Spider-Man character growth vs. staying in high school and Joe Quesada

[godisawesome]

If readers go for authentic classic Spider-Man, Marvel's going to notice. If more people read the Todd McFarlane comics or DeM atteis/ Buscema Spectacular Spider-Man than anything by Dan Slott, it's going to show up in the internal figures.

But that would have nothing to do with their job, as they see it - they're not responsible for selling old comics, they're responsible for a non-stop supply of new comics, at a quick rate they've chosen for themselves. Some dude running a server has more to do with selling those comics than they do.

We already know more readers have gone for that older stuff just because of their initial sales, their continued collection in TPBS and archives, their pseduo-sequels published today, and how much those readers grew up to try and copy them now as writers. We also KNOW that ultimate Spider-Man has been thrashing Amazing in sales.

But none of that would impact what they see their job as - rote, repetitive content generation, ad infinitum.

That's what you've been arguing they need to focus on, after all.

And that's not a head space conducive to looking for quality, ambition, progression or details - because those things require more time spend caring about the product, reviewing it for strengths and weaknesses, and taking risks, all things that they regard as hindrances, ignorable options, or potentially dangerous

Now, when the industry was healthy and Spider-Man climbed to dominate it (along with the rest of Marvel), quality, ambition, progress, and details were what the franchise was about.

Now, editorial believes it's about an assembly line of tried and true tropes, and refusal to rock the boat with established character, a collection of interchangeable love interests, and a contempt for details or psychology.

Other stuff working because it doesn't follow their demands for infinite content production will never matter to them - much like how most of their stuff will never matter to the larger franchise.

[MisterTorgo]

You've said that you want to keep Spider-Man discourse civil and that you want to be a positive voice in the fandom. You're not doing that here.

"Oh, so you want bad comics?" isn't conducive to a civil conversation.

You said the comics are largely repetitive and he asked why we should accept that repetition. That's not the same as him telling you that you want bad comics.

That being said, this thread has been entertaining to read but it seems kind of mired in an unprovable point about what the original creators would have wanted were they still around.

Ultimately, I can't understand the urge to resist "natural" growth and change for a character who undeniably had been doing both of those things for decades before he was dragged back.

[Tuck]

'Sally', one of the few named characters in Amazing Fantasy 15, has never reappeared in contemporary continuity.

Well, she's dead.

She was in Clone Conspiracy, and was a recurring character on the Spectacular Spider-Man animated series.

[Lee]

You said the comics are largely repetitive and he asked why we should accept that repetition. That's not the same as him telling you that you want bad comics.

Telling someone to "raise their standards" over a difference of opinion is obnoxious.

"I don't believe in throwing up our hands in apathetic surrender that we have "no choice" but to accept substandard comics as a result." is implying that I do.

It's no way to conduct a polite conversation. Especially about a super-hero comic, of all things.

[Mercwmouth12]

Telling someone to "raise their standards" over a difference of opinion is obnoxious.

"I don't believe in throwing up our hands in apathetic surrender that we have "no choice" but to accept substandard comics as a result." is implying that I do.

It's no way to conduct a polite conversation. Especially about a super-hero comic, of all things.

The best way to look as this is. For certain things lets keep them in certain lanes.

It's no longer just Peter as a spider character and he's not need to be in school unless they make him a teacher again, but that's a different topic.
If people want stories with him in highschool then there's AU books for that. The argument for character growth can be stretched in many ways and the main issue is with people is they are impatient with their definition of character growth, but telling someone outright now is not ideal, but it depends on how much wiggle room for illusion of change one is allowed to give with in one status quo before it's reset again.

[Vegan]

There’s also nothing stopping them from doing Highschool Flashback books. In fact, they’re doing one now and it’s really good so far.

[MisterTorgo]

There’s also nothing stopping them from doing Highschool Flashback books. In fact, they’re doing one now and it’s really good so far.

This would seem to me to be the superior solution for those wanting a perpetual Brand New Day Status quo, since one-shots and mini-series can pull from whichever time period they want, while constant growth can't keep being reset the same way and feel natural.

[Mister Mets]

There’s also nothing stopping them from doing Highschool Flashback books. In fact, they’re doing one now and it’s really good so far.

Untold tales and alternate universes are a different situation.

You said the comics are largely repetitive and he asked why we should accept that repetition. That's not the same as him telling you that you want bad comics.

That being said, this thread has been entertaining to read but it seems kind of mired in an unprovable point about what the original creators would have wanted were they still around.

Ultimately, I can't understand the urge to resist "natural" growth and change for a character who undeniably had been doing both of those things for decades before he was dragged back.

Saying that someone's accepting substandard material is generally saying that they want bad comics.

But that would have nothing to do with their job, as they see it - they're not responsible for selling old comics, they're responsible for a non-stop supply of new comics, at a quick rate they've chosen for themselves. Some dude running a server has more to do with selling those comics than they do.

We already know more readers have gone for that older stuff just because of their initial sales, their continued collection in TPBS and archives, their pseduo-sequels published today, and how much those readers grew up to try and copy them now as writers. We also KNOW that ultimate Spider-Man has been thrashing Amazing in sales.

But none of that would impact what they see their job as - rote, repetitive content generation, ad infinitum.

That's what you've been arguing they need to focus on, after all.

And that's not a head space conducive to looking for quality, ambition, progression or details - because those things require more time spend caring about the product, reviewing it for strengths and weaknesses, and taking risks, all things that they regard as hindrances, ignorable options, or potentially dangerous

Now, when the industry was healthy and Spider-Man climbed to dominate it (along with the rest of Marvel), quality, ambition, progress, and details were what the franchise was about.

Now, editorial believes it's about an assembly line of tried and true tropes, and refusal to rock the boat with established character, a collection of interchangeable love interests, and a contempt for details or psychology.

Other stuff working because it doesn't follow their demands for infinite content production will never matter to them - much like how most of their stuff will never matter to the larger franchise.

There should be someone at Marvel taking a look at information like what digital comics are selling more than others, or what comics get more views on the unlimited platform.

Maybe the evidence shows that readers prefer comics with a married Spider-Man. Maybe it doesn't (One factor is that comics pre-2007 may be seem dated to a few readers, so they would be less interested in it for reasons that have noting to do with the character's marital status.

This is information Marvel should use.

Risks should be handled carefully.

[MisterTorgo]

Saying that someone's accepting substandard material is generally saying that they want bad comics.

Saying that someone accepts repetitive comics is explicitly not saying that someone wants bad comics. TOM & JERRY is repetitive and I LOVE TOM & JERRY.

[Vegan]

Saying that someone accepts repetitive comics is explicitly not saying that someone wants bad comics. TOM & JERRY is repetitive and I LOVE TOM & JERRY.

Yeah definitely. This is someone getting mad because someone insulted waffles because they said “I love pancakes”

[Vegan]

Untold tales and alternate universes are a different situation.

No it isn’t. If you don’t want the character to grow, and to stay in high school, then you can just read flashback stories like Shadow of the Green Goblin or Spidey, and, then the mainline comics can have actual character growth again. Then everybody wins. You can read the character in the status quo you prefer, and fans who want to see a character develop still get what they want

[bat39]

This would seem to me to be the superior solution for those wanting a perpetual Brand New Day Status quo, since one-shots and mini-series can pull from whichever time period they want, while constant growth can't keep being reset the same way and feel natural.

Not to mention AU stories.

Again, I feel the whole point of 616 is to carry forward the legacy of the original Marvel Universe conceived off by the brain trust of Stan Lee and his many collaborators as a living, breathing and ever-evolving universe. What makes 616 Peter unique is that he's, notionally at least, supposed to be the Peter from AF # 15...the Peter who graduated high school and then college, who went from being a teenager to a married professional, who went from being a rookie to a big-name superhero, and so on, over the last 60 years. The only real purpose it serve is to continue the story of the original Peter Parker. If you want a Peter Parker who's ensconed in a particular status quo or frozen in a particular period in his life, flashback stories and out-of-continuity tales can easily serve that purpose, alongside the innumerable adaptations of course.

[Kurus]

You've said that you want to keep Spider-Man discourse civil and that you want to be a positive voice in the fandom. You're not doing that here.

"Oh, so you want bad comics?" isn't conducive to a civil conversation.

If the only way to fit your definition of civil is to self-censor to that level, then to hell with being civil. I’ve always felt it’s better to be honest than polite anyways.

[Konnik92]

You've said that you want to keep Spider-Man discourse civil and that you want to be a positive voice in the fandom. You're not doing that here.

"Oh, so you want bad comics?" isn't conducive to a civil conversation.

So instead of demanding for better material so we can give our money to and more, because the current one is not good, we should instead just "Don't ask questions, consume product and get excited for the next product"?

edditing/adding: Also, where did Garlador addressed you personally? He was speaking in general.

[Garlador]

You've said that you want to keep Spider-Man discourse civil and that you want to be a positive voice in the fandom. You're not doing that here.

"Oh, so you want bad comics?" isn't conducive to a civil conversation.

That’s quite the leap, and quite the strawman quote. Neither said that, nor implied it.

I spoke in generalities, hence the “we” and “our” instead of “you” in addressing the familiar complaints of these stories growing repetitive.

There can be enjoyment and fun in the familiarity of comforting repetition, but clearly for the purpose of this discussion many are not happy with recycling older, well-trodden ideas that seem regressive to the nature of the character and book.

A call to demand better and higher standards is not some personal insult. I advocate for improvement even for the things I love. It’s how creators get feedback and improve and evolve. There’s even media I know is objectively subpar but I enjoy it anyway, acknowledging its faults, and I certainly wouldn’t be offended to be told so, or if they succeeded at improving the quality (looking at you, Power Rangers).

I haven’t made any of this personal. I’ve read some incredibly high-quality Spider-Man comics and my standards have thusly been raised. I have no qualms about voicing my desire for higher quality standards especially when book prices have exceeded the inflation rate of those classic stories and Marvel put out a statement this very month defending the price hikes as a result of giving readers only the “highest quality” comics and talent in the whole industry.

They promise “the best”. Paying customers - you and I included - should expect and demand it in turn.