Supermanification

[Chris N]

I object to the Supermanification of Spider-Man and it's this basic attitude which underlies many of my more curmudgeonly posts.

Allow me to explain how I read Superman. I've read Action Comics #1 and "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and some few random Superman stories in between. I've seen the Superman movies. I've read many random Superman comics here and there. My favorite is probably Superman For All Seasons by Loeb/Sale. I've always understood the status quo. There's the girlfriend, Lois. The pal, Jimmy. The enemy, Lex Luthor. And I understand that somebody can sit down and tell a Superman story against this backdrop. Details change and unchange within the comics themselves. Maybe Lois eventually learns his identity. Maybe they're eventually married. But maybe not. Depends on who's writing what where and when. There's a basic backdrop. It was clear from early on that Lois was his girl and that's the way it is. He and Luthor will be locked in endless mythological combat and that's they way it is.

Batman I see the same. He and Joker will fight from now until Doomsday, with no real need for their basic relationship to ever change, no real need for their battle to ever end. There is a basic backdrop against which to tell Batman stories and that's great.

Superman has continued for over seventy years now. It's not a novel; it's a myth. (More properly it's a franchise being milked; but less cynically, it's a myth, which cycles as myths do).

Spider-Man had a girl, Betty Brant. Spider-Man had an aunt, but she was always a step away from dying. There was a bully, Flash Thompson. He was a high school student. Guess what happened next? She went off with Ned. He graduated high school. His aunt survived.

Spider-Man had many great villains in those early days, including the Green Goblin.

Spider-Man went to college and met Harry and Gwen. Harry became his pal. Gwen eventually his girlfriend. It seemed like Spider-Man finally had his Lois. And like he finally had his Jimmy. Then Harry got addicted to drugs. And Gwen's father died. And Gwen died. And the Green Goblin died. And Harry became the Green Goblin.

And eventually Peter graduated college. Old friends moved on with their lives. Relationships changed. Flash grew up. Peter and Harry grew distant. Liz and Harry grew together. Peter and MJ started to date. And Peter and MJ broke up.

And there with other girls and other friends and other villains. And Spider-Man wasn't a character with a fixed status quo, an unchanging myth-like backdrop against which to set his stories. He was a guy, whose life changed.

It was like a novel. Just a very long one. Spider-Man wasn't Superman. He didn't have a Lois. His Lois died. He didn't have a Jimmy. His Jimmy went a bit crazy and they grew apart. He didn't have a Lex. His Lex died.

And the story was better for it.

To rewrite his history so that MJ is his Lois and and Norman is his Lex is what I call the Supermanification of Spider-Man and it annoys me. It began with MJ in Amazing Spider-Man #258, rewriting her history to make (a) a better character and (b) a better love interest more intrinsically tied to Spider-Man. It continued with the marriage, when a few issues earlier he was dating the Black Cat. It got solidified by alternate versions like Ultimate Spider-Man, Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane, the movies... versions which made MJ seem like his girl from the beginning.

Until finally through clever marketing, Marvel made it so Spider-Man had a Lois, a girl the readers could identify with as the girl he was "meant" to be with.

Then he needed a Lex. So bring Norman back to life, ignore his old characterization and instead steal his entire identity verbatim of the '90s version of Lex Luthor and wa-la! You can do failed things like Chapter One that try to tie Spider-Man's origin into Norman. And then the movie and Ultimate-verse etc. can be used to solidify the idea of Norman as Spidey's Lex in the public mind. Then go about making Norman a big-name villain in the Marvel Universe with stories like Civil War and Siege. And Spider-Man has his Lex.

I think we're still working on making Harry his Jimmy, but we'll get there.

And I object. I object strongly. He doesn't need a Lois. Or a Lex.

[matthewaos]

As much as I dislike the new direction, you are right about not needing a Lois. Personally I was not a huge fan of the Peter/MJ relationship. As for Norman, I love his mythology and what he stands for. I really like how he climbed to be Spider-Man's arch nemesis, I liked how he tricked everyone and claimed the throne of Spider-Man's arch nemesis when no one suspected it. Though one of Spider-Man's great things is that he does not have one arch enemy. Sure the comon people most probably will say GG, but many spider fans will say Doc Ock or Venom or what ever. That proves he does not actually have a Lex. I don't think that Superman fans are fighting if Lex is Superman's greatest enemy or Brainiac for example.

[Chris N]

But you'd agree they've tried to make him Spider-Man's Lex, no? It just hasn't worked on all Spider-Man fans and hence there's debate involving Doc Ock and Venom.

[RDMacQ]

I don't think that the developments in MJ or Norman's character was done to "Supermanify" Spider-Man. I think they happened for other reasons. MJ got a heightened role in things like Spider-Man loves MJ because of the impact of the big-budget motion pictures, and Norman came back because Marvel needed an out for the Clone Saga that wasn't totally ridiculous. And there are plenty of other factors as to what led to developments in their characters. I don't think it was done to homogenize the brand.

[Chris N]

I don't think it was done to homogenize the brand.

That's a good phrase. And I think that was precisely the goal, at least in part.

And precisely the effect, at least in part.

[Endless Flight]

I wish Norman had never come back from the dead.

If I were to rewrite Spider-Man history, I would have left the Hobgoblin's identity a mystery that could literally never be solved, and have him be Spider-Man's arch-nemesis.

I would have kept Harry alive and had him in and out of a psych ward only to resuscitate the Goblin identity to try in some twisted way make his deceased father proud of him.

[matthewaos]

I see his point. Maybe it was not intented at first, but after a while they used them as such.

As for Norman, they sure have tried ot make him Spider-Man's Lex. Though for me it worked great, always having in mind the original continuity, not Ultimate or the movies, in which it looks bad imo. And we got some really great stuff from his return.

[PabloD]

You make some good points.

[RDMacQ]

That's a good phrase. And I think that was precisely the goal, at least in part.

And precisely the effect, at least in part.

I think partially the effect, but not the intended one. Although I will admit that Marvel has recently tried to capitalize on such images to help the bottom line. It helps to market Spidey if he DOES have a reliable love interest and a familiar villain.

[Chris S.]

I think its an interesting point. However, Marvel has always made money off being different then DC characters.

I think its a good point to make that they are making him like Superman. Is it intentional? Probably not.

[Barcus]

I agree with this post 100%.

On one hand, I like MJ. Do I like the idea of her being Parkers Girl, or them getting married? No. I like how it was in the early days. She was this character who moved closer to Spidey every now and then, and then something screwed it up and she was pushed away.

As far as Norman Osborn goes - he's better off as GG. They've tried to push him so far in the Marvel Universe, and he's just getting boring. I miss the Spiderman that had a different villain gunning for him every ten or so issues, with past villains casually making appearances here and there. It was fresh, and exciting.

[stillanerd]

Very good post, Chris. However, here's something to consider:

You state that the marriage helped to make Mary Jane Spider-Man's "Lois Lane" as part of the "Supermanification" process which you stated is antithetical to Spider-Man since, unlike Clark Kent, Peter Parker was a character who grew, developed, and changed over time, that his status quo was also changing and had been since the beginning. However, couldn't you say that Peter and MJ getting married actually served this purpose? That it helped the characters grow, develop, and change over time, that it changed the status quo, and made it seem more like a "novel" in the sense that it was a continuous, developing story rather than a series of loosely interconnected ones?

I think a strong case can be made that it did. And ironically (and I'm sorry for bringing this up in advance) but I would contend that One More Day pretty much solidified the notion that Marvel was "homogenizing the brand," as RDMac puts it, more so than Peter's marriage to MJ ever did. Because if Marvel was willing to retcon away a character's marital status and pretend it never happened in an effort to make him closer to being what he used to be and go "back to basics," who is to say any other developments, changes, and progress also get undone? If they hadn't already crossed that threshold, they've certainly have done it now.

[Chris N]

(and I'm sorry for bringing this up in advance)

Not forgiven.

[stillanerd]

Not forgiven.

Just be lucky I didn't bring up the Clone Saga, which was also another attempt by Marvel to "homogenize the brand" of Spider-Man. Oops, I guess I just did.

[Joe Acro]

I see the marriage as part of that growing up phase. From high school to college to graduate school to married life. Peter grows. He can't be a swinging bachelor forever. (Pun intended.) So, he may not need a Lois--he lost his Lois, essentially, when Gwen died--but it's okay for him to have someone.

I definitely agree about Norman, though.