Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 90
  1. #46

    Default

    I think that he should mature in some ways to make his comics number line slightly, slowly evolve. I love Dan Slott, but I'm just talking small changes every now and then- not turning 50 or anything (unless it's a What If book or something)

    I love him as a teacher or at Horizon. I think as long as he's not over 33/35, anything can still work and he'd still be the younger hero with experience.
    Last edited by prescribeddrone; 11-12-2012 at 09:59 PM.

  2. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    Yeah, some good points but doing something like that would have to be a company wide endeavor and with all of the licensing of the characters, I don't know how well outsiders to comics would deal with May Parker being the newest iteration carrying on the Spider-man legacy. I think it could work but even the fans wouldn't get behind it. Face it, we fear change. We got all this hoopla about Peter not being Spidey in Superior and fans are acting like the sky is falling.

    Stuff like Bucky replacing Steve Rogers I felt were good changes that should have been permanant. Even DC which has it's legacy characters don't allow characters to die and pass on the torch like with Batman dying and Dick Grayson taking over the mantle or Hal Jordan being replaced by Kyle Rayner. It sucks in a way that these fictional characters are stuck in a fictional loop but I don't think either of the big two are going to try something that might be a really awesome idea but way too risky since the characters are ultimately than the comics they appear in with stuff like the movies now.
    But I don't think comic fans are as adverse to change as they are to radical change. Over at DC, Wally West had a pretty good run and Dick Grayson has yet to go back to being Robin. But Kyle rayner had a bit of a harder road because he came out of nowhere and took the mantle following a trashing of Hal's character. So if Marvel kills Pete and replaces him with some new guy behind the mask, then sure it riles the fans. If instead they had introduced a replacement in 2002 and built him up as a supporting character to Pete over the past decade, there might be less fuss. And a year or two later the remaining fans and any new ones might make it seem like a good idea in hindsight.

    I don't claim it would be easy to do that, just that outright claiming it is doomed to failure and a bad idea has no real track record to support it. No one has actually followed a character development through from birth to natural death- they all freeze it at a certain point then proclaim that any forward motion from that point is bad and hold up strawmen as proof. I'd love to see it tried once just to see if the failure is inevitable the way they keep crying or if it's just a superstition no writer/editor/company has ever tested.

  3. #48
    Moderator Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Queens, New York
    Posts
    23,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    But why was the marriage the "bridge too far"? I get that Stan graduating him from high-school was early on, but what about the other "milestones" like graduating college or moving out of May's house?
    The latter two can be illusion of change type developments, reversed under the right circumstances.

    When interviewed, Marv Wolfman has justified the college graduation by noting that it didn't really change anything about the book. Peter went on to have similar problems in grad school.

    When Peter left Aunt May's house, Stan Lee was able to give the character some freedom, allowing Spidey to go on more night-time patrols. However, May remained in the title as a supporting character, and potential complication. Peter still had to check in on her on occasion, but Lee could get rid of her a bit more easily if it starts to get dull. Before Peter and Harry became roommates, May was hospitalized for some time, and then went to Florida with Anna Watson to recuperate.

    The major problem with marriage was that it was essentially a mechanism which made it tougher for Peter Parker to break up with Mary Jane. That restricted the writers, since it meant they couldn't tell certain type of stories, such as when Peter's involved with someone else, not involved with anyone, etc. And there were very few stories which actually required Spider-Man to be married, that couldn't be told if Peter and MJ were just dating one another.

    There's an existing thread on that if you're interested.

    http://forums.comicbookresources.com...ied-Spider-Man
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

    Formerly,
    Cyberman

    Blog,
    What Would Spidey Do?

  4. #49
    Member SamSpade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Vista,CA
    Posts
    512

    Default

    They really tried that somewhat with Ben Reilly. I mean, the clone saga lasted something like 3 years. All of the DC characters changed over and changed back. I think it's more editorial mandate than anything else. Like I said, I thought Brubaker did a great job replacing Cap with Bucky but then the movie came out and God forbid if Steve Rogers isn't Cap in the comics, somebody who watched the movie might walk into the comic book store and get confused. I think Pete is one of those very rare cases where the actual person behind the mask is more important than the costume he wears.

    Honestly, Pete getting older could be totally done away with if he was on the brink of death in issue 700 only to be revived by the ininity juice that Nick Fury's been chugging making his aging slow to a crawl.

    I like the idea of having multiple characters assume the role of one iconic character but it seems that in every single case, the publishers whimp out. DC's new 52 is a prime example of a publisher saying "screw it" lets make our characters young and approachable to new readers, continuity be damned.

  5. #50
    My Turn. Kevin Nichols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    6,008

    Default

    I gotta say, I kind of like it the way it has been. That is, different writers giving it their own spins. Pete was great in JMS's run when he was portrayed as a bit older. And he's great now too, where he seems a bit younger. I don't mind him going back and forth like that. I think it helps keep things interesting.
    "Women... they come and go, but the Jonah is eternal." - ViewtifulJC

  6. #51
    Senior Member Darthfury78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Nichols View Post
    I gotta say, I kind of like it the way it has been. That is, different writers giving it their own spins. Pete was great in JMS's run when he was portrayed as a bit older. And he's great now too, where he seems a bit younger. I don't mind him going back and forth like that. I think it helps keep things interesting.
    As long as they is a good writer who knows how to write the character very well.

  7. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,421

    Default

    I strongly believe that the marriage worked and that it didn't close off storytelling avenues, rather it opened new ones. To feel that the marriage restricted writers because Peter couldn't be alone, or couldn't 'date someone else' is a restrictive viewpoint and I feel that those types of stories would eventually be repetitive and lack depth when compared to a story where he is married.

    Some, I'd daresay most, of the best Spider-Man stories happened after the marriage.

    Most of the stories told since the end of the marriage could have been told just as easily if he were married. It's too late now though and I am liking the current direction, but in my mind there is no justifiable reason for removing getting rid of their union.

    I understand the desire to keep Peter at a certain age, but to that I say 'so...'

    Peter graduated high school under Stan Lee, he's graduated college, he's left grad school. He's had careers, he's been unemployed. He got married. There is nowhere he can really go after that. Just because he's married doesn't mean he has to have kids, he was at the end of the line anyway and unmarrying him didn't de-age him at all (he seems older to me now than ever before, especially since the Alpha arc).

    Marvel say he's a 'mid-late twenties' guy, I personally believe he is a 'late twenties-early thirties' guy and the marriage never came into that at all. It isn't the biggest part of the story and I believe it was an aspect that was made a scapegoat for other perceived problems the book had in the 90's and 00's.

  8. #53
    Moderator Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Queens, New York
    Posts
    23,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Russell View Post
    I strongly believe that the marriage worked and that it didn't close off storytelling avenues, rather it opened new ones. To feel that the marriage restricted writers because Peter couldn't be alone, or couldn't 'date someone else' is a restrictive viewpoint and I feel that those types of stories would eventually be repetitive and lack depth when compared to a story where he is married.

    Some, I'd daresay most, of the best Spider-Man stories happened after the marriage.

    Most of the stories told since the end of the marriage could have been told just as easily if he were married. It's too late now though and I am liking the current direction, but in my mind there is no justifiable reason for removing getting rid of their union.

    I understand the desire to keep Peter at a certain age, but to that I say 'so...'

    Peter graduated high school under Stan Lee, he's graduated college, he's left grad school. He's had careers, he's been unemployed. He got married. There is nowhere he can really go after that. Just because he's married doesn't mean he has to have kids, he was at the end of the line anyway and unmarrying him didn't de-age him at all (he seems older to me now than ever before, especially since the Alpha arc).

    Marvel say he's a 'mid-late twenties' guy, I personally believe he is a 'late twenties-early thirties' guy and the marriage never came into that at all. It isn't the biggest part of the story and I believe it was an aspect that was made a scapegoat for other perceived problems the book had in the 90's and 00's.
    I disagree with most of what you say.

    It seems to me that during the period in which Peter Parker was married, stories in which he wasn't married had a better record than stories in which he was. I am including the period in which he and MJ were separated, as well as the 18 issues MJ was believe dead, in the single Spider-Man side.

    The argument that the single Spider-Man gets repetitive doesn't quite work since the problem should be more severe with a married Spider-Man, especially since the book is then limited to one status quo: Peter Parker in a committed relationship with Mary Jane.

    But I am curious as to which storytelling avenues are opened with the marriage that couldn't be done if Peter and MJ were just together without being married.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

    Formerly,
    Cyberman

    Blog,
    What Would Spidey Do?

  9. #54
    Science > Politics Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Monroe, NY
    Posts
    5,096

    Default

    But I am curious as to which storytelling avenues are opened with the marriage that couldn't be done if Peter and MJ were just together without being married.
    Sundays at the Pottery Barn. Gripping drama.

    EDIT: Although you're right, even that wouldn't have to be based in marriage. Were people really clamoring for stories about jointly-filed tax returns?
    Every week, I write about the science in comic books and what it says about our real world!
    Check it out, if you'd like!

  10. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    This topic came up in a family conversation.

    I just saw Skyfall with my father and brothers. Dad pondered the 50th anniversary of the Bond movies, and considered how old James Bond would have to be if they didn't swap out new actors.
    I've felt Daniel Craig's run as Bond, starting out as a novice in "Casino Royale" and progressing to the veteran agent in "Skyfall" has been the closest the movies have ever gotten to Ian Flemmings novels. Generally all the Bond movies take place at the height of Bond's career, but the novels start with him as a new agent learning the game and end with him shooting an enemy sniper in the hand instead of killing her because she happened to be a pretty girl and basically telling the other agent that he doesn't give a damn if he loses double-0 status anymore.

    Bond of the movies might be almost completely static. But in the novels where James Bond was created even 007 experienced character development. Having characters in long running series mature and develop isn't really that alien of a concept.
    Last edited by Kizmet; 11-13-2012 at 10:07 AM.

  11. #56
    S.P.E.C.T.R.E. destro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    doomstadt
    Posts
    1,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stillanerd View Post
    One I find interesting about the whole debate on whether or not Spider-Man should mature is this: no one seemed to have an issue with Spider-Man getting "too old" when Stan Lee and Steve Ditko decided to have Peter graduate from High School and enter college. No one seemed to have an issue with Spider-Man getting "too old" when Marv Wolfman decided to have Peter graduate from college AND also contemplate having (and possibly did have) an affair with a married woman. No one seemed to have an issue with Spider-Man getting "too old" when he dropped out of grad school and was working at the Daily Bugle full-time under Roger Stern. But when Jim Shooter decided to coordinate with Stan Lee about Peter getting married to Mary Jane, what was the universal reaction at Marvel for the past 20 years?

    It was "OH MY GOD! THE SKY IS FALLING! SPIDER-MAN IS TOO OLD FOR READERS TO RELATE TO ANYMORE! HOW DO WE FIX THIS?!"
    Because in every one of those situations he was not old.

    Giving him a kid (which would just be an annoyance, as the kid would never age like Franklin so we're stuck with a baby to 5 year old for what, 30 years? Wow fun..Marvel time is so slow that we'd have like 10 years of changing diapers and crying alone) and marrying him is the only thing you listed that would actually age him, hence it was taken away. Also the majority of creators didn't like writing a married Spider-Man.

    Even if they did give him a kid, you know eventually some writer would come on the book and get the genius idea of sending the kid to the future, artificially aging the kid, cloning him, or take your pick of 1000 other awful ideas. I don't want to suffer through that.
    Last edited by destro; 11-13-2012 at 10:40 AM.
    Life looks better in black and white.

  12. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The argument that the single Spider-Man gets repetitive doesn't quite work since the problem should be more severe with a married Spider-Man, especially since the book is then limited to one status quo: Peter Parker in a committed relationship with Mary Jane.

    But I am curious as to which storytelling avenues are opened with the marriage that couldn't be done if Peter and MJ were just together without being married.
    To me the single Spidey- especially after OMD was just as restrictive. The status quo was limited to single. No relationship we are shown can go past a certain point, because we have already been told that marriage can't happen. It might take a year, or two but there is an endpoint coming. Even a longterm relationship like what we are now told existed between Peter and MJ is unlikely since it is effectively the same as marriage. Peter looking at the Black cat and thinking about hooking up is just as out of character for a Pete who is exclusive with MJ as it is for a Peter who is married to MJ. Sure it's easier to break them up without the marriage, but if the writers are looking from that perspective, it's even easier to just never let Pete get that serious with anyone. So we have Pete as pretty much one of the Cartwrights on Bonanza with every love interest no more than a guest star for the current arc/writer.

    And while i don't think the marriage really opened that many doors, I think that it didn't close that many either since other than a "which girl do i want to be with" story there aren't a lot of Spider-man stories that hang on whether Pete is dating, married, not-gettin-any, etc.

  13. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    Sure it's easier to break them up without the marriage, but if the writers are looking from that perspective, it's even easier to just never let Pete get that serious with anyone. So we have Pete as pretty much one of the Cartwrights on Bonanza with every love interest no more than a guest star for the current arc/writer.
    Or Marvel starts using the Wolverine-Model for all their character's relationships: Anyone who dates a Marvel hero in their solo title is doomed to be killed, probably around the time the writer who created them's run ends.

  14. #59
    Moderator Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Queens, New York
    Posts
    23,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    Anyone else think there's a cool story or so of Peter and Mary Jane having the baby? I mean think about it, it's a baby with crazy super powers. How the hell do you keep people from suspecting your secret identity when you're kid is crawling on walls and throwing couches? Seems like the super hero version of an episode of Bewitched.
    You could get a cool story out of it.

    But I don't think it's a good idea to tell the story in the regular comics. Because it means that afterwards the Spider-Man of the comics will always be a dad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kizmet View Post
    I've felt Daniel Craig's run as Bond, starting out as a novice in "Casino Royale" and progressing to the veteran agent in "Skyfall" has been the closest the movies have ever gotten to Ian Flemmings novels. Generally all the Bond movies take place at the height of Bond's career, but the novels start with him as a new agent learning the game and end with him shooting an enemy sniper in the hand instead of killing her because she happened to be a pretty girl and basically telling the other agent that he doesn't give a damn if he loses double-0 status anymore.

    Bond of the movies might be almost completely static. But in the novels where James Bond was created even 007 experienced character development. Having characters in long running series mature and develop isn't really that alien of a concept.
    It isn't an alien concept, and it's been done well in a few places, going back to Hal in Shakespeare's histories.

    But I don't think it's applicable to the Spider-Man comics, where you don't have always have a stable creative vision, and there's no end in sight.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

    Formerly,
    Cyberman

    Blog,
    What Would Spidey Do?

  15. #60
    Moderator Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Queens, New York
    Posts
    23,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    To me the single Spidey- especially after OMD was just as restrictive. The status quo was limited to single. No relationship we are shown can go past a certain point, because we have already been told that marriage can't happen. It might take a year, or two but there is an endpoint coming. Even a longterm relationship like what we are now told existed between Peter and MJ is unlikely since it is effectively the same as marriage. Peter looking at the Black cat and thinking about hooking up is just as out of character for a Pete who is exclusive with MJ as it is for a Peter who is married to MJ. Sure it's easier to break them up without the marriage, but if the writers are looking from that perspective, it's even easier to just never let Pete get that serious with anyone. So we have Pete as pretty much one of the Cartwrights on Bonanza with every love interest no more than a guest star for the current arc/writer.

    And while i don't think the marriage really opened that many doors, I think that it didn't close that many either since other than a "which girl do i want to be with" story there aren't a lot of Spider-man stories that hang on whether Pete is dating, married, not-gettin-any, etc.
    I don't think there's anything preventing Peter from getting serious with a woman, or from being in a monogamous relationship for several years.

    Peter had been with Gwen for about six years before Conway killed her off.

    He was with MJ for another five years before she left New York City.

    I get that your mileage can vary, and that you may have a different definition of what serious means. Although I don't think there's much of a gain in having a Peter Parker who has been together with the same woman for 3+ years, which you had towards the end of the marriage era, as opposed to a Peter Parker who has been together with the same woman for about an year.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

    Formerly,
    Cyberman

    Blog,
    What Would Spidey Do?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •