: the ending of the story (or this facet of it) was no longer certain. It wasn't entirely clear whether Peter and MJ would rekindle their relationship in the Ultimate comics.
This means you don't know how the new Spider-man movies are going to end. If in an upcoming film, an actress playing the Black Cat has incredible chemistry with whoever's playing Peter Parker, the Director will be better able to take advantage of that, now that no one will be able to argue that the "real" (and by this I mean, the 616 Spider-Man whose adventures have been published since Amazing Fantasy #15) is happily married in the latest Amazing Spider-Man issue, so it wouldn't be clear that the Movie Peter Parker will get back together with Movie MJ eventually.
Many readers still think that the story is guaranteed to end with Peter and Mary Jane together, but it's something that is increasingly ambiguity. While getting rid of the sense of inevitability may take more time, it's pretty much impossible if the "real" (or original or classic or whatever term you want to use) Spider-Man is happily married. The more distance we have from OMD, the less inevitable a reversion will seem.
The muddied waters also help in the Amazing Spider-Man comic book. When a plot point is resolved, there's an expectation that the characters will get to the next step. When Peter graduated high school, the understanding was that he would soon go to college. When Peter and MJ were married, there was an expectation that at some point they would have a family, and there were reasons for Marvel not to go with that approach.
One More Day muddied the water on two other developments which could have been definitive moments for the series. Harry Osborn's resurrection meant that his story wasn't guaranteed to end with a last-minute redemption, when the character died to save his best friend. The remasking meant that even the public's knowledge of Spidey's identity was a genie that could be put back in the bottle, and the ability to shut some of the monsters back into Pandora's box is crucial to the illusion of change.
<<PREVIOUS NEXT >>
While the illusion of change approach works well with a flexible status quo, it doesn't really accommodate a stable state of affairs. That represented one of the problems with the spider-marriage.
Marriage removed tension from the series, because readers knew that the relationship will survive conflicts. It also produced stability, as it was difficult to repeatedly convince readers that Peter may not have a loving supportive wife to go home to.
If “growth”isn’t an option but you want to keep the marriage, this means that the comics would have to deal with an eternally childless married couple in their late twenties. If Peter and Mary Jane have a child or find Baby May, that kid’s age will have to remain the same, which makes Peter’s adventures seem more inconsequential, although The Simpsons and Family Guy have conditioned readers to not ask questions about why cartoon babies don’t get older. There are a few problems with these approaches, beginning with the way it seems to freeze the status quo, as you know that no matter what happens Peter will eventually be comfortable in his house with his beautiful and supportive wife.
A writer can't end a story with a married Peter Parker miserable and alone, wondering if that's ever going to change, without doing something bad to Mary Jane. And most of Spider Man’s problems are somehow less significant when he had a beautiful, loving, understanding and supportive wife who he can really confide in. This limited the drama and made him seem like a jerk any time he complained about his life. It also limited the directions the writers can take the story in.
As there will be at least three issues of Spider Man a month for the foreseeable future, I don't think the marriage is the best status quo to keep all those books interesting and compelling in the years and decades to come. Fans of the marriage will maintain that any problems with making that status quo indefinitely compelling are purely the fault of the writer, leading to the “good writers” argument. A perpetually childless couple eternally in their late 20s will become uninteresting faster than a single guy eternally in his late 20s, due to the greater variety of the latter. Peter's life shouldn’t always be miserable, but it's far more interesting when it's not stable.
If “growth”isn’t an option but you want to keep the marriage, this means that the comics would have to deal with an eternally childless married couple in their late twenties. If Peter and Mary Jane have a child or find Baby May, that kid’s age will have to remain the same, which makes Peter’s adventures seem more inconsequential, although The Simpsons and Family Guy have conditioned readers to not ask questions about why cartoon babies don’t get older. There are a few problems with these approaches, beginning with the way it seems to freeze the status quo, as you know that no matter what happens Peter will eventually be comfortable in his house with his beautiful and supportive wife.
A writer can't end a story with a married Peter Parker miserable and alone, wondering if that's ever going to change, without doing something bad to Mary Jane. And most of Spider Man’s problems are somehow less significant when he had a beautiful, loving, understanding and supportive wife who he can really confide in. This limited the drama and made him seem like a jerk any time he complained about his life. It also limited the directions the writers can take the story in.
These are the reasons why it seems that the majority of potential writers prefer Peter Parker being single, a decision that has little to do with their assessment of their own talent. Some married readers may laugh at the idea that marriage brings stability, but for storytelling purposes, it ultimately does when compared to the alternative. Ask any religious leader or politician trying to protect the institution. That type of stability is good in real life, but bad in an ongoing drama, where it freezes the status quo (especially if the couple won't significantly age, have children or treat one another badly) and makes it harder for readers to believe that any developments (Mary Jane believed dead, Mary Jane goes to California) ultimately matter. Changes to an unmarried Peter Parker would matter, as readers can believe that an argument can lead to a break up and that the break up will be permanent. with potential consequences decades later. This will be more effective if the writers can make any new romantic interests as compelling as Mary Jane.
Given how strong Peter and MJ's relationship has been and the iconic status of both characters, it was difficult for writers to create problems in the relationship without making one (or both) seem unlikable. Mary Jane has the patience of a saint, so Peter can't really be pissed at her, unless she were to do astoundingly stupid, and probably uncharacteristic. Peter Parker's unreliable because of his day job, where he has objectively saved more than ten thousand people. At the same time, Mary Jane should know by now what she's been getting into, so she can't really be mad at the guy considering all the lives he saves. It is possible to give them conflicts, and make both sympathetic. But it's difficult. And it's something that has to be repeated every now and then.
A counter-argument is that not allowing marriage is also a stabilizing force, but there's more variety with that edict. Peter dealing with the aftermath of a kiss from his best friend's girl (whom he considers to be ridiculously attractive) is different from Peter dealing with the aftermath of a one-night stand with his roommate, which is different from Peter having a friends & benefits relationship with an ex who doesn't really love him, which is different from Peter slowly beginning a relationship with someone in his social circle. And so far, this involves four different romantic interests.In terms of stability, the spider-marriage was equivalent to restricting Peter to one residence (one house in New York City) or one job (a particular employer) in a permanent manner. There can be significant conflict, but the writers would be greatly handicapped. That said, there's no rule saying that he always has to be a photographer. JMS made him a High School Science teacher, followed by a job with Tony Stark. Guggenheim gave him a low-paying job in a comic book store. Zeb Wells had him take a taxi-driving exam. Mark Waid blacklisted him.
Earlier I noted that there are some advantages to having one element of the status quo anchored in a particular way. Other elements of his life (where he lives, where he works, what the supporting cast is up to) aren't stable, so the writers could explore those avenues. But there is a significant restriction when the juggler suddenly has one less ball to play with.
Spider-Man's an astoundingly versatile character, when you consider all of the settings for Peter Parker's personal life. There have been great stories with the character as a high school student, college student, Daily Bugle photographer, high school teacher and scientist. It's possible for any of these avocations to be used in a video game or film adaptation. You could compare that to characters like Batman and Superman, who tend to have much more consistency in their professional lives.
There have also been numerous romantic interests in the great Spider-Man stories, which suggests that the adaptability applies to that category as well. Betty Brant had the Master Planner saga and the first appearance of the Sinister Six. Gwen Stacy had "Spider-Man No More" and "Death and Destiny." Mary Jane had Kraven's Last Hunt and "To Have and To Hold." Black Cat had the Octopus/ Owl War and Shed. Even Carlie Cooper had "Spider Island" and "No One Dies."
Because of the character's ambidexterity, an illusion of change approach works better than a commitment to change approach. The latter ultimately closes more doors, eventually creating a more fixed version of the character. The illusion of change approach only prevents writers from telling the stories that close off opportunities for later writers.
I admit that there is a different and probably irreconcilable way to view flexibility. One can interpret it as an argument for lasting change, since the character transitioned successfully from high school student to college student to married professional and so on.
But some developments close too many doors. If Peter Parker's a married dad, there won't be further flexibility on this aspect of his life. The writers, editors and readers would be stuck with it. And as he gets older, he'll be expected to stick around longer wherever he works, so there's less versatility in the professional sphere as well.
It's likely that at some point in the future, Peter Parker will revert back to a more familiar career. It probably won't be permanent, which is a good thing. It's also likely that at some point, he'll have an entirely new occupation. With the illusion of change approach, if writers do something that turns out to not be of interest, they can reverse it quickly, and go to something else.
Writers are always free to get rid of characters they get tired of. If they don't like Aunt May, they can ship her off to Florida. Or not focus on the times Peter interacts with her when they live in the same city. If they don't like J Jonah Jameson (and who doesn't like J Jonah Jameson?) they can always have Peter Parker not interact as often with the mayor of New York City. If Harry's a part of the status quo, writers who don't like him can ship him off to rehab or Europe for their entire run.
I admit that there is a different and probably irreconcilable way to view flexibility. One can interpret it as an argument for lasting change, since the character transitioned successfully from high school student to college student to married professional and so on.
But some developments close too many doors. If Peter Parker's a married dad, there won't be further flexibility on this aspect of his life. The writers, editors and readers would be stuck with it. And as he gets older, he'll be expected to stick around longer wherever he works, so there's less versatility in the professional sphere as well.
It's likely that at some point in the future, Peter Parker will revert back to a more familiar career. It probably won't be permanent, which is a good thing. It's also likely that at some point, he'll have an entirely new occupation. With the illusion of change approach, if writers do something that turns out to not be of interest, they can reverse it quickly, and go to something else.
Writers are always free to get rid of characters they get tired of. If they don't like Aunt May, they can ship her off to Florida. Or not focus on the times Peter interacts with her when they live in the same city. If they don't like J Jonah Jameson (and who doesn't like J Jonah Jameson?) they can always have Peter Parker not interact as often with the mayor of New York City. If Harry's a part of the status quo, writers who don't like him can ship him off to rehab or Europe for their entire run.
They're far more restricted with what they could do with Spider-Man's wife. Peter will be expected to interact with her fairly often. To be fair, I don't recall writers or editors complaining about Mary Jane getting too much face time.
I see the Illusion of Change as the middle ground between the old school DC/ Archie approach and radical change, the type you usually only see in Independent comics. I recently reread Alan Moore's run of Miracleman. And a lot of stuff happened in the space of sixteen issues.
<<PREVIOUS NEXT >>
I see the Illusion of Change as the middle ground between the old school DC/ Archie approach and radical change, the type you usually only see in Independent comics. I recently reread Alan Moore's run of Miracleman. And a lot of stuff happened in the space of sixteen issues.
- The superhero's wife left him.
- There was a major suicide.
- The superhero killed his best friend.
- A child conceived during the story essentially grew up in a way that was quite different from what was anticipated.
- Thousands of civilians died in the crossfire of a superhero battle.
- The superhero found true love.
<<PREVIOUS NEXT >>
A technique called the Illusion of Change is probably the best approach for a serial like Amazing Spider‑Man. It seems to most readers as if things are happening to their favorite heroes, and it allows the writers to put the characters into new situations. But if a reader looks carefully enough (which most won’t) they’ll discover that the elements they like about the characters are being preserved and most changes can either be undone or ignored by subsequent creative teams. It’s a method that has worked for decades, a compromise between a completely stable status quo, and characters growing old and dying/ retiring.
The origins of the Illusion of Change
Some cite the early Marvel comics as having established a consistent and permanent precedent for change within the Marvel books. They expect major developments to happen to the same characters in the current comics almost (or exactly) as often as they did in the Silver Age, where Reed and Sue got married and had a kid, Bruce Banner was exposed as the Hulk after maintaining a secret identity for years, etcetera. For Spider‑Man, this meant that Peter Parker was able to graduate high school, go to college, become friends with the guy who bullied him in his first appearance, become roommates and best friends with a spoiled rich kid, meet the love of his life, become a suspect in her father’s death and watch her get murdered by his best friend’s father, who died immediately afterwards paving the way for the best friend to become his next archenemy.
The problem with this expectation was that during the Sixties, no one knew that the Marvel superhero comics, or the universe in which they existed would continue for generations. When Stan Lee wrote the silver age classics, he thought superhero books were a fad like sci‑fi comics, horror comics, western comics and romance comics, all of which were popular for a few years, and then disappeared.
As he explained in the book Comics Creators on Spider‑Man....
I was just happy that Spider‑Man has sold well enough for us to continue publishing it. Believe me, we never thought that any of the titles would last for as long as they have.When he realized that the success of Marvel comics was not just a fad, and the characters he cocreated might survive as long as Batman and Superman, Stan Lee and other Marvel figures met to determine a new editorial policy, now that they had to consider the long term fates of the characters, and the possibility that the appeal of the characters would be lost with further progressions. They realized that the continual “growth” of the characters would eventually lead to most either dying, retiring, or changing drastically from what made the characters popular in the first place. There really is no other option, save an eventual reboot of the Marvel Universe or somehow making the major characters immune to aging.
Ever since the first days of comics, the industry followed trends. There’d be the western trend and all of the publishers would rush to produce more Western titles. Romance books would suddenly become popular and all the westerns would be cancelled. A science fiction or animation trend would follow the romance books. There would be a new trend every year or two. When Fantastic Four started to sell, I just assumed that it was time for a superhero trend. I never thought that it would last more than two or three years, if that long.
They wanted to make sure that they would maintain the elements that have made the characters popular, while remembering that one of the things that made Marvel different from DC was that things happened to characters from issue to issue and the private sphere subplots mattered. The new policy would encourage the illusion of change in which the status quo appears to advance, but not in any way that closed the door to future stories. This ensured that the writers remained true to the core of the character, and did not limit the stories their successors could tell.Applications of the Illusion of Change
Marv Wolfman adhered to the Illusion of Change approach throughout his Amazing Spider‑Man run, which is why instead of killing off Aunt May, he wrote a story in which Peter Parker was told she had died, all part of an elaborate hoax. Peter Parker graduated college, but went on to a Graduate program, so they still got to tell essentially the same types of stories (Wolfman believed that the character should never be shown as finishing grad school.) A milestone “To the Death” battle occurred between Spider‑Man and his uncle’s killer, a man who hadn’t been seen since Spider‑Man’s first appearance. The story thus seemed important, without causing any permanent damage to a recurring villain or supporting character. Peter was fired from the Daily Bugle, but got a job at the Daily Globe. Peter proposed to Mary Jane, but she said no. Peter and Mary Jane broke up, but there was always the possibility they could get back together, perhaps around the time he would get his job back at the Daily Bugle. Things happened, but not in such a way that limited any future stories.
Spider‑Man joining the New Avengers was a perfect example of the illusion of change, given how easily he could be a solo superhero again. Peter Parker falling for a girl is another example, as writers can easily have the couple go their separate ways. That break‑up is another illustration of it, as the writers can easily have the couple reconcile.
With the illusion of change, the private subplots have significance, so it's not just Spider-Archie. Characters remain accessible and consistent for new readers, and potential writers can hold on to story ideas for years before they get to use them, rather than worry about what will happen if the character and franchise becomes drastically different. For example, Mark Millar has some plans for future Spider‑Man stories somewhere down the line, which would probably become useless if Peter Parker retires being Spider‑Man and an Indian assassin takes over the identity.
The Illusion of Change and Spidey's Love Life
The greatest advantage of Spider‑Man being single is that it makes the illusion of change so much easier. With the marriage, Peter always has a loving beautiful wife to go home to, no matter what. If Peter were single, writers can shake up the status quo every few years without resorting to faking MJ's death, or sending her to California to reevaluate her priorities, which can easily have readers thinking less of the character, given what she's been through already, and how the marriage was presented as strong.
Meanwhile, all the things that happen to Peter and Mary Jane and fall under the umbrella of the illusion of change add up more obviously that if the things had just happened to Peter. In order to shake up the status quo, the writers may be tempted to make more permanent developments such as Peter Parker getting married and/ or becoming a father. These differ from break‑ups and new relationships, as neither can be easily reversed and both make the passage of time more perceptible. For all the talk about the constant growth in the Silver Age, the Peter Parker of Amazing Spider‑Man #100 was not noticeably older than the Peter Parker of Amazing Spider‑Man #50, and it was unclear how much time passed between those issues. Was it six months, two years or something else?
Some would argue that Peter being a bachelor is a static situation, just as much as the marriage. I disagree as “Peter Parker is single” encompasses several types of stories including "Peter has a girlfriend," "Peter has no girlfriend" and everything in between. "Peter dates Ursula" is a static situation. Until the relationship ends.
What Actual Changes Should the Writers Be Able to Do?
Writers are always free to make changes that don't limit the stories their successors on the title could tell, or change the fundamentals of the character. An example which shouldn't really limit any future writers would be introducing a new friend for Peter at Horizon Labs. Introducing relatives on his mother’s side doesn't alter the appeal of the character, or prevent anyone from telling a specific story. More restrictive developments are appropriate for many comics, but not stories like Spider‑Man that are meant to go on forever, with the same protagonist. Peter Parker finding true happiness with MJ represents the culmination of his story, or at least a huge part of it, which is a problem, as that story may just continue for generations after the happy ending.There are many stories you can do that won’t limit later Spider‑Man stories and thus represent the illusion of change. “Peter starts dating a girl” won’t limit future writers from breaking the two apart. “Peter has no girlfriend for a while” is an element of the status quo that can easily get changed. “Peter gets fired from the Daily Bugle” is a dramatic, but temporary change, as he could always get his job back. “Spider‑Man moves in with the Fantastic Four” is something that wouldn’t be expected to be a permanent part of the status quo. Writers are free to explore new stories with old characters, as long as it doesn't close other storytelling avenues.
A series like Powers or Y The Last Man should have developments for the protagonists and supporting characters which bring the story closer to a climax, as the stories are meant to come to an end, eventually. One mistake fans make when considering stories they'd like to see is that they'll often compare the series to a movie or book, something that's meant to come to a satisfying conclusion. In the case of a movie series, it's something that has one story every few years. It's not something that's meant to have a minimum of ten stories an year every year for the next twenty plus years. Meanwhile, Amazing Spider‑Man is essentially a never‑ending serial with a constant protagonist. It's a story that may just continue decades from now and that's something writers should be mindful of.
Joe Quesada did articulate his motivations for preferring Spider-Man to be single. So if Alex Alonso, or any future EIC decides to reverse the decision, they're going to have to articulate the benefits of their approach as well. Instead of explaining why One More Day was bad, they're going to have to explain why it's a good idea to undo the most successful attempt at accomplish something Marvel editors and writers have been trying for years.
So let's look at the benefits for the Spider-Man comics when the lead character is married to Mary Jane. Some rationalizations will be better than others.
The Writers
There are some pleas that undoing OMD will help the writers in certain ways. One common complaint is that writers ran out of stories to tell with a single Peter Parker, but I don't quite buy that part. How have the storytelling opportunities behind a single Peter Parker been exhausted when they haven't for a married Peter Parker? If Spidey's a bachelor, at least you can shake things up by changing his partner, and by changing MJ's partner, as well.
I think that the marriage limited the writers, but it could be argued that this forced them to be more creative. Now when a young woman is introduced in the supporting cast, she has to be more than just a possible romantic interest for Peter Parker. Writers also have to manage the short-term aspects of the protagonist's private life, without the cheap escapes allowed when the character is single.
Some have suggested that earlier writers failed to take advantage of the marriage, but I think that claim is flawed. It's largely untrue, since many top writers did a good job of exploring their relationship. The guys who didn't do well typically had other problems with their runs. Also, blaming the writers isn't an effective way to advocate for a preferred direction. It's better to suggest why something was advantageous.
The Anchor
While she was the most significant character in the Spider-Man's book, as Peter's top confidante, romantic interest and roommate, Mary Jane was Peter's "anchor," someone for him to interact with in almost every issue. There are some benefits to that for writers and editors. It's an artificial way to give the issue to issue developments more weight, when there's someone the lead can discuss all this stuff with. If one story is delayed, it's easier for the writers and letterers to do a patch and shuffle the sequence, if there's one constant in every story. It also makes it easier to transition from one writer to another in a title with multiple creative teams.
MJ's constant presence would also work if the series returned to earlier publishing formats, exploring the character's adventures in several ongoing monthlies. In Amazing Spider-Man, she can ask Peter about something that happened in Marvel Team-Up, thus making the satellite book seem more significant. It still works with one title with multiple rotating creative teams. If Writer A has a fight between the two, Writer B can open his story with MJ still a little bit angry. These things don't work as well when there is no one constant presence in the title, which can result in stories seeming inconsequential.
And if the character has multiple constants, it's tougher for the writers and editors to shuffle the publication schedule around. If a story in which the Daily Bugle is bombed is delayed, that will complicate the publication of the story in which the Bugle staff deals with the fallout. But if Peter isn't at the Daily Bugle every issue, but he does interact with his wife in every story, a small change to the dialogue is all that it would take to avoid a scheduling snafu. This wouldn't prevent the creative teams from sending MJ away for a limited time, if that fits their narrative purposes better. But her consistent presence would be help the series in many ways.
Marketing Advantages
There are a few branding advantages to having Mary Jane as Peter Parker's wife. It elevates her status inside the Marvel Universe, which results in her appearing more outside of the comics. This essentially creates an A-list comic character, one who Marvel tries to use to appeal to women and girls (the Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane series, the novels, the dolls). Having a young woman as such a consistently important character can help reach female readers, an untapped audience that buys plenty of manga, and watched the Raimi/ Maguire Spider-Man movies, which were successfully promoted with Mary Jane's role.
As a gorgeous redhead, Mary Jane is also marketable for stuff like posters and statues. The marriage cements Mary Jane as Spider-Man's primary romantic interest, so that most readers of Incredible Hulk could be expected to know who she is, which could increase their enjoyment of a brief one-page cameo. This wouldn't work as well with a generic girlfriend who might not even be in the book five years from now.
As Spider-Man's been a superhero for more than a decade, it makes sense to have a significant character be less jaded with the superhero stuff. This provides an "ordinary" person's point of view. Although a counter-argument is that there has to come a point when MJ should also be jaded. And it's problematic for a character with everyman appeal when he consistently needs someone else to serve as a bridge between the readers and his adventures.
Society Approves
On the question of whether it's easier to relate to a married guy than a single guy, there is a flaw in the OMD defense that everyone's been single at some point, so it should be easier to identify with a single guy. It's not as universal as it seems. There are plenty of readers who married their high school sweethearts, and who had boring lives as single guys and girls prior to satisfying marriages.
Even if you're not married, if you've been in love, you've probably imagined what it's like to be married to a specific person. There's something sympathetic about a young guy without many resources having to support a family. It adds to Peter's responsibilities, and distinguishes him from all the characters with contrived romantic troubles.
Fully two-thirds of Americans believe in soulmates. So many readers would be very willing to accept that these two characters belong together. Even four years after Brand New Day, it's difficult to convince readers that these characters could have other soulmates.
For the last two decades, the median age for a first marriage for men has been 26-27, roughly Spider-Man's age now. So it would also be completely normal for the lead to be married.
Sexy scenes, double-entendres and the like are also just more socially acceptable between a young married couple than between a young unmarried couple. Ministers are less likely to complain about the following.
Selfish EICs
There have been some rationalizations that undoing One More Day, or at least restoring the marriage, comes with some pluses for the Editor in Chief. It allows Alonso or any subsequent EIC to differentiate himself from Joe Quesada. The removal of the marriage is seen as illegitimate by some given Quesada's opinions on the matter. Therefore the next Editor in Chief restoring the marriage would demonstrate to the readers that these decisions won't be determined purely by the preference of the EIC. Though this might encourage the EIC's successor to do the same with one of their biggest developments.
But there are some other other positives. It'll provide an Event for the Spider-Man comics in about five or so years. The next generation of comic book writers grew up on a married Spider-Man, so this would be a way for Alonso to get a head start, before these guys start writing Spider-Man scripts, based on ideas they came up with when they assumed Spidey would be married forever.
Who's Interested?
It's possible, if not likely that more people will pick up the book than will drop it once One More Day is undone. The development would make the book more appealing to the older readers who make a majority of Marvel's customer base. And it does seem that the people who prefer Spider-Man to be married are more passionate than those who prefer the character to be a bachelor. I doubt that there would be as much of a short-term backlash.
Also, the comics are just less diverse if every version of Spider-Man has a somewhat similar set-up. If Spider-Man's married in the comics, Marvel's still gong to publish stuff featuring a single Spider-Man (IE- Untold Tales) resulting in more variety, which accommodates a more heterogeneous readership, which should also provide more of a cushion against declining sales.
Implications For the Character
It's complicated, but some would contend that unless One More Day is undone, Peter Parker will be pigeonholed as the lovable loser. A core aspect of Spider-Man has always been that he's a character who grows. Therefore it could be advocated that the regression must be undone, so he could get older, and have children, and get a steady nine to five, all of which is part of the character's growth.
One could argue that OMD violated the trust readers had when following Spider-Man's adventures. So either the storyline has to lead somewhere (a reckoning of some sorts), or it has to be undone to restore the sense that Peter Parker's adventures matter. This does get to the heart of the responses to the story. It undid more than just the marriage, as Aunt May forgot that Peter Parker was Spider-Man, Harry Osborn came back from the dead and even Spidey's organic webbing went away. The story existed to get the characters from Point A to Point B, but it's so significant that new readers will discover it and be disappointed that it's being intentionally ignored. There were other stories that existed to change elements of the status quo (The Night Gwen Stacy Died, the wedding annual, etc) but there were still follow-ups, which made it easier to enjoy those as part of a larger arc.
Simpler For Readers
It's easier to explain to new readers how Spider-Man got married (in case they read older stories and want to know how the character got to where he is in a story in which Peter & MJ are married) than to explain to new readers how the status quo has changed since stories in the notable stories in which Spider-Man was married (IE- Kraven's Last Hunt, Amazing Spider-Man #300, Spectacular Spider-Man #200, the latter two having been reprinted in post-Brand New Day Amazing Spider-Man Family issues.)
Using a supernatural method to retcon the marriage was contrary to the spirit of the franchise. Therefore the marriage should be restored, and if the next EIC wants to get rid of it, he should use natural means (death, divorce.) Because otherwise readers who pick up a controversial and much-discussed arc might get the wrong impression about the series. And undoing OMD also resolves the awkward continuity questions about the Clone Saga that you get when a major character's pregnancy might not have happened..
While there are many reasons to undo One More Day, I just don't believe those to be as powerful as the arguments for keeping the current status quo.
<<PREVIOUS NEXT >>
In earlier parts of the essay, I mentioned a few further arguments for retconning One More Day, or restoring Spider-Man's marriage and a few other aspects of the pre-OMD status quo. Aside from the various Part 9 stuff, I thought Mephisto's role worked for the story, it was characteristic of the Parkers to choose Aunt May's life over their marriage, the depiction of time travel was satisfactory, the backlash to "It's magic, we don't have to explain it" was exaggerated, Quesada's version of OMD was superior to what JMS wanted to do, and that it was quite unlikely that any writers are scared away from the series by questions about the backstory, or fear of a backlash.
I didn't think it was all that difficult, relative to other superhero stories. Peter Parker was once married to Mary Jane. Someone shot his Aunt May, and the only one who could save her was Mephisto. He's a weird alien with magic powers. But Mephisto's not a nice alien. He wanted something in return: Spider-Man's marriage. He was going to remake the world so that Peter Parker and Mary Jane were never married. This is obviously fiction, but in life, there are situations when you don't have a good option, and you have to choose between two things which are less than ideal. In this story, Peter and Mary Jane decided that Aunt May's life was more important than their marriage. So they agreed to the deal. Now Mephisto remade the world so that Peter and Mary Jane were never married. Most of the stories set in that period happened almost exactly the same way, except their relationship was different. It's sort of how these stories (point to Lee/ Ditko) still happened, even if the material's all set in the 1960s, when the computers we use, video games and cell phones had not been invented.
If There Was No OMDIt's been a long time since One More Day, so we have no idea what the Spider-Man comics would be like now if Quesada had decided to go in a different direction. As noted earlier, JMS's last two years of Amazing Spider-Man were consistently tied to major EVENTs, which represented a sales strategy that couldn't be sustained in the long-term. Sales on the title were slowly, but steadily declining before “The Other.”
Without this major change to the status quo, something else would have had to be done to keep readers interested in the series Post-JMS. Otherwise, sales might have reached the levels of the pre-Flashpoint Superman titles. Though without One More Day, Spider-Man would not have unmasked in Civil War, nor would Marvel have opted for the Back in Black era. There would not have been as significant a sales drop percentage-wise if the numbers weren't so high to begin with.
From a narrative standpoint, the pre-reboot writers would have had more time to deal with the consequences of "The Other," although that might not have been a good thing considering the poor quality of the storyline. JMS might have been able to conclude his run largely free of any editorial interference if his last arc wasn't used to get the characters from Point A to Point B. There also wouldn't be any controversy generating interest in the work of his successors.
I'm not sure if the creative teams would have been radically different than the ones we got in One More Day. Dan Slott would write Spider-Man under any circumstances. The same was probably true of Guggenheim and Wells. Waid would probably not have come to the title, but there were other writers available.
You might think that there would have been more focus without BND on getting A-list writers to follow JMS, but that gets complicated. Bendis, Marvel's biggest writer, had no interest in Amazing Spider-Man. Millar developed a preference for creator-owned comics. Brubaker actually favors Spidey as a bachelor. Warren Ellis doesn't particularly like the character. That leaves Jeph Loeb, so it's possible that he would have been in charge of the post-JMS direction of the Spider-Man comics. It would have come at a literal cost for Marvel, as A-list writers are much more expensive.
The (almost) weekly schedule is more essential when the title's about a bachelor, as his status quo is more prone to change, and that's easier to coordinate with one title where most of the major stuff happens. Though the increased output of Amazing Spider-Man was something that Marvel had been considering for a long time, so it could have happened without One More Day. Marvel probably would not have wanted a back to basics approach for the book if there hadn't been as deviations from the norm. Maybe they would have developed out a new direction.
There's often a cycle of back to basics periods followed by departures from the norm. You could see it in the Spider-Man comics when Brand New Day was followed by the Big Time. Perhaps without One More Day, JMS's run of Amazing Spider-Man would have been followed by a 101 issue mega-arc with Spider-Man unmasked. This was something he had set up in Amazing Spider-Man #500, and the Back in Black sales showed there was a demand for that. But where do you go from there?That genie would have to go back in the bottle, a task which was hard enough after an year. Eventually it would have to be time for the series to go back to basics. If the marriage remained part of the title, that would have been one element of the status quo that wouldn't be touched, so it's a storytelling avenue closed for any subsequent directions.
It's easy to try to compare something tangible, such as the stories that were actually published, to an ideal, such as stories that could have been published. I think Brand New Day was a solid stretch of Spider-Man comics, so it's entirely possible that an alternative would not have been as successful, either artistically or financially.
If Brand New Day Had Failed
Some fans of the marriage and opponents of the retcon tried to discourage readers from buying the post-OMD Amazing Spider-Man issues arguing that if Brand New Day was a success, Marvel would have no incentive to undo the marriage. They were correct that the success of the current status quo means that a reversal is less likely.
The big reset strikes me as something that can only be done once, so I’d hate to see it wasted. If it's used more than once, any illusion of drama is shattered as it can become a habitual deus ex machina. But the big reset could itself by reset.
As s a magic retcon is a relatively easy development to undo, there was no need for JMS to carefully craft an out within OMD in order to allow future writers could being back the marriage if necessary, although he pretty much did that anyway. Thanks to the nature of the retcon, there would be several ways for the writer to reconcile the couple. There are several magic related stetcons, to use Peter David's term for retconning a retcon, that the next writers of Amazing Spider‑Man could do. Marvel could do a story in which Mary Jane remembers the world in which she was married to Peter, and they decide to get engaged, allowing Marvel to get stories out of the engagement this time around. Hell the writers could use magic to bring about any status quo they want. They could even reunite Peter, MJ and baby May if they so desired.
The big reset strikes me as something that can only be done once, so I’d hate to see it wasted. If it's used more than once, any illusion of drama is shattered as it can become a habitual deus ex machina. But the big reset could itself by reset.
As s a magic retcon is a relatively easy development to undo, there was no need for JMS to carefully craft an out within OMD in order to allow future writers could being back the marriage if necessary, although he pretty much did that anyway. Thanks to the nature of the retcon, there would be several ways for the writer to reconcile the couple. There are several magic related stetcons, to use Peter David's term for retconning a retcon, that the next writers of Amazing Spider‑Man could do. Marvel could do a story in which Mary Jane remembers the world in which she was married to Peter, and they decide to get engaged, allowing Marvel to get stories out of the engagement this time around. Hell the writers could use magic to bring about any status quo they want. They could even reunite Peter, MJ and baby May if they so desired.
The ease with which Marvel could reverse the retcon brings up the major question. What exactly would they get by this?
<<PREVIOUS NEXT >>
One problem with the Spider-Man comics during the last two years of JMS's run was an overabundance of major EVENTS (the caps lock is intentional.) So you could argue that One More Day should have been delayed as every issue of Amazing Spider Man since Issue 519 has been tied into one EVENT or another. Even if a magic retcon was necessary, did it have to happen then?
"The Other" in particular, was probably one EVENT too many, though it did come with a significant temporary boost to the sales of all three titles. It occurred right after House of M, so Spider Man and the writers couldn't deal with the traumatic aftermath of that crossover within the three main books, since four months of those titles were devoted to a crossover with entirely new developments. This also served to make House of M seem less important to Spider Man fans who joined the many Marvel fans asking if “No More Mutants” and Wolverine regaining his memory were worth the hype and multiple tie-ins to something that was originally meant to be an arc of New Avengers.
"The Other" in particular, was probably one EVENT too many, though it did come with a significant temporary boost to the sales of all three titles. It occurred right after House of M, so Spider Man and the writers couldn't deal with the traumatic aftermath of that crossover within the three main books, since four months of those titles were devoted to a crossover with entirely new developments. This also served to make House of M seem less important to Spider Man fans who joined the many Marvel fans asking if “No More Mutants” and Wolverine regaining his memory were worth the hype and multiple tie-ins to something that was originally meant to be an arc of New Avengers.
"The Other" also hindered the Spider-Man spinoff titles. Tying the first issues of Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man to the crossover prevented that series from developing an identity. The raison d'etre for Marvel Knights Spider-Man was that it was the title in which A-list talent told self-contained standalone stories, so the crossover hamstrung that title as well.
“The Other” also occurred right before Spider Man gained the Iron Spider suit during the Civil War prelude, which meant that there was no time for writers to focus on the aftermath of the storyline. Nor was there any time to explore Spider-Man's new abilities due to Marvel's decision to do two consecutive high-profile stories in which Spider-Man gets new abilities from different sources. It’s likely that many of the unanswered questions in “The Other” will never be resolved, which is somewhat annoying as the storyline remains in print thanks to the JMS Ultimate collection series of Trade Paperbacks. While it’s disappointing to readers that it was never answered how Morlun was resurrected or what exactly was the reason for Peter's illness, it won’t limit the future writers or the stories they can tell. Comics fans are notorious for demanding answers to old loose ends. Look at the Spider Man fans who want Baby May to return. Disappointing older readers in this way will not prevent new readers from buying the books, and has few material disadvantages, especially if the stories and art for the new material remain good enough to keep the old-time fans hooked.
"One More Day" was different from “The Other,” “Spider-Man Unmasked” or “Back in Black”, as the creators have been gearing up for a big, and fundamental change to the character's status quo for a while, and the other storylines (notably "Spider Man Unmasked" and “Back in Black”) were leading directly to it.
There would have been advantages to extending the unmasked era for a few months. It would have given Quesada more time to finish OMD, and Brand New Day could have kicked off with the slightly more commercial Amazing Spider-Man #550. And as One More Day was delayed anyway, Marvel would have been able to release four months worth of new material in the meantime (revenue that now never happened), allowing writers to explore a unique status quo. While the side titles were performing poorly in the sales rankings, real sales were still slightly higher than they were before “Back in Black” so the books would have made some money. And it might have forced JMS to rewrite the first chapter of OMD to allow more time to have passed between it and Civil War.
"One More Day" was different from “The Other,” “Spider-Man Unmasked” or “Back in Black”, as the creators have been gearing up for a big, and fundamental change to the character's status quo for a while, and the other storylines (notably "Spider Man Unmasked" and “Back in Black”) were leading directly to it.There would have been advantages to extending the unmasked era for a few months. It would have given Quesada more time to finish OMD, and Brand New Day could have kicked off with the slightly more commercial Amazing Spider-Man #550. And as One More Day was delayed anyway, Marvel would have been able to release four months worth of new material in the meantime (revenue that now never happened), allowing writers to explore a unique status quo. While the side titles were performing poorly in the sales rankings, real sales were still slightly higher than they were before “Back in Black” so the books would have made some money. And it might have forced JMS to rewrite the first chapter of OMD to allow more time to have passed between it and Civil War.
On the other hand, I have no idea whether there was enough talent available to suddenly create twelve issues of new material once it became apparent that OMD would be delayed. Nor would it clearly have been fair for new readers to essentially get four months of filler. For an OMD critic, there are benefits to knowing that many major changes won't live up to the hype. If you don't like what happened, it may be reversed some day.
One reason there may be so many events is that the marriage and multiple titles, two of the things fixed with Brand New Day, made it difficult to convince readers that there will be significant changes to the status quo. With Peter being married to Mary Jane and having adventures in three or more monthly titles, the only way to change the status quo was with an event, or by making one title clearly more essential than the others. This wasn’t limited to Quesada or Mackie, and was a part of the Spider Man books since the early 90s, when Harry Osborn became the Green Goblin again, Peter’s parents returned from the dead and there were times when the majority of issues in a series were parts of a crossover, especially during the Clone Saga.
Many of the problems with events were due to poor management on Marvel’s part. Often what could have been a decent Amazing Spider-Man story was declared an event, with the other books being forced to acknowledge and deal with the repercussions those developments. However Amazing Spider-Man didn’t reference the other titles, or sometimes flat-out contradicted it, unless every appearance of the “Back in Black” Spider-Man occurred within a few days of the end of Civil War.
The major reason Marvel didn't want to commission more material before One More Day was that Dan Slott and company were working on Brand New Day, so the new stuff would have had to fit around that. The Brand New Day era addressed some of the pre-OMD concerns. The crossover events were gone, and the title spent the next 101 issues mostly in its own self-contained world, before the Spider-Man characters became more active in the overall Marvel universe. That may have been somewhat necessary considering the difficulties in coordinating everything for the writers and artists of Amazing Spider-Man and the various minor spin-offs, a task that would have been more difficult with other titles involved.
While TPB-length arcs had previously been a common sight, there was only one storyline that fit the description in the first year of Brand New Day: the six-part New Ways to Die, which featured the return of Venom and Norman Osborn to the franchise after a prolonged absence. It wasn't an event in the way that "Road to Civil War" was an event, but it mattered. Hell, the lack of EVENTs meant that the other stories weren't overshadowed, as Peter Parker got new supporting characters, some of whom have stuck around, and new enemies. When there was a change to the status quo, such as Peter Parker getting blacklisted from the Daily Bugle, it could occur at the end of a two-part story.
The Brand New Day new format eliminated the need for event driven crossovers. As there was a complete understanding about how major developments fit into the overall picture, an Event wasn't necessary to make it happen. The writers were better able to deal with the ramifications of each change to the status quo, something that continues in the current Big Time era.
Previously we discussed the idea and possibility of a Venom solo film and weighed in on some pros and cons for making such a movie. I also commented on how the movie would need a sturdy backing from the Spider-Man franchise to get the ball rolling.
We also debated the use of Eddie Brock or Flash Thompson, determining that both candidates would make for a strong lead, yet brings unique elements to the table.
In this installment I plan on going into detail on what I believe to be a truly essential part to any action / super hero film: the villain.
Now that we have the groundwork for the movie established, it’s time to really stir the pot and mix in the ingredient that will set everything in motion; I’m talking about the foil, the antagonist, the opposite side of the coin. Before I bring up several figures I have in mind, let’s think for a minuet about what makes a great movie villain. The villain has to be a star in his own right, charismatic, dynamic, and have similarities to the hero.
The only major difference is that the Hero chose to do the right thing.
Prospect # 1: Carnage, aka serial killer Cletus Kassady.
Carnage certainly has the charisma, often being compared to the Joker.
Carnage is a good choice because he represents chaos and hatred, where as Venom is always struggling to control his power and has compassion for the innocent. Eddie has always felt responsible for Carnage and no doubt has tried to snuff him out. Even going to back to his introduction as Eddie’s cell mate, Cletus was shown nothing but contempt from Eddie.
Comparatively, Carnage struggles with psychological machinations, something that has plagued Eddie on many occasion, but Carnage has no limitations to his violent impulses, which always leads to a very gruesome and horrific tale; perhaps even too graphic for a debut film series. He also has 1. A history with Spider-Man, and 2. A striking similarity to Venom.
As the 1st off spring of the Venom symbiote, Carnage represents a pure evil extract of Eddie Brock. The Carnage Venom feud is well documented and well known among fans, so it just seems like a natural fit. Even if Flash was put in the lead role, Carnage would still hold a place of significance, due to the fact that Carnage wants to kill the original symbiote, he even sees it as a threat, and vice versa for all other symbiotes.
Another potential downfall of using Carnage could be the amount of CGI required for all his transformations and appendages. Let us remember the overdose of poor CGI ruined the Spawn film in the late 90’s. Granted CG has come a long way since then, but that depiction still weighs heavy on some viewers. Now let’s consider the alternative.
Prospect #2: Jack O’ Lantern. This flying, flaming vigilante also has a past with Spider-Man but has recently cemented himself as Flash’s arch nemesis. Unlike Carnage Jack is a little more logical of a person. He takes orders from his Boss, Crime Master, who is no doubt footing the bill for his misdeeds. Essentially a terrorist, Jack has a certain swagger and playful persona twisted in a disturbing fashion.
He is the creepier of the two, whereas Carnage is a merciless killer, Jack would be more inclined to sneak up on you and torture you both mentally and physically. He doesn’t particularly have much in common with either Flash or Eddie but none the less he gives them a run for their money. Perhaps a little too similar to the Green Goblin, Jack O’ Lantern may not be the best choice to star opposite our big black alien friend, However, he would defiantly entertain an audience with his flashy approach to villainy and witty, colorful verbiage.
That about does it for worthy candidates, as the remainder of Venom’s foes seem like oddballs and redundant characters. That is why my top choice remains; Carnage.
Regardless of whoever the studio chooses as the bad guy, one thing is sure; he needs to downright terrifying. Fear will need to be a big factor in this movie, as I expect there to be plenty of opportunity for shouts and screams as teeth sink into flesh.
Well I hope you’ve enjoyed this installment and please let me know in the comments who you would like best as a Venom movie villain and why.
