Marvel’s Senior Vice President of Publishing Tom Brevoort is talking about the Spider-Man marriage again on his formspring account. Here are some quotes.
Question: Hi Tom, I’m a huge spider-man fan! I love Pre-OMD and Post-OMD. i totally agree with the decision to get rid of the marriage! can you guys please stop responding to the people who don’t like it! it has been years! they obviously don’t get it!
Brevort: I’d like to, but there are just so many of them, and assuming that they come in with a relatively open mind, they’re just as entitled to a response as anyone else.
He then is asked about why he thinks Marvel married the couple back in 1987.
Question: What was “the moment of desperation” that caused the Spider-marriage to happen?
Brevort: The need to boost client sales on the newspaper strip, and the syndicate’s desire for a wedding.
And then he is asked why the devil had to be part of the breakup.
Question: I have no problem with “de-marrying” Peter Parker, but why was a satanic analog used and not someone like the Shaper of Worlds? Did Marvel want the fix to have a dark aspect to it?
Brevort: All of the iterations of this question boil down to, “Why did you do the story you did, instead of some other story?” And the answer to them all is, “Because this is the story we did, and we felt it was valid.”
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Amazon Music
iHeartRadio
Podbean
Amazon Alexa
Player.fm
Listen Notes
Stitcher
“Because this is the story we did, and we felt it was valid.”
Soooooooooo…… you essentially undid a 20 year + plot by using a character (Mephisto) who normally has NO ties to Spiderman, in which he makes a deal to save Aunt May (who btw was only shot and NO ONE can save here…. barring the fact the Frank Castle was made into Crinkle Cut fries by Dakken and still managed to be saved) by offering up something very off the wall and in the same sense silly (i.e. the marriage) in exchange….
….. ya know, I guess I missed the “Valid” part of this…
I always thought the answer to the last question was, because those stories were made into “What-Ifs”…
To rebut the final comment on the first question…oh we do get it…we always did “get it”, we just wish Marvel would understand that position. Instead, Marvel is more interested in the “brand” or “property” instead of the overall story. Otherwise, Tom would have had a better answer for the last question.
PS: I do agree Tom’s first answer was pretty good. Probably the best I have seen attributed to him. Maybe I should reconsider my position about the Dilbert Principle from another post. Naaawww. Scott Adams did say it was “everyone is an….it is just a matter of how often.”. Nevermind.
Love how he danced around the last question, made me laugh.
And they have YET to explain what makes the Parker marriage so toxic to the Marvel universe… or annul all the other marriages.
And this…
Question: I have no problem with “de-marrying” Peter Parker, but why was a satanic analog used and not someone like the Shaper of Worlds? Did Marvel want the fix to have a dark aspect to it?
Brevort: All of the iterations of this question boil down to, “Why did you do the story you did, instead of some other story?” And the answer to them all is, “Because this is the story we did, and we felt it was valid.”
… it… it really wasn’t.
“Question: Hi Tom, I’m a huge spider-man fan! I love Pre-OMD and Post-OMD. i totally agree with the decision to get rid of the marriage! can you guys please stop responding to the people who don’t like it! it has been years! they obviously don’t get it!
Brevort: I’d like to, but there are just so many of them, and assuming that they come in with a relatively open mind, they’re just as entitled to a response as anyone else.”
Wait a minute. Stephen Wacker said there aren’t as many upset fans in regard to the Spider-Marriage as we think on a previous thread here on Crawl Space’s front page, didn’t he? Hmm… I think Brevoort and Wacker need to talk and see just how many fans that are in favor of the Spider-Marriage so neither one’s comment confuses the other.
And yes, I agree, his first response was indeed classy. But I simply don’t agree with his latter two answers. I’m not trying to be mean. I’m just giving my opinion, is all. I hope everyone here, pro- and anti-Spider-Marriage fans alike, has a great day. 😀
It’s too late for any of this, Marvel already actively promoted MJ as the mother of Spidey’s children, doesnt matter if it’s an AU…everything’s an AU these days
The story is over
nb4 Wacker
Wait so a demon is more valid than a divorce certificate? lol. I liked them Married. Why does every superhero have to be the Lone Ranger? Or some womanizer like James Bond?
Brevoort’s first comment: Very respectful and classy (for once.)
Second and third comments: I refer you to this video-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ge4_0jF2nc
I’ve always related to Peter in the sense that I too am a scientific whiz who was bit by a radioactive spider and gained the proportionate strength and agility of a spider… No big deal.
I’ve always related to Peter on the level where, try as he might, somehow some way things get screwed up. But he forges on, cracks wise about it and does his duty. I’m 21 and personally I have always connected more with the married Pete. I think it’s because I envision myself someday being the committed, responsible, family man and it sucks that they got rid of that.
Anyway I posted this on Breevort’s Formspring twice and have gotten no response yet: “I can just see it now, Aunt May’s weak heart gives out again and suddenly Mephisto appears wanting Pete’s HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA. At which point Pete wakes up the day before graduation where a bird flies in through an open window, lands on a keyboard erasing his transcript, and forces him to retake his senior year.”
I’ve never related to Peter Parker, he’s always been this ideal that I strive to be like. When I think of my favorite Spider-Man moments, it’s not when he’s out kicking ass or being a swingy single; it’s when he’s putting others first and making the tough decisions that will kill him, but help others. He had a responsibility that a guilty conscious could never let him live down. And then he got MJ, who supported him through everything he had to do. And then they destroyed MJ and everything she meant to me.
Hunh. I just taught a logic lesson on his answer. Brevoort’s reply is called “ipse dixit”. It’s considered a dodge.
“There are just so many of them…” Yeah, you think that’s a tip-off?
What genius was it who decided that doing something a large number of fans made clear they didn’t want done, and then doing it anyway though in an astoundingly lousy way, and then insulting the fans for complaining about it, was a great way to build the brand? I’ve learned tons about how not to run a company just by following this controversy when it got rolling.
I just turned 22, and I relate more to the Peter Parker of the Len Wein era because I’m struggling to graduate. But I also relate to the JMS, Paul Jenkins and JMD Peter Parker because they were written more believably than he is most of the time now. I don’t give a crap if he’s married or not, that’s not going to make me gurn and throw the comic away.
“I’d like to, but there are just so many of them, and assuming that they come in with a relatively open mind, they’re just as entitled to a response as anyone else.”
Most respectful thing I’ve heard from Breevort ever.
“All of the iterations of this question boil down to, “Why did you do the story you did, instead of some other story?” And the answer to them all is, “Because this is the story we did, and we felt it was valid.”
Annnnd, that’s just not answering the question. I’d buy it if OMIT addressed the deal instead of pretending like it never happened, but since that’s not the case, it being “the story we wanted to tell” is not good enough.
See butters, I had no problem relating to a married Peter when I was 12. I can’t relate to him at all anymore, so I’m not buying that argument at all, and it certainly doesn’t excuse a deal with the devil.
If they want to stop answering questions about this fiasco, maybe they should stop kicking the hornets nest and just move on. The jerky “because we said so” responses do nothing more than anger the fans that were against it in the first place
I/m pretty sure that Tom has been answering carbon copies of theses q
@Butters911
I’m 15, but I don’t relate to Peter Parker, swingy single guy, better than Peter Parker, married family man, I relate to Peter Parker. That’s just me, though.
Being a young, hip, 22 year old single guy (haha), I can relate to Peter a lot more than I could during, say, the JMS run, where he reminded me more of one of my parents than myself. Not that I have to be able to relate to a character for a story to be good, but Spidey is someone I could always relate to. For all the older fans who miss the married, more responsible, grown up Peter, You gotta think about the other fans. Spidey worked married, and a teacher. Thats true, but I could not relate and I found the stories to be somewhat stale before OMD. Im sure Im not the only younger person to fell this way.
I like how Mr Brevoort “reinterpreted” the last question, and completely avoided the entire point about the Devil Deal.
…If only Marvel had done that a few years ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with!
“And the answer to them all is, “Because this is the story we did, and we felt it was valid.” ”
…wow.
“The need to boost client sales on the newspaper strip, and the syndicate’s desire for a wedding.”
is this not the same exact mentality that caused OMD to happen?
“Because they needed to boost sales.”
And it worked… How’s ASM doing now?
And this is why Marvel gets $0.00 from me.
inb4 shitstorm and “You people need to get over it!”