Options
Was "One More Day" necessary?
TheMarvelMan
Posts: 159
Just to play Devil's Advocate... I will maintain the position that "One More Day" (OMD) in Amazing Spider-Man (ASM) was completely unnecessary. This does not mean that I did not like it or Brand New Day or all the many, many issues published since "the event." In fact, I've enjoyed the post-OMD issues quite a bit. I think that OMD returned two things to ASM that had been missing for many years: Spidey's sense of humor and Peter's large supporting cast.
This Discussion is not about the quality of OMD and Spidey's subsequent issues. This Discussion is about the necessity of OMD; I posit that it was completely unnecessary, contrary to Joe Q's position.
In terms of background, Joe Q stated that there were a few things that needed "fixing" when he took over as Marvel's EIC (such as there being too many mutants, which he "solved" with "No More Mutants," but that's a topic for another Discussion!). Another item on his editorial "To Do List" was Peter's marriage to MJ. He didn't like it because he believed that it prevented an enormous number of plot lines from being presented in Peter's life. In short, he felt that the marriage stifled ASM's writers. But how to "get rid off" the marriage? Joe Q said that divorce was off the table (because Peter is too good of a person and would never do that). Joe Q said that the death of MJ was off the table (because that would make Peter seem too old and too debilitated, emotionally). Hence, in his view, we're left with Mephisto's bargain with Peter.
That said, and accepting the new status quo that OMD provided the writers of ASM, my question is "Was OMD successful?" Did it enable ASM writer's (i.e., Slott et al.) to present innumerable plot lines that were impossible while Peter was married to MJ? Did it even enable one plot line to be used because MJ was out of the picture? Again, playing Devil's Advocate, I say NO. As much as I've enjoyed all of the many issues of ASM published since OMD, and feel that they're superior to the 100 issues of ASM published before OMD, no plot line used could not have been used if MJ was still married to Peter.
Now I know what you're thinking... "But what about his relationship with Carlie Cooper?!". Yes, obviously, although that "could have" happened while Peter was married to MJ, it shouldn't because Peter is not a cad. So, no, I agree, Peter could not have dated Carlie if OMD had not occurred. But, was Carlie necessary as his "significant other"? Stick MJ in all of those romantic scenes with Peter and ask yourself if they still would have worked; most would have worked with MJ just fine. And Carlie still could have been introduced as a CSI friend for Peter.
What about Peter's (maybe) drunken "whatever" with his roomie, Michelle Gonzales? Well, Michelle easily could have moved in with Peter and MJ (my wife and I have welcomed friends in need as roomies many times over the years). And could there have been a party and a little too much alcohol and a potential "oops"?! Certainly. But title editor Wacker claims that nothing happened between Peter and Michelle, so the point is moot. Peter did not experience drunken carnal knowledge of Michelle, and thus he "wouldn't have" cheated on MJ if they had still been married.
OK, I'm rambling, and I'd rather read your opinions. Again, let's not debate whether or not OMD was good or bad (that debate has been had many, many times already).
Instead, let's debate whether or not OMD achieved Joe Q's OBJECTIVE. Did it, in fact, enable ASM writers to present innumerable plot lines that were NOT POSSIBLE if Peter was married to MJ? I say NO, it did not. Every single plot line that occurred after OMD, regardless of their quality, could have been written if Peter and MJ were still married (with the one exemption that MJ would replace Carlie Cooper in all "relationship" scenes with Peter). And thus, OMD was entirely unnecessary as a "plot device."
What do you think?
This Discussion is not about the quality of OMD and Spidey's subsequent issues. This Discussion is about the necessity of OMD; I posit that it was completely unnecessary, contrary to Joe Q's position.
In terms of background, Joe Q stated that there were a few things that needed "fixing" when he took over as Marvel's EIC (such as there being too many mutants, which he "solved" with "No More Mutants," but that's a topic for another Discussion!). Another item on his editorial "To Do List" was Peter's marriage to MJ. He didn't like it because he believed that it prevented an enormous number of plot lines from being presented in Peter's life. In short, he felt that the marriage stifled ASM's writers. But how to "get rid off" the marriage? Joe Q said that divorce was off the table (because Peter is too good of a person and would never do that). Joe Q said that the death of MJ was off the table (because that would make Peter seem too old and too debilitated, emotionally). Hence, in his view, we're left with Mephisto's bargain with Peter.
That said, and accepting the new status quo that OMD provided the writers of ASM, my question is "Was OMD successful?" Did it enable ASM writer's (i.e., Slott et al.) to present innumerable plot lines that were impossible while Peter was married to MJ? Did it even enable one plot line to be used because MJ was out of the picture? Again, playing Devil's Advocate, I say NO. As much as I've enjoyed all of the many issues of ASM published since OMD, and feel that they're superior to the 100 issues of ASM published before OMD, no plot line used could not have been used if MJ was still married to Peter.
Now I know what you're thinking... "But what about his relationship with Carlie Cooper?!". Yes, obviously, although that "could have" happened while Peter was married to MJ, it shouldn't because Peter is not a cad. So, no, I agree, Peter could not have dated Carlie if OMD had not occurred. But, was Carlie necessary as his "significant other"? Stick MJ in all of those romantic scenes with Peter and ask yourself if they still would have worked; most would have worked with MJ just fine. And Carlie still could have been introduced as a CSI friend for Peter.
What about Peter's (maybe) drunken "whatever" with his roomie, Michelle Gonzales? Well, Michelle easily could have moved in with Peter and MJ (my wife and I have welcomed friends in need as roomies many times over the years). And could there have been a party and a little too much alcohol and a potential "oops"?! Certainly. But title editor Wacker claims that nothing happened between Peter and Michelle, so the point is moot. Peter did not experience drunken carnal knowledge of Michelle, and thus he "wouldn't have" cheated on MJ if they had still been married.
OK, I'm rambling, and I'd rather read your opinions. Again, let's not debate whether or not OMD was good or bad (that debate has been had many, many times already).
Instead, let's debate whether or not OMD achieved Joe Q's OBJECTIVE. Did it, in fact, enable ASM writers to present innumerable plot lines that were NOT POSSIBLE if Peter was married to MJ? I say NO, it did not. Every single plot line that occurred after OMD, regardless of their quality, could have been written if Peter and MJ were still married (with the one exemption that MJ would replace Carlie Cooper in all "relationship" scenes with Peter). And thus, OMD was entirely unnecessary as a "plot device."
What do you think?
Comments
Likewise; the actions of OMD were stupid...if you want to write s single Spider-Man so badly, have he and MJ divorce, like real people do. Marvel always prides itself as being in a "realistic" setting, why not take a story in a "realistic" direction?
All Spidey needed was better writing, or at least not have the poor writers hindered by crossovers and events.
I still miss pre-OMD Spider-Man. I liked Mary Jane as Peter's wife. I liked the new and expanding cast, and having Peter as a teacher in a high school. Heck, you know, I was even interested in where the plots would go after "The Other" storyline, with Peter's new powers. Writer's were never really allowed to explore those new avenues.
OMD brought back webshooters and Harry Osborn. Honestly, I could have done without both. I mean, seriously, how many times can I care about an "Oh, I ran out of webfluid" moment?
Was it necessary for Hamlet to stage an elaborate play to trick his uncle? Probably not but it's what the writer wrote and it led to interesting stuff. If the people who write Spider-man for a living think it's a good idea than thats enough for me, I dont write Spider-man or own Spider-man or have any rooting interest in his fictional personal life, I just want to read good stories, which post OMD gave me.
On a side note I just feel people have lost all objectivity when it comes to this story. If I asked you when issue 500 came out to list the top ten things that made you like Spider-man, would "married to MJ" have made the list? I don't think so. People just became obsessesed with how this went down when in reality it went down like pretty much all comic stories do.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and comments!
That being said, I don't believe a story where a true hero like Spidey makes a pact with the devil for selfish gains will ever be necessary.
And yes, I believe it was selfish, regardless if Aunt May got to live.
Following Secret Invasion, I felt like Marvel wanted him to be more like Lex Luthor. Instead of giving Osborne the Presidency, they gave him the next most powerful position...Director of SHIELD/HAMMER.
I recall up until the "big reveal" in the Clone Saga, there were constant notes stating Osborne would not be the one behind all this and would not have returned.
Once Secret Invasion hit the stands, I thought that would have been the best way to handle the marriage. The MJ Peter was married to was actually a Skrull; since the wedding. All this time, the REAL MJ was in an animated suspension. Although they she did agree to marry Peter, both thought it was best not to get (re)married because of such repercussions. No undoing the marriage, no divorce, no death. Everything really happened, but it was just a fake MJ (you know, like in the 90s Spider-man cartoon series.)
M
The Clone saga was an attempt to get rid of the marriage without a divorce. Byrne and Mackie "killed" MJ for the length of their run. JMS had to put that stuff on hold because Kevin Smith was going to write a story arc that ended their marriage (but he bailed on it) and so on. The marriage has NEVER been liked by the folks at Marvel. It's a lot like the Clark Kent/Lois Lane wedding...yeah, it's a Big Thing, but afterward it fundamentally changes the character.
And, after Clark and Lois got married, every person who pitched a Superman run started with a story that undid the marriage.
Did the story suck? Yeah, but they had painted themselves into a corner back in 1987 and every attempt to undo it just made things worse. I now see it as ripping off a band-aid. I know that some people are still mad about it, but I am happier with the book since than I had been since before the Clone Saga. For those of us reading Spidey at the time, the marriage was rushed and didn't fit what was going on with the characters at the time. Yeah, there have been some good stories around it, but for the most part, it didn't made the book any better and (here's the dirty little secret) a LOT of creators just didn't want to work on the book because they didn't want to work on a married Spider-Man.
Oh, and the Big Reveal of Norman Osbourne was decreed by Bob Harris, and he didn't allow any editorial or creative input into his decision. Thank goodness he doesn't interfere in stories any more, right?
Peter wouldn't have had the roommate and done the "I'm out of money all the time" story, since they had decided (after the fact, thanks John Byrne) MJ was a Super Model, not a struggling model/actress. He wouldn't have gotten fired from the Bugle as easily and again, it wouldn't have had the consequences. We wouldn't have gotten the WONDERFUL stories about his "dates" with Ms. Marvel.
And the romantic stuff wouldn't have worked with MJ because the tension was that his new girlfriend didn't know he was Spider-Man...so, when he had to be Spidey, eh had to come up with excuses and explanations (again, creating dramatic tension) where MJ just says "Go do your thing".
One of the reasons JMS was able to out Spidey, story wise, was that there was no more reason to have Peter Parker around.
Think about it: Aunt May and MJ knew he was Spidey, JMS pretty much ignored Peter having a job and just had him dealing with Spider-totems and being an Avenger all the time. There was NO MORE supporting cast (and hadn't been for about a DECADE). There was no more jeopardy for Peter Parker. Mackie and Byrne drove the book into the ground and JMS turned it into a good comic book that was about a character who wasn't really Spider-Man. Something big had to be done.
I don't care how good the post-OMD stories may be, to me they're tainted by the stench of Quephisto.
But, no, he did not ignore Peter having a job. It was one of the facets of Peter's life that JMS gave a major emphasis to.
To be fair, as much as I dislike the resurrection of Norman, it bothers me far less than the dissolution of Spidey's marriage. For one thing, resurrection is so 'old hat' these days that it's become a 'trope': Hero goes down in a blaze of glory, locked in a death-grip with his greatest foe -- but both will be back in a few months, in a new number one issue of a new (or NOW) title, written and drawn by a new team. Ho hum.
For another, it depends on the story. Some resurrections tales are done really, really well, and others aren't much more than a sleight-of-hand. I haven't read the story of Norman's return from the dead, so I can't comment directly on it; I wasn't even aware of his return until he started showing up in the Avengers' stories.
But -- usually -- the events of a villain's return have something to do with some miraculous escape. (He wasn't really dead -- he was playing possum/in suspended animation/really an LMD/a double from an alternate universe/only very nearly dead and he got better.) That can be pretty cheesy, but it's been an accepted trope ever since the Joker first escaped death back in the early 40's. Getting rid of Spider-Man's marriage involved rewriting history -- and only Spider-Man's history -- and the history of that one segment of the Marvel Universe. Just that one segment, with ripples branching out to wherever it might have interacted with the rest of the MU. (And creating confusion among folks who read only those titles -- wait, Spider-Man's revealing his identity to the other Avengers? Again? Didn't he just do that a few issues ago!?) That's quite a bit more to accept. If it had been a total rewrite of the whole Marvel Universe, along the lines of a Crisis On Infinite Earths, then I could much more easily accept it. I wouldn't like it, but it's easier to live with. But just tweaking Spidey's personal history just in order to get rid of the missus? Uh-uh. Don't like it, and I don't buy it. As a consequence, I don't buy the book anymore either.
Alternatively, by undoing their marriage, innumerable things that I saw happen... didn't. I guess I was imagining the marriage, because it never happened. I guess I imagined all their conversations as husband and wife, especially those that involved them being husband and wife, because they never happened. Plus OMD undid his organic webbing and forearm stingers and Harry's death ... even though I saw them. They happened... and then they didn't... so I must've been imagining things. So, no, Osborn (without an "e" gang) returning was nothing like OMD.
Nevertheless, there were two much better ways to undo the marriage, contrary to Joe Q's opinion. First, as mentioned above, is divorce. About 50% of American marriages end in divorce these days, so having it happen to Peter and MJ would be perfectly normal, as mentioned above.
Second, is death. I bought issue #121 off the stands, and I cannot tell you how Gwen's death rocked my world! At that moment, Peter lost the love of his life, a love who had been present for about 50% of all ASM issues at that point, and the fact that they weren't married at the time was irrelevant; it crushed him and it crushed us readers. I don't understand Joe Q's opinion that MJ's death would be more significant than Gwen's (because of marriage). At the time of OMD, MJ had been with Peter for about 50% of the ASM issues also (about 250 out of 500 in round numbers), so her importance to Peter and the title was not larger than that of Gwen (relatively speaking). Love is love, and a piece of paper isn't going to change that. We could've had our cake and eaten it too. We could've gotten rid of the marriage without changing a single bit of continuity.
a) there were two more-reasonable ways to get rid of the marriage
and
b) since getting rid of it in the most awkward way imaginable, most of the stories presented did not require a single Peter
I'd also argue that Peter's perspective could have been altered once Norman was brought back. I always read Peter as feeling some type of guilt over it. Once he came back and really began fucking with Peter's life (Gwen's kids?!) then Peter felt hatred toward him.
And lets not forget, no marriage meant Harry lived! ;)
M
M
As for the "JMS didn't want to do OMD," that's a bunch of revisionist history as well. He said repeatedly that his last two years on the book were done because he knew they would be undoing it with OMD...then he started to switch his story that OMD was imposed on him.
Slott is also a master of supporting casts...just check out his She-Hulk run, which had the best supporting cast of any comic in the 2000's.
It would be like having The Punisher get married, have kids and then they get killed by the mob at a family picnic in the park again.
Star Trek had that issue before the reboot...how many times can they blow up the Enterprise before it becomes just another cliche? Or, to use a move comic-centric example, how many time can Marvel put together a book filled with new teenaged super-heroes only to do a story when they get killed off one at a time?
There were stories to be told with a married Pete and MJ, but I feel Marvel editorial found it easier to just "not explain it with magic" and move everything to a new sandbox. To be fair, we got some great stories out of that, but at the same time, I feel they could have given us those same types of stories with a little more brain-juice and not gone with such a crazy idea as Peter's sick desire to keep an octogenarian alive, sacrificing his marriage to do it.
So was OMD necessary? No. Did it pay off? Sure. I'll always wonder what they could have done if they weren't being lazy, though...
I have to push back against the premise a bit, insofar as no story is actually necessary. I think "necessary" is too high a standard to impose on fiction. Maybe ESPECIALLY on long-long-long running serial fiction. There had been nearly 50 years of Spider-Man stories before OMD, across a multitude of titles and mediums. So it would be hard to argue that any Spider-Man story would be necessary, because at the end of the day, it is all going to be more Spider-Man. And that can be entertaining, and even great. . . but necessary is a pretty high bar.
Also, @TheMarvelMan, in the original post it feels a bit like necessary must equal "there is no other way to do this". And there is always going to be a hypothetical other way to do it. Because arguing the hypothetical is easy, especially when we don't have to roll up our sleeves and actually make those stories ;)
But that is me being pedantic. I get what you are saying-- the thought experiment is to think back on those four years of stories, try to insert the marriage into them, and see if they still work. And, if we succeed at that, then removing the marriage is perhaps proved unnecessary, and Quesada proven wrong.
And, I agree, most of those stories (I haven't read them all, but I have probably read 3/4ths) could still be possible with a married Peter. But, I would argue, they would be different. The tone would be different. Even if all the main plot points could still be possible, the stories felt different to me with the BND Peter as the star of them:
The BND era, especially right at the beginning, felt lighter to me. Younger. Peter seemed younger, and newer to being Spider-Man. Did that make sense, continuity-wise? Well of course not. But that is no different from the various soft reboots and stretched out, flexible and nonsensical timelines of characters throughout the MU, so it didn't bother me. But Peter no longer seemed old enough to be someone who is not only married, but has been married long enough to have been on the rocks at times. He didn't feel like someone that is in the midst of an adult life, he felt like someone starting an adult life.
And not having MJ as a partner to rely on mattered to the tone of these stories, as well as the many times that Peter was at sea and didn't know what to do. Because, remember, Peter single is not just about him being available to date or hook up with new people. It more importantly means that he does not have a partner. So when he feels overwhelmed, outnumbered, confused, or that the world is against him, he does not have a partner to lend him strength. I think this is one of the reasons why so few serial fiction characters are in strong, committed relationships-- it is not (or at least, not JUST) to allow them to always be chasing and hooking up with other singles, but it is also to allow for that tried and true moment of them feeling alone against the world. It is harder for Peter to feel alone against the world when he is in a loving marriage. (And, again, it is not impossible, in fact I think it would be interested for more characters to be married, but I would say that it makes all the stories, even if MJ doesn't appear, DIFFERENT if we know the character we are watching in the midst of peril or strife has someone to go home to).
So I would say that, even though these stories would be possible if he were still married, the tone of them would be different. The Brand New Day era was not just a change in Peter's relationship status, as the kids say, it was a huge change in tone from what came before.
And another difference (though this is a digression)-- if it were not for OMD/BND (as well as the thrice-montly shipping that produced a very regular output of TPBs). . . I probably wouldn't have read it. I got burnt out on the gloomy melodrama of the JMS era. I skipped OMD, but BND got me intrigued to try again, and I ended up reading about 15 trades worth of Amazing.
So even though sometimes people complain that change is done for the sake of change. . . sometimes there is another purpose. Sometimes a loudly publicized change can get those of us who dropped out to come back.