Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Thread

Author
Jared






I know that JMS's original plan was to have Peter be the father of the Stacy twins, but would that really have been a better idea? I mean, that would have made it look like Peter and/or Gwen essentially abandoned their children, since Gwen would have still had to have the twins without Peter finding out. So now we've got two kids languishing off somewhere, with neither of their parents ever taking a role in their lives.

Would this *really* have been a more desirable outcome for the development of both Peter and Gwen as characters?

Not to mention that I have an extremely hard time seeing Peter and Gwen having sex before they would be married. You'd think that a guy as obsessed with responsibility as Peter would be aware of the dangers of premarital sex and wouldn't have done it at all, or at least without taking every possible precaution he could have. Not to mention that Gwen became increasingly upset and moody after her father died, and I have an even harder time seeing Peter wanting to take advantage of her after that.

As bad as making Norman the father of the Wonder Twins was, at least it had the saving grace of only destroying Gwen's character, while leaving Peter's at least *somewhat* intact.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows Vista
Epidot




No. No it would not be a desirable outcome at all. I think I speak for most easily led, easily convinced, easily sold comic book readers out there when I say that the whole consept of 'Sins Past' was a very bitter egg. And I'm saying this as a person who has no real conection to the Gwen Stacy character at all. JMS was a very good character writer in Spider-man, but I do feel he was a bit too ambisious (I must stop writing these things so late), and Sins Past is only the prime example of that. The story, as is, is as many have said, easily ignored and overlooked (thank God). I have no doubt that JMS, writing it as he would have wanted to, it would have been rock solid. And he would have managed to make the story much more memorable. That said, I highly doubt I would have wanted to remember it, as I found it both boring to read, and upsetting to buy.

~Epidot (who thinks he has rambeled enough stupid things for tonight, and are off to bed).




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows XP
Michael




Peter's been implied to have had premarital sex before- with Felicia, for example. As for protection, it's possible Peter used protection and the condom broke, or something. With Peter's luck, even if he used some form of protection that only failed one in a billion times, it would fail on him.
I don't think that it would be considered taking advantage of Gwen to sleep with her, say, three months after her father died.
However, there are a couple of troubling issues. One is that Gwen blamed Spider-Man for her father's death. Would it be ethical for Peter to sleep with her when she would not knowingly sleep with Spider-Man? Remember, Tony Stark slept with Jan while lying to her about being Iron Man, and that's been used as the basis of many of his later portrayals as a jerk (e.g.Civil War).
The second issue is, why wouldn't Gwen TELL Peter if the kids were Peter's? I can't think of a reason.
Also, did MJ know the kids were Peter's in JMS's original scenario? Because if she knew and didn't tell Peter, then she pretty much crossed the Moral Event Horizon.

Michael



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Jim M




nt


Posted with Google Chrome 7.0.517.41 on Windows 7
Oliver




Bill Mantlo wanted to do a story involving Spidey fathering an illegitimate child but Shooter shot the idea down. In a 2000 interview from CBR, he had this to say:

"Then Bill Mantlo walks into my office one time and he's having a major war with whoever was his editor at the time. He's insisting he wants to do this story where Spider-Man fathers an illegitimate child and I said, no. Tell you what, do that same story, call him Arachnid Man, do it for Epic. And everybody will really know that it's Spider-Man. He said, "Why not?" I said, "Look, we have licensed Spider-Man for Underroos. We have things in the contract that say we won't do things like that." I said, "Can you imagine, on a slow news day, the president of Union underwear wakes up and there on CNN, they're talking about Spider-Man fathering an illegitimate child. All over the Bible Belt, Underroos are being pulled off the shelves. ... The people who own this company have put me here in order to keep you from doing that. Do that in the adult line for Epic. These just aren't our characters and we can't just mess around with them like that. We do have obligations. I didn't carve them, but they're there." "


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows XP
mjyoung





    Quote:
    I know that JMS's original plan was to have Peter be the father of the Stacy twins, but would that really have been a better idea? I mean, that would have made it look like Peter and/or Gwen essentially abandoned their children, since Gwen would have still had to have the twins without Peter finding out. So now we've got two kids languishing off somewhere, with neither of their parents ever taking a role in their lives.


While that was his original plan, JMS wrote the story with the understanding that it was going to be erased with OMD.


    Quote:
    Would this *really* have been a more desirable outcome for the development of both Peter and Gwen as characters?


No. The written story was awful and ultimately ruins the character of Gwen. While that's certainly a negative thing, she's a dead character who is only used as the ideal girlfriend that Peter lost.

The proposed idea of Peter being the parent hurts the main character, which is a much worse outcome. You are stuck with Peter in the comics as they are about his stories, and it's not something you can brush aside. One of the major factors in the character's popularity is the fact that he is suppose to be a realistic character for the reader to associate with. This story would severely impact that.


    Quote:
    Not to mention that I have an extremely hard time seeing Peter and Gwen having sex before they would be married. You'd think that a guy as obsessed with responsibility as Peter would be aware of the dangers of premarital sex and wouldn't have done it at all, or at least without taking every possible precaution he could have. Not to mention that Gwen became increasingly upset and moody after her father died, and I have an even harder time seeing Peter wanting to take advantage of her after that.


That's a strange thing to say, as I wouldn't consider those that have premarital sex to be irresponsible. It's a regular and mainstream practice, with 95% of people having had premarital sex. Even having a child out of wedlock isn't irresponsible.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows XP
Jeremiah Ecks





Just imagine what Shooter would have to say for sacrificing his marriage for a Satanic pact, then.

But nobody has that kind of wisdom any more.

Kindest regards
-Jeremiah Ecks, who thinks marriage is overrated anyway.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,126



    Quote:
    Peter's been implied to have had premarital sex before- with Felicia, for example. As for protection, it's possible Peter used protection and the condom broke, or something. With Peter's luck, even if he used some form of protection that only failed one in a billion times, it would fail on him.
    I don't think that it would be considered taking advantage of Gwen to sleep with her, say, three months after her father died.
    However, there are a couple of troubling issues. One is that Gwen blamed Spider-Man for her father's death. Would it be ethical for Peter to sleep with her when she would not knowingly sleep with Spider-Man? Remember, Tony Stark slept with Jan while lying to her about being Iron Man, and that's been used as the basis of many of his later portrayals as a jerk (e.g.Civil War).


Yup, Peter was implied to have had sex before, and indeed many Gwendyphiles were convinced that this was also the case for Gwen and Peter. Whether sleeping with Gwen three months after her father's death is to be considered taking advantage of her is up to the individual reader to decide.
And of course with the kind of sensitivities that have developed since the 1960s and 1970s one has to question how far one can take a romantic relationship with someone without revealing that one is a superhero. If you believes that your love interest would reject you if s/he knew about your secret, then it can be argued that having sex with them or marrying them would be unethical. Given that Gwen in general seemed to fear Spider-Man and especially when she blamed him for her father's death, Peter sleeping with Gwen would have been even more problematic than Tony Stark sleeping with Jan, who liked both Tony and Iron Man, but was squicked to discover they were one and the same.


    Quote:
    The second issue is, why wouldn't Gwen TELL Peter if the kids were Peter's? I can't think of a reason.


Me neither.


    Quote:
    Also, did MJ know the kids were Peter's in JMS's original scenario? Because if she knew and didn't tell Peter, then she pretty much crossed the Moral Event Horizon.


For me the MJ aspect was the most troubling of "Sins Past". And it didn't even make sense that Gwen would confide in her of all people, since they were never portrayed as that close friends. I suppose JMS needed someone to act as a witness to events and was too lazy to go to the trouble of bringing in an additional character (e. g. a hitherto unknown friend of Gwen or even one of her relatives).

All in all, Marvel's editorial really was asleep at the wheel when that story was written. They probably would have been better off revealing the twins as the kids of the Gwen clone and another Peter Parker clone.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.20 on Windows 98
Michael






    Quote:
    While that was his original plan, JMS wrote the story with the understanding that it was going to be erased with OMD.


Sins Past was in 2004. OMD was in 2007. OMD wasn't even planned when the original story appeared. What is true is that JMS thought that he could somehow undo the story at a later date, and tried to do so in OMD, only for Quesada to veto that idea.

Michael


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Michael






    Quote:
    For me the MJ aspect was the most troubling of "Sins Past". And it didn't even make sense that Gwen would confide in her of all people, since they were never portrayed as that close friends. I suppose JMS needed someone to act as a witness to events and was too lazy to go to the trouble of bringing in an additional character (e. g. a hitherto unknown friend of Gwen or even one of her relatives).


Well, Gwen and MJ have been retconned into being best friends in various stories after Gwen's death. (For example, during the 1990s Clone Saga, Clone Gwen refers to MJ as the real Gwen's best friend.) This kind of reinterpretation has happened with other characters as well. Jarvis has been retconned into having raised Tony Stark, even though they had few meaningful interactions before the Crossing. (Demon in a Bottle is the exception.) And various writers have tried to retcon Tony into being alcoholic pre-Demon in a Bottle.

Michael




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
KaineParker




Although Peter specified within the story that he and Gwen had never actually had sex, the idea that pre-marital sex is out of character for Peter is simply not true. We know for a fact that he had lots and lots of sex with the Black Cat, for example, and more recently he had a one-night stand with Michelle Gonzales. Also, it seems likely he had sex with MJ before their wedding in the original continuity, and we know they had sex in the altered continuity in which they were a committed, live-in couple without getting married. Also, pre-marital sex in and of itself is not irresponsible, provided one takes the proper precautions.

KaineParker




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows XP
mjyoung





    Quote:


      Quote:
      While that was his original plan, JMS wrote the story with the understanding that it was going to be erased with OMD.



    Quote:
    Sins Past was in 2004. OMD was in 2007. OMD wasn't even planned when the original story appeared. What is true is that JMS thought that he could somehow undo the story at a later date, and tried to do so in OMD, only for Quesada to veto that idea.


The dates are rather meaningless as sometimes stories are planned years in advance. Quesada became EIC in 2000, and seemingly always wanted to undue the marriage. Secret Invasion was first hinted at in 2004 only for Secret Invasion to appear in 2006.

However, I couldn't find anything about when JMS found out about the retcons/OMD, so maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to redact my original point.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows XP
Dunstan




My main objection would be that it would most likely have been just a lazy writer's gimmick. You can practically see the Silver Age-style cover thought bubble: "Gabriel is trying to kill me, I have to defend myself -- but how can I fight MY OWN SON?!"

Having them be Peter's children just seems like a cheap way of upping the emotional stakes, just like having MJ or Aunt May be kidnapped every third issue.

Sure, I guess it's possible that the writers would have really woven the twins into the books in a way that opened thoughtful new storylines, but that's not the way I'd bet. Just look at how they used Sarah in the most hackneyed way imaginable in Sins Remembered: she's a dead ringer for Gwen, down to wearing her hair the same way, and therefore there's a squicky attempted love triangle with her, Peter, and MJ.

And of course, it really wouldn't have made much sense to chicken out on having Peter and MJ take the very normal step of starting a family together (on "aging the character" grounds), only to dump instant fatherhood on Peter.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows XP

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software