Was OMD pointless?

[Xenon]

I've never seen an editorial mandate pencilled, inked, lettered, and colored before. what will Marvel do next?! illustrate an intra-office memo!?

Didn't you read 101 ways to end the clone saga?

To answer the primary question, the purpose of all stories is to entertain.

The idea that the stories should also "count" and/or "matter" to the ongoing narrative is a peculiar part of comic book fandom, and not something I understand. I prefer to be entertained first and foremost, not worry about how each story is going to affect the larger universe. Otherwise, it's a little bit like putting the cart before the horse, and that's how you end up with Flash Rebirth and the secret origin of Barry Allen's bowtie.

If there's a story I didn't like, no problem, it's not part of my personal continuity.

Fans like to take the puzzle pieces that serve as 50 years worth of stories produced by hundreds of different people, and then fit them all into the same puzzle perfectly, and they are never, ever going to do that.

Except, they did for a long time, at least largely. People aren't asking for the puzzle to fit perfectly, people are asking for there to be some effort to fit. Because it's all one big story that lots of people find (or did find) entertaining.

you're not the only one to say this, but you're the most recent so I'm going to respond to it.

this is such faulty logic. so you actually believe the addition or subtraction of a character, and an entire status quo, has no effect on the final story being told?

structurally, each story would have been changed, because you have to fit Mary Jane into each one, changing the page count of the main story. tonally, the stories change, because Peter doesn't have the built in support system that a marriage provides. even the way the creative teams are going to approach creating the story is going to change, because there are different parameters in place.

it's like saying my life would have happened the exact same for the past 5 years if I hadn't been married. which is impossible.

Funny. That seems to be exactly what Marvel was telling us with OMD. That everything in Peter's life for the previous five years was exactly the same even though he wasn't married. So it's only faulty logic when applied forward now?

No, of course there would be differences. That's part of the reason OMD is so stupid as a status quo. That's not the point. It's not that everything would play out in exactly the same manner as before. Certain parts (anything involving romance) would be cut out, certain lines of dialogue would be changed. But there's nothing about the majority of BND that is fundamentally different with a single or married Peter Parker. That's the point. You can still have Shed (whether you like it or not), you can still have the Gauntlet and Unscheduled Stop. These stories are not fundamentally different with a married Peter Parker, they don't get robbed of their quality or weight because he has a wife at home. And you don't even have to acknowledge her in every issue. Hell, we just had an issue of Spider-Man published that Spider-Man wasn't even in!

If you aren't enjoying the book, I think you should stop. Why is that controversial?


SW

Because people enjoyed the book and loved the franchise long before you were on it and before you or I were born. And they believe that what is coming out now is not a product that's quality is sufficient for the franchise. Like how people hate the Prequels. Or get mad at Jerry Jones.

Also possibly because such an attitude flies in the face of the customer is always right mentality that we're told to expect in all areas. And while I wouldn't run my business that way if I owned a restaurant, I'll admit I find this less of an issue with creative endeavors. Though it's still a little weird.

[ShaggyB]

Didn't you read 101 ways to end the clone saga?

lol only a handful of us did. So far its just me and you.

Funny. That seems to be exactly what Marvel was telling us with OMD. That everything in Peter's life for the previous five years was exactly the same even though he wasn't married. So it's only faulty logic when applied forward now?

if so, then why are fans who argued against OMD via that being faulty logic now trying to use the same faulty logic they so passionately rallied against?

[Lars C]

I'm pretty sure Slott didn't sit down at his computer and think "I'm going to write a stunt today." No, it's a story he's been building to since Amazing Spider-Man #600. What makes it a "stunt" is the marketing and promotion of the story. So much so that, I'm pretty sure, if they weren't restarting with a new #1, people wouldn't be nearly as riled up with their fake furious anger about this "stunt" storytelling.

You don't think it sounds interesting enough to follow, there's nothing wrong with that. but using words like "stunt" and "editorial mandate" in some effort to devalue the effort or intent of the people working hard to try and tell stories, well that just seems weird. not liking something doesn't automatically equal sinister intent on behalf of the people that created it.

Sinister intent? Of course not. Taking the easy way out by making a controversial story that'll sell just because of that? That's something else.

[DracoDracul]

if so, then why are fans who argued against OMD via that being faulty logic now trying to use the same faulty logic they so passionately rallied against?

Technically that would be the faulty logic of OMIT. Applying the faulty logic of OMD would be getting Peter and MJ back together by having Peter sell his ability to be single to the devil in order to save someone.

[Lars C]

This is how I see it. They did OMD to make Peter "younger"/more relatable, more likely to attract new readers and last longer. If they are going to replace him they didn't have to end his marriage at all. It's that simple.

[Xenon]

lol only a handful of us did. So far its just me and you.

No it's just you. I've only flipped through it. =p

if so, then why are fans who argued against OMD via that being faulty logic now trying to use the same faulty logic they so passionately rallied against?

It's not the same argument. The point that things wouldn't have been the exact same in the past is a challenge of logic. That necessarily there would have been changes because of the single status, and that those changes would have led to different outcomes. The point that "you didn't need a single Peter Parker for those stories" is a challenge of causality. It's a counter to the claim that is sometimes made that "well, OMD was worth it because I loved BND". The assertion that you could tell fundamentally the same stories, even though they would be slightly to moderately changed by his marriage, attacks the idea that these stories were the result of OMD. Everyone is aware that changes would have been made in several; that they wouldn't be the exact same stories. But we don't care that they're not the exact same stories, the point is that they would have been stories of the same or better caliber even with a married Peter Parker. The point is that OMD is not justified by these stories, because the primary effect of OMD had little to no positive impact on the quality of those stories.

Simplified, the argument they're making is not that things would be the exact same. The argument is that the quality of BND has nothing to do with Peter's status as a bachelor or husband, and therefore, the cost of OMD is not justified.

[ShaggyB]

No it's just you. I've only flipped through it. =p

doh

It's not the same logic. The argument was never that BND would be the exact same. The argument is that you don't need a single Peter Parker to tell fundamentally the same stories that you did in BND. Which you don't. The stories would not be the exact same. But no one ever thought they would be.

then why did so many people argue it under the premise that it would be the exact same? Many, many people repeatedly claimed the stories would be the exact same if peter was married and that nothing in BNd couldnt be told with married peter vs the unmarried one.

I get what you are saying, but it seems now that the shoe is on the other foot people are using the very same argument they so passionately argued against.

[ShaggyB]

This is how I see it. They did OMD to make Peter "younger"/more relatable, more likely to attract new readers and last longer. If they are going to replace him they didn't have to end his marriage at all. It's that simple.

One could argue that, but where did they specifically say that was the reason. Do you have a quote to back that up or is it just what you see their reasoning to be?

[Lars C]

It's not just my reasoning, it was something Joe Quesada actually said in his "Cup of Joe" columns. But I have no idea or time to really find it. But seriously. Why else would they have done it?

[Xenon]

doh



then why did so many people argue it under the premise that it would be the exact same? Many, many people repeatedly claimed the stories would be the exact same if peter was married and that nothing in BNd couldnt be told with married peter vs the unmarried one.

I get what you are saying, but it seems now that the shoe is on the other foot people are using the very same argument they so passionately argued against.

Sorry, I didn't like my previous argument, it wasn't quite clear, so I redid it. If it helps, the two arguments that you cit "stories woudl be the exact same" and "nothing in BND couldn't be told with married peter vs the unmarried one", I think are wholly seperate and distinct arguments, with the first being incorrect and the second being correct.

As for why people continue following faulty logic, people aren't good at expressing themselves, as I demonstrated by re-editing that post half a dozen times.

[ShaggyB]

Sorry, I didn't like my previous argument, it wasn't quite clear, so I redid it. If it helps, the two arguments that you cit "stories woudl be the exact same" and "nothing in BND couldn't be told with married peter vs the unmarried one", I think are wholly seperate and distinct arguments, with the first being incorrect and the second being correct.

As for why people continue following faulty logic, people aren't good at expressing themselves, as I demonstrated by re-editing that post half a dozen times.

I think neither is correct. Especially the second one. One could not have Peter date Carlie (and do the deed with her) while being married to MJ without it being a completely different story entirely.

[Kevin Nichols]

Also possibly because such an attitude flies in the face of the customer is always right mentality that we're told to expect in all areas. And while I wouldn't run my business that way if I owned a restaurant, I'll admit I find this less of an issue with creative endeavors. Though it's still a little weird.

Do you honestly believe that the customer is always right?

I prefer my hamburgers grilled over flame-broiled. If I go to Burger King, should the grill one specially for me, or should I perhaps eat somewhere else where I will enjoy my meal?

[David Walton]

Pretty sure both Quesada and Breevort argued that eliminating the marriage was better for the franchise's long-term viability.

Which does seem kind of silly in light of his story supposedly getting wrapped up in ASM 700. Because if Peter's marital status is so integral to the franchise's viability, it would seem to follow that his continued existence would be even more so!

[ShaggyB]

Pretty sure both Quesada and Breevort argued that eliminating the marriage was better for the franchise's long-term viability.

thats what i recall... not that it makes him appeal to younger readers.

[Max_Power]

I hate catching these threads so late. I always come to them when the conversation is only going between two or three posters and as nature orders, close to be abandoned.

Whatever. I can't very well let this chance of giving my always "eager to be read by the rest of the posters" insight go, so I'll give it anyway.

For the most part, I don't think OMD was pointless, the coming status change quo is going to last two years at most (if Marvel ever learned something about the Clone Saga), so the status quo to return to after that is obviously the one set by OMD. So it wasn't pointless in that regard. Except that maybe a single Spidey could have been the result of the upcoming status quo, so maybe OMD was pointless: If the current status quo lent itself as a way of getting rid of the marriage, I would have been arguably better than OMD. Just speculation, so no need to comment further than that.

But as a personal note, OMD was pretty pointless because it pointlessly made me believe that anything was possible with regards to Spider-Man and his story and this is plainly obviously not true. So thank you, One More Day, for pointlessly raising my hype for nothing, I hope you are happy! (And this, ladies and gentlemen is the incredibly good insight I was talking about earlier).