| Author |
|
joe glasgow
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 February 2007
Posts: 176
|
| Posted: 15 February 2008 at 12:37pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
There would have been answers, and not too complicated ones to all of the problems here but it was just easier and more controversial (which means free publicity) to just do a deal with the Devil(ish).
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stéphane Garrelie
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 August 2005
Location: France
Posts: 4268
|
| Posted: 15 February 2008 at 12:39pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Exactly.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
***Erik Larsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: 15 February 2008 at 12:44pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
Debating stories that didn't happen is rather pointless, isn't it? |
|
|
Absolutely--especially since there's no way of knowing how that story
would have been executed. Still--stripped down to its basic premiss--
the proposed Shaper yarn and the executed Mephisto yarn contain a
similar idea that readers would not be likely to embrace: resetting reality
in order to undo a marriage. I imagine that readers would feel cheated
regardless of how reality was reset.
And fans would bitch themselves blue over a divorce as well. But I think
that a divorce would be perceived of as being honest--whereas any kind
of reset wouldn't be.
But yeah--you're right--in a way it's like readers hearing of a new
creative team taking on an established title and bitching about what they
imagine might happen.
When "True Brit" was announced, readers were supposing that it would
include all kinds of familiar Monty Python sketches--only now featuring
Superman--which would have been pointless and redundant.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Todd Douglas
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 July 2004
Posts: 4101
|
| Posted: 15 February 2008 at 12:46pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| They had an unmasked Peter Parker beat the crap out of the Kingpin in front of a prison riot. |
|
|
And, reading the first two Brubaker Daredevil trades earlier this week, an unmasked Matt Murdock tore through prisoners and guards one-on-one and during a riot (with him in prison, at least in part, because he was suspected of being Daredevil), yet in the end his identity was secret once more.
QUOTE:
| They played for keeps with some of the plot developments in the unmasking. |
|
|
Based on interviews with Quesada at the time of the unmasking, in which he mentioned that he & JMS were working on a Spider-Man "mini-series," it seems we're looking at a "chicken or the egg" situation...that they played for keeps because they knew they were going to hit the reset button in fairly short order.
As far as the "false unmasking" goes, if we need to reconcile public use of powers, etc. just flip the rationale. Instead of Peter doing Spider-Man a favor, Spider-Man "revealed" himself to be Peter to cause Peter problems because he's none too pleased at Peter making a living off of his Spider-Man pictures all those years.
Any number of ways to spin the unmasking as a hoax.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stéphane Garrelie
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 August 2005
Location: France
Posts: 4268
|
| Posted: 15 February 2008 at 12:49pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
And that could have been a false Peter too.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
***Erik Larsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: 15 February 2008 at 12:56pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Jeff W Williams wrote:
A divorced Spider-Man is an old Peter Parker. Unmasking was pretty
much a point of no return as well. I'm not sure how you could get rid of
the marriage and the identity exposure in a way that would satisfy, really.
The rest of the stuff they could have just never mentioned again and it
would have been forgotten over time. Even the spike things. |
|
|
All it would take is a big news story about the reveal having had been a
hoax (as they did 30 some odd years earlier with Captain America). This
could have been similarly put to rest. Spider-Man could be seen publicly
saving Peter Parker -- maybe somebody pretends to be Spider-Man for a
time and that confuses the matter -- maybe he gets Daredevil to play the
role, but the Genie can certainly be put back in the bottle. And any time it
was brought up all it would take is for some character to say, "Yeah, I'll
bet you still believe Milli-Vanilli sang their own music and Iraq was
responsible for the attack on 9-11, too." and that would make it clear
that everybody thought it was a hoax. Peter could even be "that jerk that
was trying to make everybody think he was a superhero" a couple times
to ease out of it and have some fun and gradually, it goes away.
If having MJ not know is important, Peter could "ease her pain" and have a
Dr. Strange or somebody mess with her head and that could plague him
for years, but that makes it magic on a limited scale and there could be
real feelings, guilt and consequences involved.
The trick would be to convince the few people that really did know (ie:
other superheroes) that Peter no longer has the powers and somebody
else is behind the mask now. And that people thinking, "Peter is still
Spider-Man" puts him in danger -- and for them to accept the cover up
and hoax as either "real" or "necessary."
As far as "a divorced Peter Parker is an old Peter Parker" --not so much--
especially if it's played as though they got married "too young" and that it
wasn't a marriage that lasted long. These days young stars get married
and divorced and it's all over with in a matter of weeks. the point is--not
to spell out exactly how long the were married (it's NOT going to be 20+
years even if it was in reality).
My solution--have Peter and MJ get divorced.
She can't take the pressure any more -- living with Peter is giving her
nightmares, he's always in danger, always getting hurt, Peter's always late
for stuff because of Spider-Man and every time she can't help feel that
this will be the time that he never comes back -- and she just can't stand
it. It's all too much. She files for the divorce. She leaves him. He becomes
that much more of a loser. He could try to make things right -- promise
to give up the tights and all that -- but great power and great
responsibility and all the rest and he has to save somebody and she goes
through with filing for a divorce.
And this would not have to be an extended fight-for-every-last-item in
the apartment kind of divorce -- the idea here is to have the two stay
friends. They still love each other, but can’t live with each other.
And Spider-Man getting a divorce would be big news -- in the real world
-- but Marvel has always prided itself on "realism" and a divorce is a
"realistic" solution, not a "comic booky" solution. Marvel would get a lot
more mileage out of a tastefully handled divorce than a hastily executed
mind-wipe.
If the powers that be had mandated that within three months time,
nobody in the comics will refer to Peter Parker being divorced and will
instead simply refer to him as being "single" or "on the market again," the
net result really could essentially be the same -- the same stories could
have been told, only the back-story would have been a lot less
confusing.
And let's not forget, people call an ex-girlfriend an "ex" and they call an
"ex-wife" an "ex." If the guys in charge don't want the divorced stigma, it
can be written around in a way that doesn't spell it out clearly and, as far
as the public is concerned, he's a single man. They don't have to say it
didn't happen, but they don't have to say it did over and over again
either. Marriages "split" and couples "split" and if you remember that they
were married "split" means something different to you than it does to a
reader that never knew they were married. Peter could still miss MJ -- she
could still miss him -- they could still talk about "getting back together,"
they could even question if "this might lead somewhere" if they did.
Handling this would mean being clever -- and being smart -- and it's not
at all impossible to do if you have clever and smart people involved.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Todd Douglas
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 July 2004
Posts: 4101
|
| Posted: 15 February 2008 at 1:00pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Surely, these are the End Days.
I'm agreeing with Erik Larsen.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
joe glasgow
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 February 2007
Posts: 176
|
| Posted: 15 February 2008 at 1:02pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
"Handling this would mean being clever -- and being smart -- and it's not
at all impossible to do if you have clever and smart people involved."
I think that wraps this thread up in a nice neat little package. Thank you new guy...
Edited by joe glasgow on 15 February 2008 at 1:03pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Howell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 August 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 528
|
| Posted: 15 February 2008 at 1:41pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
All it would take is a big news story about the reveal having had been a
hoax (as they did 30 some odd years earlier with Captain America). This
could have been similarly put to rest. Spider-Man could be seen publicly
saving Peter Parker -- maybe somebody pretends to be Spider-Man for a
time and that confuses the matter
===
Dan Slott in The Initiative #7 came up with a way to put things back. Here are the relevent parts from pages 21 and 22.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Howell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 August 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 528
|
| Posted: 15 February 2008 at 1:43pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Sorry if the words are a bit small. I didn't want to post huge graphics.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Malachy Crotty
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 October 2005
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: 15 February 2008 at 1:47pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Erik Larsen wrote:
QUOTE:
This is the first I've heard of any apology.
Granted--I can't be everywhere but you didn't call and you didn't write
and I don't remember seeing such a thing in the thread where I was
accused of having had an uncredited background artist.
Where and when did this appear? Can anybody provide a link? I'd be
curious to see it. |
|
|
Welcome aboard Mr. Larsen, I've enjoyed your columns over at CBR very
much, particularly the one dealing with OMD!
Re: your post quoted above, It's entirely possible that JB isn't avoiding
your query but has you on 'ignore' and as such hasn't seen your question.
On the other hand maybe his "debating stories that didn't happen" is his
acknowledgment of your query.
Looking forward to your contributions here, despite your personal
differences it seems you and JB are both cut from the same cloth when it
comes to the medium we all love!
Mal
.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dan Slott
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 August 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: 16 February 2008 at 11:27am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Hey!
Just wanted to jump in and thank everybody here who gave the first BRAND NEW DAY arc a shot! We're all working really hard on this thing. It involves MANY conference calls, HUGE e-mail chains, and LOTS of scripts of to read. But I think in the end, I think it's all worth it.
Now that we're two issues into Marc & Sal's first arc, what do you guys think of those? I'm totally biased-- I'm digging 'em!
We all have to work so far ahead of schedule to make sure that this thrice-monthly deal works-- that I'm in the back half of my second arc (a 3 parter), half the way through the plots on my third arc (a 6 parter), and prepping/scribbling-down stuff for my NEXT two stories (1 or 2 parters) AND the BIG arc after those!
Whew!!!
Mike Howell,
Hold onto that issue of INITIATIVE #7. It's gonna be important (as if it wasn't already!).
ttyl
Dan
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
