Honest to God, when Spider-Man was initially married to Mary-Jane back in the 1980s (wait...that can't be right, that would make me...old...er) I thought it one of the worst mistakes Marvel could make and that it would be quickly undone. I was a big fan of the 1970s Spider-Man, especially the original animated series with that rockin' theme song, and a college-aged Parker always made the best sense to me. But Marvel surprised me and made it work. They made me enjoy following the adventures of a married Parker. So I vote no on the first question.

As long as Joe Quesada is editor-in-chief, this will never be undone. His severe distaste for a married Spider-Man will cause him to weather out the storm, and as long as they stick to their guns and tell good stories the storm will pass.

I passed on answering the question about undoing this story because of something i realized about comics a while ago. If the industry wants a good chunk of my money, they have to cater to me. If they want to stay in business, then a thirty-ish year old man is probably the last person they need to cater to. Just have them meet me halfway with good stories.

The people who voted yes on Aunt May being OK with this, have they ever actually read a story with Aunt May in it? They may be thinking of that fellow in the iron mask.

His name is Doom.

The people who voted yes on the Uncle Ben question, have they ever actually read the origin story? Maybe they're thinking of the Marvel editor-in-chief.

His name is Joe Quesada.

I passed on the last question, as I belong to the "It depends" club. I've read and watched plenty of things where continuity isn't just frowned upon, it's treated like it's a downright dirty word. The most successful case of this is Archie comics, which *thrive* on not following things through. They just tell entertaining, one-shot stories, and we the reader get to patch together which ones we like. As far as Archie comics are concerned, it doesn't have to make sense. It just has to entertain.

But Marvel and DC, along with all the rest want to have their cake and eat it. They want to tell long, soap-operatic stories that never end, that suck a reader in and never let him go, but don't want to be tied down with the continuity that entails. They want the magic of drawing out and resolving subplots, without the misery of making it fit. If Spider-Man starts referring to his Uncle Frank as teaching him the "great responsibility" lesson, am I to think a clever clue to a story is being laid out, or that someone is simply being sloppy?

I can sympathize with the writers on this though. It's gotta be a tough gig. A lot of times it seems like an outgoing writer is pulling the pin on some hand grenade and tossing it to the new writer to clean up.

Ultimately it comes back to telling good stories. Which is why I hated "One More Day." It was a poorly written story no one liked. And Marvel gave us the same excuse, they always give. That they had to tell a crappy story to set themselves up to tell better stories. But they forget this is a story that changes everything, and those kind of stories are supposed to be the best stories.

The Death of Gwen Stacy. The Death of Phoenix. Alan Moore's origin of The Swamp Thing.

These were stories that either made you sit up and take notice or break down and cry, because you knew nothing would ever be the same again. Except Marvel now wants it to be the same as it ever was. And Aunt May can again fuss over that "horrible Spider-Man."

Worst Excuse For a Horror Movie

Worst Screenplay

Worst Director

Worst Prequel or Sequel

Worst Remake or Rip-Off

Worst Screen Couple

Worst Supporting Actress

Worst Supporting Actor

Worst Actress

Worst Actor

Worst Picture