Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Discuss Spidey's comics, or any other comics that you like.

Moderators: PartyHardy, BD, stillanerd, Spideydude

User avatar
RDMacQ
Captain Universe
Captain Universe
Posts: 4318
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by RDMacQ » Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:42 pm

Frontier wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:49 pm
That's why I think it's all the more meaningful to retain the fact that Mary Jane is this glamorous and vivacious woman with tons of depth to her, which is true to the comics, rather then making her another dime-a-dozen go-getter reporter in a Superhero story.

Doing otherwise, in my opinion, makes MJ in the comics seem more like a stereotype and one-note character detractors would like you to think she is rather then the nuanced and progressive figure she actually is.

Spectacular
was able to capture Mary Jane from the comics well even in it's short-run and where she wasn't even as much the female lead she usually, is while not making her into just your average vain beauty, and then compare that to the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoons where you could just basically sum up her entire character with "she's a reporter" and barely distinguishable from any version of Lois Lane, Iris West, or even Vicki Vale.

But I am of the mind that Mary Jane as the Party Girl is equally who she is as much as her compassion, empathy, tough attitude, and self-doubt is. And I think that's where the Raimi films failed in capturing her character, because they took away her fun and glamour to make her more of a Silver Age love interest and just didn't really capture who Mary Jane is.

Rather then trying move the character away from the person who said "Face it Tiger..." I think people should look more deeply into what that line really stands for and how much it ultimately defines MJ. It's not just about her looks, it's about her confidence, her swagger, and her depth, and that she's proud of all of this. I think that's as meaningful and important to see in media as it is women in "professional" jobs or roles, particularly when those traits are more often then not associated negatively or with villains (as you alluded too).
However, I do think we need to take into consideration the nature of adaptations. MJ's story was built over the span of many, many years. And there was no greater plan involved. It just sort of happened. And due to the length and breadth of the story being told, it's going to be difficult to translate into another medium.

Yes, Spectacular Spider-Man did try to go down that route. And it had the benefit of being a heavily serialized storyline that could track a plot thread across multiple episodes and several years.

Spectacular Spider-Man, however, was also canceled after two "Seasons" which was due in part to Marvel's merger with Disney and the rights to Spider-Man works on television being taken away from the people making the show. So while we got the first part of that story, it was something that took a back seat to Peter's relationship with Gwen Stacy. And it turned out we never got to see where the story would go, and likely never will.

Or take the Amazing films. There was an actress cast for MJ and everything for the second film. With plans for a third one. But Shailene Woodley's part was cut for time, and the series was planned to go in a different direction due to the popularity of Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy and they were trying to find attempts to bring her back to the series in some ways, and then the series was cancelled outright in favor of letting Marvel reboot the series in the MCU. And then we got the whole "Michelle" debacle which feels like the filmmakers were trying to be cute and clever and try to get one over the audience, but had to pull back because of other factors (Like the negative fallout over Sony's Ghostbusters film the previous year.)

That's sort of the thing that I think hurts a story like MJ's from being properly adapted into another medium- time. There's simply not a lot of time to devote to MJ having that in depth of a story. Remember, she is still just a supporting character to the person who is the star of the film. Or the TV show. Or the video game. Sure, we like to argue that "Oh, the film makers could just introduce MJ in the first film along with Gwen, then kill off Gwen in the second, and have MJ and Peter get together in the third." But that's what the filmmakers for the Amazing films were trying to do, and they couldn't get to the third film. Just as Spectacular was cancelled before it could get to MJ's story in depth. A long term story could be derailed for any reason. The film doesn't do as well at the box office. Actors or directors leave a franchise over salary disputes. The rights change hands which puts the kibosh on any films or television shows currently in production. All these and more we have seen first hand derail these sort of "Long term" plans, especially when it comes to MJ.

Hence why when adapting these sort of things, it's better to take the "Done in one" approach. That you get the story you want to tell out right here and now, rather than working on a story that sets up a sequel that may never happen. Which means making sacrifices. Which means that the early MJ interpretation may have to get cut, since that's a lot of story to devote to a character that isn't the titular protagonist. A character like MJ still has to have an important role in the story, that interacts with the main protagonist, and do so within a limited running time to which only a portion of the story can be devoted to her. That's not a lot of time to fit in MJ being introduced as a flighty party girl, to then have a realization that she needs to grow up, and then mature as a character, and finally become romantically involved with Peter. Maybe you could do that in a 60 hour RPG. But not in an action adventure game that may only run 8 to 10 hours in the main quest.

Hence why they have to cut corners. And MJ has to be presented in a way that is already fully formed. And be in a role where she can naturally engage with the protagonist without it having been forced or requires a lot of explanation that would slow a story down. Sure, progression can happen and you can plan for further expansions based on the medium. But it's best not to leave anything out because you are expecting to get to it in the "inevitable" sequel.

MJ as a reporter allows her naturally to interact with Peter's world. It allows her to be involved in the action that doesn't require a lot of exposition and doesn't feel forced. Why is she at the bank? Probably to report on a story and she got caught up in the action. Why is she helping Peter with the Mr. Negative case? Because that's a story she's working on for the Bugle. MJ becomes an active participant in the narrative, rather than a passive one. She's helping drive the narrative in a way other than Peter is pining for her and/or fighting with someone else for her affections. And, yes, this means jettisoning some of the earlier aspects of her character. But this is also about adapting the later aspects of MJ's character, the stuff that people actually like and point to as being the stuff that truly makes her a strong character that often gets overlooked. The resourcefulness, the compassion, the strength and determination.

Sure, we lose the "Face It, Tiger" moment. That's a shame. But it also means that MJ likely isn't going to be forever defined by just being the attractive redhead at the door who had the big gag of "Oh, look, the girl May wanted to hook Peter up with is actually stunningly beautiful." Which is the box that far too many people try to force her into.

User avatar
ChiTownSpidey
Freelance Photographer
Freelance Photographer
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:21 pm

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by ChiTownSpidey » Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:23 pm

MRstarkiller360 wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:01 pm
Dear sir, you continue to impress me with these stunning avatar profile pictures. This new is really really good. So nice job! [smilie=spidey_cheers.gif]
Thanks, I wanted to find the perfect one that I could make off JSC artwork. With the recent variant and photoshop, I really liked how I wanted it to play out. Will be keeping this one for my avatar for a very long time.

User avatar
Frontier
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:01 am

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by Frontier » Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:07 am

RDMacQ wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:42 pm
Frontier wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:49 pm
That's why I think it's all the more meaningful to retain the fact that Mary Jane is this glamorous and vivacious woman with tons of depth to her, which is true to the comics, rather then making her another dime-a-dozen go-getter reporter in a Superhero story.

Doing otherwise, in my opinion, makes MJ in the comics seem more like a stereotype and one-note character detractors would like you to think she is rather then the nuanced and progressive figure she actually is.

Spectacular
was able to capture Mary Jane from the comics well even in it's short-run and where she wasn't even as much the female lead she usually, is while not making her into just your average vain beauty, and then compare that to the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoons where you could just basically sum up her entire character with "she's a reporter" and barely distinguishable from any version of Lois Lane, Iris West, or even Vicki Vale.

But I am of the mind that Mary Jane as the Party Girl is equally who she is as much as her compassion, empathy, tough attitude, and self-doubt is. And I think that's where the Raimi films failed in capturing her character, because they took away her fun and glamour to make her more of a Silver Age love interest and just didn't really capture who Mary Jane is.

Rather then trying move the character away from the person who said "Face it Tiger..." I think people should look more deeply into what that line really stands for and how much it ultimately defines MJ. It's not just about her looks, it's about her confidence, her swagger, and her depth, and that she's proud of all of this. I think that's as meaningful and important to see in media as it is women in "professional" jobs or roles, particularly when those traits are more often then not associated negatively or with villains (as you alluded too).
However, I do think we need to take into consideration the nature of adaptations. MJ's story was built over the span of many, many years. And there was no greater plan involved. It just sort of happened. And due to the length and breadth of the story being told, it's going to be difficult to translate into another medium.

Yes, Spectacular Spider-Man did try to go down that route. And it had the benefit of being a heavily serialized storyline that could track a plot thread across multiple episodes and several years.

Spectacular Spider-Man, however, was also canceled after two "Seasons" which was due in part to Marvel's merger with Disney and the rights to Spider-Man works on television being taken away from the people making the show. So while we got the first part of that story, it was something that took a back seat to Peter's relationship with Gwen Stacy. And it turned out we never got to see where the story would go, and likely never will.

Or take the Amazing films. There was an actress cast for MJ and everything for the second film. With plans for a third one. But Shailene Woodley's part was cut for time, and the series was planned to go in a different direction due to the popularity of Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy and they were trying to find attempts to bring her back to the series in some ways, and then the series was cancelled outright in favor of letting Marvel reboot the series in the MCU. And then we got the whole "Michelle" debacle which feels like the filmmakers were trying to be cute and clever and try to get one over the audience, but had to pull back because of other factors (Like the negative fallout over Sony's Ghostbusters film the previous year.)

That's sort of the thing that I think hurts a story like MJ's from being properly adapted into another medium- time. There's simply not a lot of time to devote to MJ having that in depth of a story. Remember, she is still just a supporting character to the person who is the star of the film. Or the TV show. Or the video game. Sure, we like to argue that "Oh, the film makers could just introduce MJ in the first film along with Gwen, then kill off Gwen in the second, and have MJ and Peter get together in the third." But that's what the filmmakers for the Amazing films were trying to do, and they couldn't get to the third film. Just as Spectacular was cancelled before it could get to MJ's story in depth. A long term story could be derailed for any reason. The film doesn't do as well at the box office. Actors or directors leave a franchise over salary disputes. The rights change hands which puts the kibosh on any films or television shows currently in production. All these and more we have seen first hand derail these sort of "Long term" plans, especially when it comes to MJ.

Hence why when adapting these sort of things, it's better to take the "Done in one" approach. That you get the story you want to tell out right here and now, rather than working on a story that sets up a sequel that may never happen. Which means making sacrifices. Which means that the early MJ interpretation may have to get cut, since that's a lot of story to devote to a character that isn't the titular protagonist. A character like MJ still has to have an important role in the story, that interacts with the main protagonist, and do so within a limited running time to which only a portion of the story can be devoted to her. That's not a lot of time to fit in MJ being introduced as a flighty party girl, to then have a realization that she needs to grow up, and then mature as a character, and finally become romantically involved with Peter. Maybe you could do that in a 60 hour RPG. But not in an action adventure game that may only run 8 to 10 hours in the main quest.

Hence why they have to cut corners. And MJ has to be presented in a way that is already fully formed. And be in a role where she can naturally engage with the protagonist without it having been forced or requires a lot of explanation that would slow a story down. Sure, progression can happen and you can plan for further expansions based on the medium. But it's best not to leave anything out because you are expecting to get to it in the "inevitable" sequel.

MJ as a reporter allows her naturally to interact with Peter's world. It allows her to be involved in the action that doesn't require a lot of exposition and doesn't feel forced. Why is she at the bank? Probably to report on a story and she got caught up in the action. Why is she helping Peter with the Mr. Negative case? Because that's a story she's working on for the Bugle. MJ becomes an active participant in the narrative, rather than a passive one. She's helping drive the narrative in a way other than Peter is pining for her and/or fighting with someone else for her affections. And, yes, this means jettisoning some of the earlier aspects of her character. But this is also about adapting the later aspects of MJ's character, the stuff that people actually like and point to as being the stuff that truly makes her a strong character that often gets overlooked. The resourcefulness, the compassion, the strength and determination.

Sure, we lose the "Face It, Tiger" moment. That's a shame. But it also means that MJ likely isn't going to be forever defined by just being the attractive redhead at the door who had the big gag of "Oh, look, the girl May wanted to hook Peter up with is actually stunningly beautiful." Which is the box that far too many people try to force her into.
I'm not saying that you have to introduce her and go through all her character development, I'm just saying you can have her be more in-character and with fully-formed depth while still retaining her more glamorous and fiery roots which is also part of why people like MJ.

I get MJ as a reporter allows her to more easily be integrated into the story, I've acknowledged that, I just also don't think it's necessary to turn her into another dime-a-dozen Superhero love interest reporter. Any Mary Jane that's just shown pining for Peter or competing with someone for his affections just isn't really Mary Jane, and that goes doubly for the comic version (I mean, when has she ever really competed with anyone for Peter? Felicia?).

People who boil down MJ as just an attractive redhead who force her into a box are as shallow as they think comic Mary Jane is, and reminds me of a Mark Waid comment on the marriage, and trying to make MJ less like the comics feels like it's rewarding those who think Mary Jane in the comics is the problem rather then the writers just failing to use her well.

User avatar
RDMacQ
Captain Universe
Captain Universe
Posts: 4318
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by RDMacQ » Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:59 pm

Apparently, controlling MJ in the bank is not going to be a one time thing:

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/11/01 ... ust-peter/

"In the past, we’ve talked a lot about how the best Spider-Man stories happen when Spider-Man and Peter Parker’s worlds collide. So to understand Peter’s world a bit, players will also play as Peter during parts of the game. Not only that, Mary Jane has a significant role here too. MJ is a smart, savvy reporter with The Daily Bugle and she’s investigating the suspicious activity happening throughout the city. She won’t be just a bystander either, so yes, players will even play as MJ for key moments."

User avatar
Masked Guy
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:01 am
Location: Fresno, California

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by Masked Guy » Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:33 pm

Frontier wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:07 am
I'm not saying that you have to introduce her and go through all her character development, I'm just saying you can have her be more in-character and with fully-formed depth while still retaining her more glamorous and fiery roots which is also part of why people like MJ.

I get MJ as a reporter allows her to more easily be integrated into the story, I've acknowledged that, I just also don't think it's necessary to turn her into another dime-a-dozen Superhero love interest reporter. Any Mary Jane that's just shown pining for Peter or competing with someone for his affections just isn't really Mary Jane, and that goes doubly for the comic version (I mean, when has she ever really competed with anyone for Peter? Felicia?).

People who boil down MJ as just an attractive redhead who force her into a box are as shallow as they think comic Mary Jane is, and reminds me of a Mark Waid comment on the marriage, and trying to make MJ less like the comics feels like it's rewarding those who think Mary Jane in the comics is the problem rather then the writers just failing to use her well.
I'm curious; what exactly did Waid say about the marriage?

User avatar
Frontier
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:01 am

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by Frontier » Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:22 pm

Masked Guy wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:33 pm
I'm curious; what exactly did Waid say about the marriage?
Basically that it was hard to really feel like Peter was going through a tough time when he always had a pin-up model waiting back at home for him (I'm probably paraphrasing).

User avatar
Masked Guy
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:01 am
Location: Fresno, California

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by Masked Guy » Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:53 pm

Frontier wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:22 pm
Masked Guy wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:33 pm
I'm curious; what exactly did Waid say about the marriage?
Basically that it was hard to really feel like Peter was going through a tough time when he always had a pin-up model waiting back at home for him (I'm probably paraphrasing).
That seems to be the notion a lot of writers clung too. Having an attractive, loving wife apparently erases any and all stress from one's life. That's funny because I doubt Peter and Mary Jane were too giddy when Norman Osborn murdered their baby at the end of The Clone Saga...among many other instances Peter went through a great ordeal while still being married.

User avatar
RDMacQ
Captain Universe
Captain Universe
Posts: 4318
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by RDMacQ » Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:13 am

Masked Guy wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:53 pm
That seems to be the notion a lot of writers clung too. Having an attractive, loving wife apparently erases any and all stress from one's life. That's funny because I doubt Peter and Mary Jane were too giddy when Norman Osborn murdered their baby at the end of The Clone Saga...among many other instances Peter went through a great ordeal while still being married.
I think Roger Stern accidentally blew the lid off the whole issue with MJ when he outright admitted that he had no problem with Peter being married, it's just that he didn't think he should be married to MJ. And that Stern himself said that he actually always planned on introducing a female love interest who'd be a "Better fit" for Peter.

Which is what I think essentially what all this boils down to. It's not a concern with Peter being married. It's who he's married to. If a creator was allowed to have Peter date, then marry, a love interest of their creation or their choosing, I doubt you'd have so many people taking issue with it, because then they'd rationalize that it was a "Natural" evolution of their relationship.

Heck, look at how many people are lamenting the loss of Parker Industries, saying that Peter has "Regressed" and that he isn't living up to his "Potential" any longer. Or who complained about the "Regression" of Otto Octavius back to a villain. Neither Peter getting a company nor Otto's "Redemption" were honestly earned, in unverse or out, and yet you have people acting as if this was somehow a "Natural" evolution for both Peter and Otto to take.

Or, for another example, you could look to Kurt Busiek, who also criticized the marriage. But he's also freely admitted that his favorite love interest for Spider-Man was Betty Brant. I suspect that if it was Betty who married Peter and not MJ, Busiek would have less of a problem with it because he'd find some way to say it was a "Natural" evolution for Peter and Betty's relationship.

For Waid, I don't really know what his take on Spider-Man is. He does seem to prefer the "Old school" way of doing things, i.e. he'd probably look to around the college years of Peter, Gwen, MJ and "The Gang" as the "Proper" way to do things. Although he is more of a DC fanboy so he may not have much of an opinion on the matter. He could have also been saying that because he had to, since that was Marvel's stance on the character at the time. That happens to. Waid could have not been too keen on the idea of what happened with OMD, but understood that it was a decision that was already made, that Marvel had a particular policy they were pushing and that he wasn't supposed to undermine it, because he made a commitment to the character and to the series and he wasn't going to break it. Granted, that doesn't mean he may have necessarily been for the marriage or for MJ. But I think the problem with what happened with Peter and MJ's break up is that unfortunately we're not going to get the full story for a long, long while. We're not really going to know who was on board for it, who had issues with it, and who had changed their minds on certain things until this is long over. As the way these things go.

So, if the're not Dan Slott, I usually try to take the words of a lot of these creators with a grain of salt, because sometimes what they say about Spider-Man- especially if they are writing the books- may be more about following company policy than it is about their own honest opinions.

User avatar
Masked Guy
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:01 am
Location: Fresno, California

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by Masked Guy » Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:18 am

RDMacQ wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:13 am
Masked Guy wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:53 pm
That seems to be the notion a lot of writers clung too. Having an attractive, loving wife apparently erases any and all stress from one's life. That's funny because I doubt Peter and Mary Jane were too giddy when Norman Osborn murdered their baby at the end of The Clone Saga...among many other instances Peter went through a great ordeal while still being married.
I think Roger Stern accidentally blew the lid off the whole issue with MJ when he outright admitted that he had no problem with Peter being married, it's just that he didn't think he should be married to MJ. And that Stern himself said that he actually always planned on introducing a female love interest who'd be a "Better fit" for Peter.
In fairness, when being interviewed on the Crawlspace, Stern was directly asked if he didn't like Mary Jane with Peter. Stern's response was:

"I love Mary Jane with Peter...but not married to him!"

From what I gather, Stern likes them as a couple, just not a married couple. So even though he planned on introducing a new love interest, we don't know how far it really would have gone and if he would have objected to another writer putting Peter and Mary Jane back together. We just know that he thinks marrying the two off to one another was a huge mistake.

User avatar
Spider-Padre
Avenger
Avenger
Posts: 1886
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by Spider-Padre » Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:17 am

I believe there are lots of writers who don't think Peter should ever get married. It isn't an anti-Mary Jane thing, or anti- any particular female character. They just don't think Peter should be married, for whatever reasons.

User avatar
Animehunter
Avenger
Avenger
Posts: 2826
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:58 am

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by Animehunter » Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:59 am

CBR is putting blame on Mary Jane for the deal with Mephisto

Spider-Man Just Revealed His Identity To The Last Person You’d Expect
https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-identity-revealed

User avatar
MRstarkiller360
Avenger
Avenger
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:34 pm
Location: Brazil, Rio de Janeiro

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by MRstarkiller360 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:36 pm

Spider-Padre wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:17 am
I believe there are lots of writers who don't think Peter should ever get married. It isn't an anti-Mary Jane thing, or anti- any particular female character. They just don't think Peter should be married, for whatever reasons.
I have said the same thing and I completely agree with you.
So let's say that Peter did not marry MJ but actually he married Gwen :
There would be a lot of writers who would associating faults with the character to validate their opnion that Peter is either not married to their personal waifu, like Slott when it comes to Debra Whiteman or Carlie Cooper, or that he is married at all!

User avatar
ChiTownSpidey
Freelance Photographer
Freelance Photographer
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:21 pm

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by ChiTownSpidey » Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:30 pm

I know I have said this plenty times before. I believe the writers and EIC's wanted to relive their single glory days through spidey.

How many dates and romances has Peter been on after OMD? How many times had he slept with black cat?! Right after OMD. I see it how it is and marvel will never er admit that.

User avatar
RDMacQ
Captain Universe
Captain Universe
Posts: 4318
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by RDMacQ » Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:38 pm

Masked Guy wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:18 am
In fairness, when being interviewed on the Crawlspace, Stern was directly asked if he didn't like Mary Jane with Peter. Stern's response was:

"I love Mary Jane with Peter...but not married to him!"

From what I gather, Stern likes them as a couple, just not a married couple. So even though he planned on introducing a new love interest, we don't know how far it really would have gone and if he would have objected to another writer putting Peter and Mary Jane back together. We just know that he thinks marrying the two off to one another was a huge mistake.
But I think it begs the question "If you like them as a couple, why do you have a problem with them as a married pair?"

Keep in mind that Stern also said that MJ was "Changed" into something completely different in order to be married to Peter, which isn't exactly what happened. That's how he may recall it, but others looking at it may have a different perspective.

Like I said, I think the fact that Stern had planned on having Peter hook up with another "More appropriate" love interest plays no small part in why he disagrees with Peter and MJ being married and together. The same way that Slott's obvious attitude towards the franchise plays no small part in why MJ was shown the door and barely referenced for the past three years, aside from editorial influenced storylines.
Spider-Padre wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:17 am
I believe there are lots of writers who don't think Peter should ever get married. It isn't an anti-Mary Jane thing, or anti- any particular female character. They just don't think Peter should be married, for whatever reasons.
Personally, I suspect it's a lot more "This isn't the way it was when I was a kid" than it is "Peter should never be married."

Kurt Busiek and Mark Waid are great writers. Hell, I'd say that Mark Waid is one of the best writers that the comic book industry has ever seen. Even his worst stuff is still good on some level. But I also feel that they are some of the first writers to ever grow up AS fans, after comics were already introduced into the world and it was just a *thing* that was out their. Their passion for Marvel and DC, respectively, shines through via their stories and their knowledge of the continuity. But as fans, that also influences their decisions. They are more attached to the way things used to be done than what they evolved and changed into. I know we like to think of writers as being "Above" the influence of the same petty inclinations that a lot of fans are accustomed to. But like it or not some of them can be influenced as much as "This isn't the way I liked it or am used to it" as anyone else. And I suspect that has a lot more to do with the rejection of the marriage than just people not liking the idea of a married Spider-Man.
Animehunter wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:59 am
CBR is putting blame on Mary Jane for the deal with Mephisto

Spider-Man Just Revealed His Identity To The Last Person You’d Expect
https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-identity-revealed
I'm as sensitive to this sort of wording as much as anyone else, but I wouldn't really be looking at this too harshly.

Granted, this is Marvel's kind of sort of stance on it now. But also keep in mind that they are doing so with the intent of also trying to put MJ in a good light.

They are saying MJ made the deal. But they aren't also saying "MJ made the deal to get out of her marriage to Peter" or "Because MJ couldn't handle being married to Peter, she made a deal with Mephisto."
MRstarkiller360 wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:36 pm
I have said the same thing and I completely agree with you.
So let's say that Peter did not marry MJ but actually he married Gwen :
There would be a lot of writers who would associating faults with the character to validate their opnion that Peter is either not married to their personal waifu, like Slott when it comes to Debra Whiteman or Carlie Cooper, or that he is married at all!
I've long maintained that if Gwen didn't die, and she instead married Peter rather than MJ, we'd still get people complaining that it was "Forced" and not fitting in with the character. Even from those that claim that Gwen was Peter's "One- and ONLY- True Love."

It's not about the marriage "Fitting" with Spider-Man. It's does the marriage fit with someone's idea of who Spider-Man is and what their mythos should be. Or it's as simple and as petty as "I want Spider-Man to be a certain way, and being married to MJ ruins that."

User avatar
Animehunter
Avenger
Avenger
Posts: 2826
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:58 am

Re: Mary Jane Appreciation Thread

Post by Animehunter » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:18 am

The Mary Jane/Gwen Stacy Cold War of 1967
https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-mary-jan ... -cold-war/

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Masked Guy and 33 guests