What was the hugest, stupidest attempted retcon in Spider-Man's history?

Before "One More Day," I mean?

What's depressing is that there are so many credible contenders for this title, since the Spider-Man franchise has been little more than a virtually uninterrupted series of attempted retcons (and counter-retcons) for roughly the past decade and a half.

Working backwards through published history, here's the list I've come up with:

• Gwen Stacy had consensual sex with Norman Osborn and gave birth to their hyper-age-accelerated children, whom Norman raised in Europe. Thus, Gwen was abducted by the Green Goblin because of their connection to one another, rather than because of her connection to Spider-Man.
  
  
• Aunt May tells Peter Parker that Uncle Ben had left the house the night he was killed by the burglar that Spider-Man had let go, because she and Ben had gotten into a fight. Thus, even after Peter tells May that he had let the burglar go, she considers herself just as responsible for Ben's death as Peter does.
  
  
• The radioactive spider that bit Peter Parker was actually acting on behalf of a magical "Spider-Totem," that chose Peter because he was picked on by his peers, which therefore made him "a predator."
  
  
• Spider-Man rescues Mary Jane Watson from a kidnapper who's been keeping her captive for months, ever since he'd been told that she supposedly died in a plane explosion.
  
  
• John Byrne's "Chapter One." All of it. 'Nuff said.
  
  
• The "Aunt May" whom we thought we'd seen die in Amazing Spider-Man #400 was actually a "genetically modified actress" who was paid by Norman Osborn to die. No, really.
  
  
• Norman Osborn explains that he'd faked his death and gone to Europe, where he'd simply stayed until his return.
  
  
• Ben Reilly is revealed as Peter Parker's clone, after it had previously been asserted that the Peter we'd known and read about for close to 20 years was the clone.
  
  
• Peter Parker's secret agent parents, whom we'd been told were dead since Amazing Fantasy #15, turn out to have been overseas instead - and let me just add, that seems to happen a lot to people who know Spider-Man - except, no, wait, THEY WERE ROBOTS CREATED BY HARRY OSBORN ALL ALONG!!! DOUBLE-RETCON, BITCHES!!!

However, as much as most of the rest of these attempted retcons get talked about by the fans, there's one that's arguably at least as huge and as stupid as all the rest, that most of fandom seems to have forgotten about, and which (along with the "Clone Saga") proves the lie behind the current conventional wisdom that the fans will simply take whatever retcons Marvel attempts to foist upon Spider-Man.

And here are the first six pages of that story:




At this point, I'll turn the floor over to the then-president of Marvel, Bill Jemas, who sent the following e-mail to Newsarama, which they posted as their "front page" story on May 31, 2003:

JEMAS ON EPIC'S 'TROUBLE'

Newsarama received the following from Bill Jemas Friday morning

Making Trouble

This may be Marvel's most important teen book since Amazing Fantasy #15.

Think about it.

Think about who we are and what we do.

Joe Quesada knows how to package a big hit book; he can tug on your heartstrings or tickle your ribs in ways that bring out the kid in an old-time comic book collector. Remember that thing where he got Stan to swear that the Sentinel was a lost character (and they even cooked up a 'forgotten' creator?)

I love to use Marvel's characters to illustrate those heartbreakingly liberal "morals" of the story. Captain America can be black just this once. Spider-Man can be young again.

And Mark is brilliant. I've seen the future of comic books, and his name is Millar. He had passed on writing the Origin of Wolverine, waiting for something bigger to come along, and wanting to make a bit of Trouble.

And, Terry Dodson shines like the sun - you've seen his first look pages - 'nuff said.

And, Axel Alonso is the editor -- the best editor in story editor comics -- wanna fight?

And, this is Trouble #1, EPIC #1.

Aren't you expecting something?
Aren't you expecting a great book that means something to all of us?
Or at least some kind of juvenile stunt?

Marvel promised to release more information about the series as we get closer to print time, but all we can say right now is that the lead character's name is May.

Best,
Bill J.

Hi-jinx to follow.

Newsarama Note: We assume Jemas meant Sentry rather than Sentinel

For those who never bought Trouble - which, judging from its sales figures, would be almost everyone - it was a five-issue miniseries about the teenaged sexual exploits of Peter Parker's mom, dad, Uncle Ben and Aunt May, when they all worked together at a resort in the Hamptons one summer. Not only did Jemas and Marvel Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada (both of whom co-created the concept) honestly hope to successfully restart the 1950s genre of romance comics by hiring Millar to plagiarize the plot, characterizations and dialogue of every teen sex dramedy cliche ever, but they also seriously believed that this book's central retcon would be accepted by fandom as Spider-Man's new canon.

And what was that attempted retcon?

Well, aside from its countless other contradictions of Spider-Man's continuity, this story would have established that Peter's Aunt May was actually his mom, who got pregnant with him when she was a teen.

Yeah ... I'll let that one sink in for a bit.

And just in case you can't do the math in your head - because apparently, neither could Jemas, Quesada, Millar or anyone else at Marvel, who contributed to or approved of this story - since Trouble sets May's age as 17, when Peter was born, that means that, in the original Stan Lee and Steve Ditko issues of Amazing Spider-Man, in which Peter himself was just about 17, the frail, wrinkled, white-haired old woman that you saw raising him as his aunt was supposedly, by NuMarvel's reckoning, 34 years old.

Of course, this shit didn't stand for a second, which might be why nobody remembers it now, but it's worth checking out the discussion thread that follows Jemas' e-mail message, if only to see how similar the sentiments about Trouble - both supportive and cynical - are to those surrounding "Brand New Day," because back then, a lot of fans thought that fan outrage would automatically translate into higher sales for the book, and the enshrining in canon of its retcon, as well.

And while you're at it, check out the Wikipedia entry on Trouble, too, since as you'll learn from that article, my own summary makes the book sound much better than it actually was.

And, be sure to check out this hilarious-in-retrospect press conference that Marvel's brain trust at the time - including Jemas, Quesada, Millar and then-editor of the Spider-Man titles, Axel Alonso - held for Newsarama.

Notable quote, once again, from Jemas:

"I hope that Marvel readers will be proud to call Trouble the origin of Spider-Man."

Honestly, with this one and the Spider-totem thing, I don't understand why anyone has much sympathy for What's-his-Babylon-5-guy.



This one loses me. One, I'm not sure what you're describing... and two, if I am getting the gist of it, I'm not sure why it would be such an awful revelation. Needless, perhaps, but not seemingly awful.


Did the actual story have such creepy shades of Columbine as that summary suggests?



What's hilarious to me in reading through this list is that they never learn. Here's a wild and crazy idea, Marvel... think ahead, or don't kill major characters.

Really, I think the best solution is to have someone who is actually fond of a character put them away on the shelf when it's decided they need to be removed from a book. Then they'll be packed away carefully, and usually with a story that makes fans eager to see their return down the line, rather than rolling their eyes at how lame the story was, and how the character will just be back anyway.



Indeed.


It could happen.



I'd forgive retcons that are used to fix major, mind-numbingly bad mistakes, but not if it's incredibly obvious that it's a mistake at the time you're making it. Then you're just an idiot for not leaving yourself a back door escape plan. Chalk this one up with Spidey's Civil War unmasking.



I groan every time I hear that Peter's parents were spies. That alone was a dumb decision, no matter who made it. Robot doubles really doesn't seem any worse, truth be told. (But, Harry Osborn made them? Huh.)


However, as much as most of the rest of these attempted retcons get talked about by the fans, there's one that's arguably at least as huge and as stupid as all the rest, that most of fandom seems to have forgotten about, and which (along with the "Clone Saga") proves the lie behind the current conventional wisdom that the fans will simply take whatever retcons Marvel attempts to foist upon Spider-Man.


Heh... That I hadn't thought about. Really, it was another bad shock project from Jemas/Quesada/Millar, all three of whom have long held the belief that any attention is a wonderful thing. Their efforts to make controversy failed here though... I'd say surprisingly, but c'mon... look at the covers to these issues (photo covers designed by Quesada):

http://www.comicbookdb.com/title_covergallery.php?ID=870

They really thought those would sell? Really?

> I'd say surprisingly, but c'mon... look at the covers to these issues (photo covers designed by Quesada): > > http://www.comicbookdb.com/title_covergallery.php?ID=870 > > They really thought those would sell? Really?

Damn. I remember seeing the full page ads for those, but I figured that these two;

had gotten a comic deal...a teenage 'music' hijinks kinda thing.

*shudder*

The reality was much worse.