Ralph and Sue Dibny - of course, the Newhart similarity ends when a pregnant Sue was murdered by Jean Loring. Sure... of course that makes sense. I still don't get how Identity Crisis didn't result in open season on super villains. They were angry, and trying even harder to kill the heroes... and I can't imagine that, in that universe, some of the supers didn't decide it was time to end these threats to their lives.

X-Men did indeed show how to handle the future(s) entirely wrong. "Days of Future Past" did a great job, and directly stated that changing the past might have no effect at all on their present, and showed nothing of it after the 1980 (!!!) history changed.

Really, if all those futures came TRUE, then what does that make of "What If-?" Not only do two alternate futures occur in "reality"... but they interact in the past?!?!? Sloppy, McGee. Very sloppy.

 I'm not a big fan of superhero weddings myself, as it ruins the whole suspension of time vibe that I prefer in comics.  Special mini-series (imaginary stories, etc) are an exception.  

 Probably a reason this fan never could go pro.

Can I ask how it would ruin the whole suspension of time vibe, Paul?

If just one wedding takes place, it takes place on one day in a hero's life. It need not date the stories or mess with the illusion of time any more than a funeral or other event would.

So, Spidey failed to save Gwen? Well, that's tough luck for ol' 616 Spidey, but over on Earth 616-subsection A, paragraph 12, he saved her. Same Spidey, Same Gwen. Just a different timeline. He saves her, he doesn't save her, same difference. One way or the other, a version of her was going to wind up dead.

Now, it's still important to TRY to save people, if only so that 50-50 split can still take place. If you don't try, there's a 100% percent chance they wind up dead and the timeline remains intact for want of a divergent "event." Of course, there was some divergent event that took place BEFORE this one, and another before that, and in some of those timelines, the same events played out, so really... everyone winds up dead a lot of the time anyway. And they wind up saved in the timelines where the events leading up to their deaths happened differently. 

So, does it really matter if the hero does anything? Or the villain for that matter? Divergent timelines as a storytelling device all but completely erase the idea of Cause and Effect as well as Decision and Consequence. If everything happens both ways (or more) anyway, we're really just following random series of set-ups and outcomes. We could just as easily be reading the versions that went the other way.

The comic "What If" tried to limit this by saying that only certain events split off, and we were being told of those specific incidents when they occurred. As the issues piled up however, we got multiple looks at similar events and moments of great decision within the stories themselves that doubtlessly went another way in some other version of those new events. 

What If #18 has Dr. Strange make a selfish choice early on that results in his becoming a disciple of Dormammu. Later in the story, he is required again to choose the path of good or evil. Same choice as before. It went both ways the first time. There was no reason to assume it wouldn't do so again. 

In issue #21 (which I still enjoy tremendously) college-age Dr. Doom is able to overcome his essential arrogance and jealousy to listen when Richards warns him his calculations are off. They work together and his experiment succeeds, leading him to pursue the monks who crafted his armor for other reasons. Once armored, Doom becomes a true hero to the people of Latveria... until the end of the story, when he makes a decision based upon arrogance and loses the thing most precious to him, his wife. Well, second most precious, after his pride.

I love that story. The thing is, however, that he could have overcome his arrogance a second time in some other timeline, right? I mean, his earlier decision went both ways originally. It's just as likely to do so again. 

I'd just as soon stories ignored all the possible divergences and treated events they describe as irrevocable and lasting, rather than constantly hinting that it all turned out differently as well. Plus, we'd wind up a whole lot fewer parallel versions of existing characters. There's a story in What If #31, I believe, wherein we learn that if Peter Parker had missed the bus to the science exhibit that fateful day, most of the rest of the Marvel Universe wouldn't have happened at all. So, is there a parallel MU created every time Peter misses a bus? Or catches one? How about everyone else? Every time Irvish Forbush misses or catches a bus, or Jeff rolls a multi-sided dice, dozens of new realities come into being... Entire universes, filled with countless iterations of those characters, of every character, of you and me, and everyone around us... 

Yeah, quantum physics argues that it's possible, but from a storytelling perspective, it makes everything matter a whole lot less.

I specifically did not want to see Peter marry MJ because it was likely a mistake for them. At the very least, MJ was going to lose her flirtatious, party-girl demeanor and "be there" (cue rising music) whenever her husband needed her (music crescendos) or (discordant violins come in) NOT be there when he needed her (cymbal crash) for some (timpani drums) terrible reason! It was all going to be awful, and I believe that it was. For similar reasons, I did not ever want to see E-Man marry Nova. Like Peter and MJ, they were too young, or at the very least, too caught up in their own stuff. A Rocketeer-Betty wedding would be a creative disaster. 

Marc

i am not as familiar with the DC world as to who is, and who isn't, married, but for Marvel, Reed and Sue were married when i first 'met' them so leave them be ... everyone else can remain as they were created. 

by all means, introduce the illusion of change, and marriage can be one of those illusions, but characters should always return to the basics for the next generation of comic fans - isn't that one of the cornerstones of 'serialized fiction' ?

Good point, Andrew, but must it always be that way?

Can't we judge each case on its own merits?

This isn't about me wanting to change the status quo or selfishly apply certain things to characters (I promise). I came to some comics at a time when characters were married. Some characters got married after I started reading their exploits. 

I'm not lobbying for it to happen, just stating that if it does happen, I don't necessarily mind (I return to my point about judging a case on its own merits).

And, yes, you've made a compelling argument. I certainly agree about Spider-Man. Something changed when that happened. I can't really comment on Clark/Lois as I read very few comics from that time period.

I suppose a parallel is the "Will they/won't they?" in TV fiction. It can be nice to see chemistry between two people, but if they finally hit it off, it's not satisfying. Maybe sometimes it is, but most of the time, it isn't.