the real reason fans hate BND

[the_ultimate_evil]

well at least according to Marc Guggenheim

Speaking of "judging" Guggenheim said a lot of people who aren't reading Spider-Man or refuse to read Spider-Man are judging it based on misunderstandings. "Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done," he said. "Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened."

"Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage," he continued. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."

http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=007464


ummm where did he pull this from :unsure:

[bat1987]

BND is one of the dumbest retcons in comic book history.

I think even marvel writers are not sure what`s in continuity after that.

So Marc Guggenheim claims that everyone who`s not reading spider-man is gay?

[The Enigma]

So Marc Guggenheim claims that everyone who`s not reading spider-man is gay?

Er, I'm pro-gay marriage but not gay myself. Surely they were just cohabiting and not actually in a civil union, right? I confess that I don't know the exact definitions of what constitutes what in US-speak, though. Equally, I don't really follow Guggenheim's logic there at all; if they decided to have a civil union instead of a marriage, does that mean they are, in fact, anti-marriage? The use of 'downgraded' is awkward too, suggesting a hierarchy that probably wouldn't be there unless married people and civilly united people share the same rights etc. I guess the other question is 'how much of this is canon?' If he was never married, do we just assume that any references to marriage he made whilst e.g. working at the Bugle were not made or did he instead talk about being civilly united instead? Is Guggenheim suggesting that instead of a marriage ceremony with all the (religious) trappings, they just had a quiet civil union somewhere and everything else continued as normal? If so, then that suggests that all the same things that happened when they were married would have happened in almost the exact same way, right? (Unless, as I've stated, civil unions and marriages are not equal).

[Talavar]

Yay Marc Guggenheim, condescending and homophobic all at the same time!

I do happen to be pro gay marriage, but my issue isn't that Spider-man & Mary Jane aren't/were never married.  My issue is that Spider-man made a deal with the frickin' devil to avoid the guilt of his ancient aunt dying, at the expense of his wife/marriage!

[Previsionary]

Don't think too much about it. His statement, like all statements about continuity in BND, don't make sense if you look at even the "smallest" strand without dwelling on it. They just need to stop mentioning it at this point because it's not exactly the same and it won't be exactly the same because elements are now missing from the history or were oddly re-added in.

Take, for example, Harry. He's back, but how? Why is he back? Does he still have a kid with Liz? That could have been addressed at the same time they addressed his three marriage (but everything happened the same way...right?)...or they could have brought back Liz since she was in town before BND promoting her tell-all book...which probably doesn't exist anymore.

Venom...how does it remember Eddie, but it doesn't remember it's first owner even though he can track Pete down?

Pete's current mentality.

Norman. It doesn't seem like he got amnesia again, so it's a bit hard to swallow that he forgot Pete's identity as Spidey.

Flash Thompson. If everything still happened, he should still be a gym teacher and flirting with Betty. He's nowhere to be seen.

Teacher. IIRC, he was one...but he never references the kids he taught or helped (and who helped him).

They shouldn't mention old continuity ever again until they get around to actually producing stories that explain what happened. It's just annoying now and fueling fires that should be almost out. Also, as a side note, it really bothers me that creators and some pro-BND fans place the whole devil deal on MJ like she forced Peter into it. Try again.

[yell0w_lantern]

That's a faulty syllogism if ever there was one. That guy's argument makes no sense.

[Spe-Dog]

Yay Marc Guggenheim, condescending and homophobic all at the same time!

I do happen to be pro gay marriage, but my issue isn't that Spider-man & Mary Jane aren't/were never married.  My issue is that Spider-man made a deal with the frickin' devil to avoid the guilt of his ancient aunt dying, at the expense of his wife/marriage!

Who should have died AGES ago!  That would have been a brand new day.  She should go on to be with Uncle ben in the afterlife and let Peter be his own man with his wife.  If people wanted unmarried Peter there was Ultimate for that and now there is no choice.  Spider-Man was supposed to be Marvel's "everyman".  I have a load of problems in my personal life and people have been taken from me that I wish were not, but you know what?  Mephisto/Devil/Beelzubub never showed up to help me!  Again, to quote the great "Joephisto", it's magic we don't have to explain it.  OH!  If they undid all this stuff, does that mean that 9-11 never happened in the Marvel U?

[Podmark]

I think OMD is as dumb as the next person but I must say I enjoy BND. But that actually has nothing to do with the retcon.
I will say though that he is right and that many people don't understand what was done regarding continuity, and upcoming issues will be explaining some of the things Prev brings up. Of course to understand you probably need to read some of the interviews.

The gay marriage thing is kind of a bizarre comparison though.

[Silver Shocker]

...or they could have brought back Liz since she was in town before BND promoting her tell-all book...which probably doesn't exist anymore.

Actually that was Debra Whitman.

Yeah, Guggenheim's analogy is flawed and assumes too much of the readers. He probably shouldn't be telling fans what they think about OMD because it has the result of fans feeling like he's put words in their mouths. I think now a lot of the OMD creator speak ect is just damage control trying to smooth things over. One More Day already came out and happened and Marvel can't change that or take it back, but what they can do (besides damage control) is move forward from it. They can keep telling stories set in the new status quo like they've been doing, or they can hit the reset button and put it all back the way it was. Which I imagine they will do, and when that happens, you have to wonder if fans will be happy or accuse Quesada and co of pandering to the fanbase. I imagine it may be split down the middle similar to how it is now.

[Previsionary]

it was Deb, wasn't it? Well...point stands! Liz was around prior to BND since she's upset with Pete...or was. Debra was also upset, wrote a book, and I recall her and Betty getting a small spat.

But yeah, I don't care about the continuity anymore and I still think they need to stop talking it up until they're actually ready to dig into that (not tease about it). I mean, there're already issues they need to finish tying off in BND before trying to tie off something from the previous continuity.

I must admit that I'm so indifferent to BND and Spider-man now that I rarely go out of my way to just read the book. NWTD isn't changing that either even though it's a fairly good minus some art hiccups and Vepion's design. Yes...I call him Vepion. Also, I find myself ignoring all the red herrings lately...I'm just a bit overloaded there. Loeb has done enough of it this year for everyone. :P

[stumpy]

I don't even follow this book and that analogy was ridiculous. Wherever they stand on same-sex marriage, the people who don't like the retcon aren't advocating that Peter be able to marry a man (or Mary Jane a woman). The silly thing is that Guggenheim sounds like was using that stupid analogy to shout down the people who don't like the change. I can almost hear Zap Brannigan accusing, "What're you? Gay?" Doofus.

Oh, and, TUE, I fixed your link.

[Kholdstare89]

I'm gay and I, of course, support gay marriage, but I don't know what it has to do with hating BND.  Coincidentally, I do hate it, but it has nothing to do with my stance on marriage.  It almost sounds like some sort of high school insult.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Mary Jane and Peter did not have Civil Union...If anything, they were commonlaws...That's it (since the magical erasing of their marriage).  They were boyfriend and girlfriend for a few years.  A civil union is a joining of two people lawfully and it is exactly the same as marriage, just without the religious aspect.  All people who are married are actually in civil unions (lawfully joined)...Most people just call it marriage, whether they got married in a house of worship/by clergy of some sort or not.

I'm for gay marriage (because I'd really like to marry the one I love and not be treated as an unequal citizen of this country)...His comments and comparison are moronic.

I hate the idea of OMD/BND for the mere fact of Peter even contemplating making a deal with the devil to keep his ancient aunt alive.  If he was the unselfish, hero he's supposed to be, he'd let his aunt be with his uncle and not keep her on Earth in his adolescent strangle-hold.  He's also been returned to the perpetual loser, living with his old auntie, with her making his breakfast still...It makes the character look pathetic, not an "Everyman".  Quesada has waffled and back-tracked on far too many of his own concepts, the man is schizo....Why is Harry back? What happened to "dead means dead"?  Why disolve Spidey's marriage (saying it diminished/ruined him and was unrealistic), but give the go-ahead for several other hero marriages (Daredevil, Storm and Black Panther...And also Luke Cage)?

If anything, Spider-Man's marriage was just an example of showing that love can endure, that it can anchor a person, give them strength and it even showed that geeks can marry supermodels/actresses...LOL.  I think it was a positive change in Peter's life...It's too bad it's been thrown away so callously.

Dana

[BlueBard]

It just goes to illustrate how the Marvel folks are ignorant of the value of traditional values.  Not to mention common sense and logic.  And how desperate they are to bring the fans around to their way of thinking.

"If you're upset about dissolving a marriage, then that means all forms of marriage are okay."  So the (faulty) reasoning goes.  Even if you're "pro-gay marriage" you can't possibly agree that ANY form of marriage is acceptable and healthy if you have any shred of decency.  He didn't put it that way, but that's the only way you can interpret that statement and make any sense of it. 

I'm not going to start a conversation about gay marriage, civil unions, or any such thing, as I'm sure there would be disagreement... and it is quite beside the point in any case.  It's a logical fallacy.  One does not necessarily follow the other.  It's a smoke screen, so they don't have to discuss the real issues. 

The real issue is that we have a "hero" acting in a decidedly selfish, despicable, and pathetic manner.  That they have literally thrown out years of the characters' histories.  That they have committed one of the most poorly executed and pointless major continuity changes ever in comic book history for the flimsiest of reasons (and that's saying something).

Marvel says, "Look, we just changed one little thing.  And as a result we changed a few other little things.  But everything else is the same.  Really.  It's magic."

It's baloney.  Magic baloney is still baloney.

I can see as reasonable some of the stuff that led up to BND.  It's reasonable that Peter would do whatever he could to save May's life.  That's what heroes do.

But instead of coming to terms with a difficult reality... which would have been a far more interesting and realistic storyline full of dramatic potential... we have Peter entertaining a "deal with the devil" and all of the stupid consequences that follow.  The Peter Parker I knew and admired would have known better.  He certainly wouldn't have thrown away his marriage.  I don't know this guy.  And I don't want to.

[tommyboy]

This is the rhetorical equivalent of saying "look, behind you, it's Rainier Wolfcastle!", and then running away.
I honestly thought my opinion of the current marvel regime couldn't get much lower, but here we are, nonetheless.
Unable to honestly debate or defend the merits of their creative choices, instead they attempt, rather pathetically, to shift the argument to something that has it's own 'controversy', ie gay marriage.
Wotta revoltin development...

[cmdrkoenig67]

Yeah...It's pretty sad...And this guy writes for TV?  Ugh.

Dana

[yell0w_lantern]

Yeah...It's pretty sad...And this guy writes for TV?  Ugh.

Dana

I believe it. I've seen some TV lately.

[BlueBard]

Look, this is the same thing Marvel has been wrestling with for awhile now.  They make changes to Spider-Man to "make him more interesting to new readers".

Thing is, they're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.  Spidey is an icon.  My little boys, who've never read a Spider-Man comic book or seen one of the cartoons or any of the movies, know who Spider-Man is.  They don't know the history.  They just know a guy who has the powers of a spider and beats up bad guys is pretty cool.  Heck, that's probably why most of us started reading Spider-Man in the first place.

They seem to think they need to make core changes in the character, to make him controversial.  Let's devolve him into a spider.  Let's kill off MJ.  Let's bring her back.  Let's say his powers are mystically-based instead of due to science.  Let's undo that.  Let's put him in the Avengers.  Let's expose his secret identity to the world.  Let's make him a wanted vigilante again.  Let's break up his marriage.  There's no freaking consistency because they're so obsessed with reinventing him, because they can't figure out how to write good stories while sticking with the basics.

This latest change really strikes at the core of the character, though.  Peter's problem has never been that he's unlucky.  All of the tension that makes the character work is his sense of, and obsession with, responsibility.  He suffers because he's trying to do the right thing, no matter what the personal cost is.  He might shy away from being Spider-Man temporarily, but it's his drive to do the right thing that keeps him in the tights.

Suddenly, Peter doesn't have to take responsibility for his Aunt's death.  He doesn't have to take responsibility for MJ.  For his marriage.  For taking off the mask (which was another bad Marvel decision, btw).  It's all 'fixed'.  If he seems like a weenie now, there's why.  The biggest decision he ever could have made and he took the easy way out.  Or allowed it to be taken for him.  Either way, it's not Peter Parker anymore.  It's just a guy in tights fighting bad guys with the powers of a spider.  That'll work for awhile, but it won't endure.  I hope they bring back the real Peter Parker.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Well said, BB...I agree.

It seems Joe Q and many of the writers at Marvel, can't seem to come up with actually intriguing storylines, everything is written for shock value (which always wears off quickly).  Even DC does this, with their recent kill-fest Crisis storylines.

Dana

[thalaw2]

I aslo agree with BB. 

Looks like magic is gonna have to be used to fight magic to restore the PP we all knew.