Marvel's Stephen Wacker weirdly claims victory over stated enemy — people who buy comics
Marvel’s Stephen Wacker weirdly claims victory over stated enemy — people who buy comics
Many years from now there will be business courses on Marvel Comics’ bizarre decision to demonize large swathes of its fanbase as a means of securing sales. Common sense tells objective observers that Marvel’s downward sales trajectory is tied to hostility towards the fans, and yet guys like Stephen Wacker, VP for Current Series and Development, continue to double and triple down on insulting…
Recent conversations have inspired me to make a big ass list of Marvel creators stances on the marriage.
This isn’t definitive as it’s me going off memory.
Bear in mind some of this is inferred from other stuff they’ve said and is more a representation of whether these people there is anything wrong with Spider-Man being married in general not necessarily their thoughts on the marriage as it actually played out.
This isn’t a list of every Marvel creator ever, just the ones who to my recollection have expressed an opinion about whether being married was appropriate for Spider-Man in general.
Half and Halfs
Steve Ditko: Co-creator of Spider-Man. According to Marv Wolfman in an interview published (but possibly not conducted) in 2004, when he spoke to Ditko decades ago Ditko felt it was a mistake for Spider-Man to have ever aged beyond high school. However bear in mind this comes from typed up notes of a one-to-one interview (presumably done face to face, but we do not know) and it is giving us someone’s recollections of what someone said decades ago about a character that that person had ceased working on at least 10-15 years beforehand. Hardly the benchmark of reliability.
Gerry Conway: Author of the Death of Gwen Stacy who’s run also turned Harry Osborn into a villain, a frequently adapted plot point in other media. Has said it was a mistake because Spider-Man should never have aged beyond age 21. However he has had four runs in which Spider-Man has been 22 or above. Three of those have featured a married Spider-Man, the latest of which very deliberately so. Has also admitted that part of his apprehension regarding the marriage when he was writer was that he was dealing with his divorce at the time.
Ron Frenz: Acclaimed artist and part of one of the most well received Spider-Man runs and Spider-Man spin-offs ever. Has stated that when he was doing Spider-Man in the 1980s he felt that if Peter was ever to marry he’d have to give up being Spider-Man. However has also done a whole run featuring a married Spider-Man as a supporting character where he shared a poignant quote about why the relationship is very interesting.
Howard Mackie: Despite his early work being more positively received, is regarded as one of the worst Spider-man writers ever. Stated in the early 2000s that the marriage was too difficult to write. However in the 2010s stated that he saw the arguments from both sides.
Roger Stern: Author of one of the most acclaimed Spider-Man runs ever. Stern has said Spider-Man is about youth which you would imagine means that he feels Spider-Man cannot work whilst married. However Stern has actually said that he feels Peter Parker could possibly get married, his problem was that it was with Mary Jane specifically (and that’s neither here nor there).
David Michelinie: Author of a run with a mixed reception. Some people like it whilst others hate it. The run however included the introduction of popular villains Venom and Carnage as well as introduced the marriage itself via editorial mandate. He didn’t like the idea of writing a married Spider-Man when he got the job as ASM writer because the Spider-Man he knew had been a student. Bearing in mind that at the time Spider-Man hadn’t been a student for three or four years and had graduated from his college education and was undergoing studies for a Master degree before dropping out. Michelinie however has alternatively stated his apprehension was due to a lack of experience with romantic relationships and that in taking the assignment he endeavoured to write it as well as possible. In a 2007 publication he stated that he felt there was nothing wrong with Spider-Man being married because Spider-Man was about responsibility.
Brian Michael Bendis: Acclaimed author of Ultimate Spider-Man which depicted a moderinization of teenage Spider-Man’s adventures, creator of one of the most popular Spider-Man spin-off characters Miles Morales. Well known for writing a teenage Spider-Man and stated that Spider-Man is supposed to be a kid instead of an old divorced guy. However he wrote Peter and MJ in his teen drama Spider-Man series as a pseudo married couple and even used such terminology more than once in-story in reference to their relationship. Has expressed a fondness for the Peter and MJ relationship.
Danny Fingeroth: Author of a handful of Spider-Man stories with at best mixed receptions, at worst panned receptions. Instituted the infamous robot parents subplot with no clear direction in mind. Clashed with David Michelinie and led to his departure from the series. Hasn’t ever come out and said it was a mistake for Spider-Man to be married or that Spider-Man shouldn’t ever be married but has stated that around the time of the Clone Saga there was the thought that being married made him too unrelatable. However other accounts have indicated that that was not the original genesis of the Clone Saga and that the original long term plan (which he was in on) was to eventually have Spider-Man become a father as well as husband (with the single Ben Reilly becoming a spin-off character).
Mat Fraction: Acclaimed author. Wrote an Eisner nominated Spider-Man story specifically celebrating the marriage but also stated he was not certain if marriage was right for Spider-Man.
Todd Dezago: Acclaimed author who cut his teeth on Spider-Man. Has never stated anything about the marriage one way or the other but learned to write comics during that era in the Spider-Man office.
John Romita Junior: Acclaimed artist. Allegedly felt the marriage was wrong but I do not recall seeing or hearing him ever explicitly state this.
John Romita Senior: Acclaimed artist, regarded as pseudo co-creator of Spider-Man because so much of his run helped to define Spider-Man. Co-creator of Kingpin, Rhino, Shocker and Mary Jane. Inker of the Death of Gwen Stacy. His depiction of Spider-Man became the in house style for Spider-Man and all of Marvel for several years. I forget, but I seem to recall he expressed mixed feelings about it as opposed to a clear cut opinion one way or another.
Those against the marriage
Mark Waid: Eisner award winning writer. Has written one acclaimed Spider-Man story which is praised because it plays well upon classic tropes. Essentially his big claim to fame is writing a good paint by numbers Spider-man tale. His other Spider-Man works have included writing Spider-Man and Daredevil’s relationship in correctly by portraying Daredevil as disliking Spider-Man despite this egregiously contradicting older stories, and a story where Spider-Man was a mentally ill person with some form of split personality but when regular Peter Parker would routinely bully J. Jonah Jameson.
Dan Jurgens: Wrote 7 good issues of Spider-Man starring Ben Reilly as the titular character. Feels that Spider-Man is about suffering and that marriage is thus in appropriate.
Marv Wolfman: Wrote a good run of Spider-Man despite some characterization problems. Feels Spider-Man being in a relationship with someone too attractive like Mary Jane is wrong and that marriage is wrong because Spider-Man is about having the rug pulled out from under him and that being a high schooler was the true state of the character. Bear in mind he is also famous for agining Dick Grayson from Robin the Boy Wonder who was created to be Batman’s child sidekick into the distinctly adult Nightwing who at one point almost got married. He actually did this with multiple other teen character sidekicks who were part of a team called the TEEN Titans. It got to the point where the series name was changed to just Titans. So...seems a tad hypocritical no?
Kurt Busieck: Wrote a well received run on a series set in the Ditko run. Has never written a Spdier-Man story set in the modern day where Spider-Man is the main character with said story getting particularly good reviews. Began reading in the Gerry Conway/Ross Andru run
Steve Wacker: Has no formal writing experience whatsoever. Was editor of an era of Spider-Man where the title character deliberately withheld knowledge of his identity from one of his loyal friends and confidants whom he knew had romantic feelings for him all for the purposes of having mask sex with her in hotel rooms that they’d illegally broken into together. Did I mention this person was also an active criminal whom Spider-Man routinely let go? Also oversaw a story he personally expressed pride in that involved child cannibalism. And another storyline in which there was a strong implication of rape by deception.
Dan Slott: Wrote a story where Spider-Man acted as a paparazzi despite the character being fully aware of the dangers of invading someone’s privacy, since the previous year his identity was public knowledge. Most acclaimed Spider-Man work is Superior Spider-Man which is literally not about Peter Parker but another character. In the course of this story major plot points involved the lead character trying to rape an innocent woman, possibly succeeding in sexually violating Peter Parker himself, probably sexually violating a different innocent woman and playing the Green Goblin’s identity as a mystery before revealing it to be Norman Osborn all along, thus rendering it an entirely pointless mystery. Maintained the status quo of his acclaimed Superior storyline through objectively large plot contrivances such as the Avengers scanning his brain without bringing along anyone who could read the results.
Jim Shooter: EIC of one of Marvel’s most critically acclaimed and financially lucrative periods
Erik Larsen: An artist who wrote one vaguely well received Spider-Man issue. All his other Spider-Man writing work has been panned or rarely mentioned.
Terry Kavanagh: Regarded as one of, if not the, worst Spider-Man writer of all time, responsible for the critically panned FACADE storyline.
Joe Quesada: Wrote literally the two most critically panned Spider-Man stories of all time which character assassinated Peter Parker and Mary Jane.
John Byrne: Drew and wrote Spider-Man Chapter One, a critically panned rebooting of Spider-Man’s history from the acclaimed and iconic Ditko run. Wrote one critically panned (by those who remember) issue of Web of Spider-Man. Wrote 2 issues of the critically panned Gathering of Five/Final Chapter storyline. Has said that the acclaimed Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies were poor adaptations. Was responsible for the sickening scene wherein an underage teenage girl kissed the then-recently widowed and very much adult Peter Parker. Seems to think that by making Superman someone who doesn’t see himself as an alien at all, has never lost his parents and doesn’t pretend to be a mild mannered or bumbling fool as Clark Kent but rather an upright and confidant person didn’t change the character of Superman. Did I mention he regularly ships underage teenage girls with adult male characters?
Jordan D. White: Has only ever edited a few Deadpool projects which have involved Spider-Man.
Jason Aaron: Has written one well reviewed mini-seires involving Spider-Man and Wolverine, which is more of a Wolverine storyline
Bob Harras: Edited just one Spider-Man story. Was the extremely controversial editor of X-Men who’s actions were part of the reason well received X-Men writer Louise Simonson left the X-Men franchise, something her husband Walt Simonson has not forgiven him for to this day. Gave the editorial mandate to bring Aunt May back to life and undo the milestone and acclaimed Amazing Spider-Man #400. Also gave the editorial mandate to kill off the highly popular character of Mary Jane in order to end the marriage. The move was critically panned and even disagreed upon by Howard Mackie and John Byrne who wrote and drew the issue in question. The story took the series in a direction that greatly lowered sales and led to even more critical panning, indeed it was regarded as one of the worst eras of Spider-Man ever. EIC of DC and overseer of the critically panned and sales decreasing New 52 era which led to the DC Rebirth era as an antidote.
Bill Jemas: Co-plotted Ultimate Spider-Man #1-7. Is one of the most heavily criticized Marvel EIC’s ever. Sole writer of Marville one of the most panned Marvel stories of at least the 2000s.
Christopher Priest: Edited a strong era of Spider-Man and has written a few decent-great one shot Spider-Man stories including the acclaimed Spider-Man vs. Wolverine storyline. However he has also stated that the reason that Spider-Man shouldn’t be married is because it ruins the wish fulfilment factor of young boys who don’t want to be tied down. This is patently not true given the raw number of male Spider-Man fans who began reading during the marriage and the higher sales compared to the post-marriage stories. It also obviously doesn’t take into account female fans or fans identifying by something other than strictly male or female.
Those in favour of the marriage
John Semper Junior: Showrunner of the 1994 Spider-Man cartoon which was at it’s time acclaimed and has gone on to influence other media adaptations.
Greg Weisman: Acclaimed writer who’s work includes Gargoyles, Star Wars: Rebels, Young Justice and the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, regarded as THE best adaptation of Spider-Man ever.
Tom DeFalco: Former Spider-Man editor during the acclaimed Roger Stern run. Former EIC of Marvel. Wrote one of the most popular and well received runs of the character in the 1980s. Went on to have 2 more runs in the 1990s and co-created possibly the most popular Spider-Man spin-off character ever in Spider-Girl who is the female marvel character with the longest unbroken run to date. Helped institute elements which have remained part of Spider-Man lore to this day including the iconic black costume. Author of at the time the most definitive Spider-man information book. Began reading Spider-Man in the early 1960s with Amazing Fantasy #15 itself.
Peter David: Acclaimed writer, who’s acclaimed comic work has included runs on X-Factor, one of the most popular Spider-Man spin-off characters (Spider-Man 2099) and a well recived run on Spectacular Spider-Man. He also penned one of the most acclaimed Spdier-Man stories of all time, the Death of Jean DeWolff.
Jim Salicrup: Editor of arguably the most financially successful period of Spider-Man ever, including Spider-Man #1 which sold in the millions.
J.M. DeMatteis: Has had 3 runs on Spider-Man, 2 of which were well received. These included the well received Spectacular Spider-Man #250, the acclaimed Harry Osborn Saga, the best Vulture story of all time and the acclaimed Amazing Spider-Man #400. He has also written the acclaimed Spider-Man: the Lost Years and Spider-Man Redepmtion as well as Kraven’s Last Hunt, regarded as one of the best Spdier-Man stories of all time, possibly the greatest. Many of his works are regarded as the height of literary fiction about Spider-Man.
J. Michael Straczynski: Critically acclaimed Emmy award winning writer, creator of Babylon 5, wrote the sometimes controversial sometimes acclaimed Amazing Spider-Man run, which included the relatively well received characters of Morlun and Ezekiel, the well received 9/11 issue of Spider-Man, the acclaimed direction of having Aunt May know Peter’s secret identity.
Tom Beland: Wrote the well received I (Heart) Marvel: Web of Romance
Todd Nauck: Well received artist of Spider-Man: the Clone Saga, Mr and Mrs Spider-Man.
Roberto Aguirre Sacasa: Acclaimed playright and writer of the well received Spider-Man stories, the Book of Peter, The Last Temptation of Eddie Brock and Sensational Spider-Man #32-34 which were character studies of Mary Jane, Aunt May and Black Cat.
Ryan Stegman: Acclaimed artist of Superior Spider-Man and Spider-Man Renew: Your Vows.
Stan Lee: Co-creator of Spider-Man who worked on the first 100 issues of the character. Also co-created other iconic comic book characters. His advocating of the marriage led to it happening.
I have a real problem with Dan Slott insisting that the reason he could never bring the marriage back is because he had to "preserve the integrity of the series," yet he completely abandons anything recognizable ABOUT the franchise. He gets rid of all of Peter's supporting case, even downplaying principal characters like May and JJJ in favor of his own little pet creations who are treated as being so awesome they define words, he takes Peter away from being a street level character with a job where he struggles to pay the bills and makes him into a member of a super science lab, then the head of his own company, turning the "everyman" into a character akin to Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne, and even goes as far to replace Peter entirely with Doctor Octopus. Stephen Wacker constantly insisted that Peter was about "youth," but had no problems approving or even spearheading these changes. The utter base hypocrisy of both of these creators frustrates me, since it's clear that their proclamations regarding the "protection" of the franchise were just inflated self promotion.
They didn't care about "preserving" the franchise. Slott wanted to turn the series into his own fan fiction, but cloaked his position in the rhetoric of "preserving" the series in order to make it seem like he wasn't being as selfish and as entitled as the fans he condemned for daring to criticize him. Wacker clearly understood nothing about the series appeal and why it worked, and was more interested in being "controversial" and "working people up" rather than actually delivering substantial change or even making a product people enjoy. He seemed to be only concerned that people were TALKING about the book, not if they were finding it enjoyable. Nothing about their actions were about honoring what came before. Not about respecting or celebrating the series. Hell, the 50th anniversary of the series- the thing that only happens ONCE- was not about the celebration of Spider-Man's history. Not about his life, his role in the Universe, not anything that promotes the character HIMSELF. It was about the Alpha- a character utterly despised by practically everyone, who for some reason had a mini series approved before the story was even finished. Slott creates characters no one likes, Wacker approves stories that no one has said they are interested in reading or seeing more of. And if we didn''t like it, we were the ones who were wrong.
In regards to the marriage, the point that most of it's detractors and many of Slott and Wacker's defenders have argued is that the marriage made Peter's life "Too easy." It "aged" him. It solved too many problems, and robbed Peter of his "everyman" status.
And yet, when it comes to Horizon and Parker Industries, these voices are silent. In fact, these accusations have never been made as far as I can tell, even though these developments age the character, solve his problems and move Peter farther from his everyman status far more than the marriage ever could. Not only that, but they also color Peter's morality, causing his character to engage in very dubious actions that are white-washed and painted over for the sake of narrative convenience.
Parker Industries itself is also a massively ill-conceived development. Again, the point made about Peter was that he was an "everyman," and that his marriage to MJ- a "supermodel"- ruined that. Yet how does Parker Industries not do the same thing? It takes what was a street level character who struggled to pay his bills, and makes him the head of a massive corporation with dozens of employees, engaged in the construction of prisons for supervillains, which has also seen Peter engage in televised conferences to speak about his business to the world. It has essentially turned Peter Parker into a character akin to Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark. And it gives him the same type of resources that Horizon had. True, Peter agreed not to be Spider-Man's "tech guy," but the resources are still there for him to exploit. In addition, this is another instance of Peter being "handed" something without having earned it himself. Otto got his degree for him, likely in a doctorate Peter didn't major in making the certificate a lite. There are no such things as "generic" degrees in science, and it was even a plot point that Otto specialty was in robotics which Peter was not familiar with. And he is again just handed control of the company, not having worked for it himself. And yet we are supposed to be fine with this development, with the "problems" stemming not from the fact that Peter didn't earn anything he has but instead the "wacky" complications of him running a company. Running it with- in another instance of making things easier for him- a character that knows and accepts his secret identity, and who is willing to run his company FOR him, allowing him the benefit of the title but none of the responsibility.
With Horizon Labs, Peter was just handed a magical, fix everything job that solved practically all of his concerns. He could come and go as he pleased, was paid a handsome salary that allowed him to pay for an apartment in cash, and- most troubling- allowed him to raid the inventions of his coworkers for his own personal use. Other may not feel this way, but I felt that this action was highly questionable and morally suspect. For a lot of these technologies, Peter did not develop them himself, or he simply used company resources for his own personal wants. He initially did not get permission to use them the way he did, and kept such developments a secret from his employer and coworkers. Yes, when his employer did find out he was OK with Peter using the resources of Horizon to help Spider-Man, but that doesn't absolve Peter of the duplicitous activities he did beforehand. In addition, it goes back to the notion of how the story essentially made Peter's life "easier"- he was handed the resources of a massive corporation, to which he coopted for his own ends and purposes without contributing anything to said company's development, and his employer simply signed off on it. How is that sort of thing more acceptable than being married to someone who knew his secret identity? And the only time that the Horizon Labs development started to become a problem for Peter was when Otto Octavius took over Peter's body, who had a different agenda than Peter. Peter never faced any consequences for his actions at Horizon, as it seemed tailor made to make his life and time as Spider-Man as easy and convenient as possible.
The problem I have is with the hypocrisy regarding the creative parties who implemented these stories, and the response of the fans who criticized earlier and thematically similar developments. Dan Slott has often proclaimed that the reason he can't implement any ideas from his critics or take the series in another direction is that he has to "preserve" the integrity of the series for "future" generations. Yet he has done more to change the narrative and mythos than any other writer previous. He removed most of the supporting cast for his own pet creations. He changed Peter's professional life and his love life to fit his standards of what he felt it "should" be. And he even changed the titular character himself for over a year. It feels akin to "Do as I say, not as I do." And it's frustrating to see such blatant hypocrisy being overlooked or dismissed. Furthermore, these sort of changes Slott- and the editor Steve Wacker- introduced were clearly meant to BE permanent changes, as Slott happily made clear. He proclaimed that the development of Peter becoming a Doctor was something that was going to be around for decades, boasting along the lines of "When people in 20 years ask 'Where this got started?' you can point them to here!" So it was something at least Slott believed was going to be around long after he was gone.
What am I doing with a woman who has no interest in me when I'm not wearing webs and pulls stunts like this?
I don't fucking know Peter?
It's almost as if your being monumentally written out of character so that old men with mid-life crises can live out juvenile sexual fantasies vicariously through you whilst you fuck a kinky platinum haired cat burglar who likes tight leather and mask sex or something.
P.S. Hey writer/editor if your audience is you know, reading, something you don't need to have the dialogue literally say
Teased as far back as early May, Marvel’s Ultimate Spider-Man: Web Warriors animated series is a go, revealed Monday by USA Today. As previously speculated, Web Warriors is the third season of the popular Ultimate Spider-Man Disney XD cartoon, and will contain a four-episode animated analogue to the upcoming Spider-Verse Marvel Comics event.
“[The new season is] going to really show how important…
