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

[Lee]

Why do we accept that? Raise your standards. Demand better. Demand MORE. You're the customer paying good money for a book.

Why on earth should anyone accept largely repetitive, unoriginal, regressive slop with a smile and thank them for it?

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.

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 were talking about Peter being a teenager long before I asked whether teenaged Peter Parker had ever endured. You're asserting that 20 is the important milestone right now.

I'm sorry for answering your question. I won't do so again.

[Mister Mets]

IMHO r.e. the professionals, a lot of the pro-OMD ones have explained their viewpoint enough that I think we have a pretty good idea of why, to quote the MCU, is Gamorra. Not saying one has to agree that OMD should've happened and needs to be the only status quo (heck, I sure don't think it holds up under any kind of logic or quality of craftsmanship), but I think we have a pretty good model from the horse's mouth.

Frankly, at this point, I less interested in why creators/fans like OMD and don't want to bring the marriage back, but why OMD remains such a sacred cow when it's antithetical to the brand as a whole. IMHO, that's the next puzzle in a situation that I think becomes more and more absurd the longer it goes on.

The pros have often explained their views, and that doesn't fit the description of true motives.

On the subject of what is foundational to a franchise.

In a healthy franchise the writers are constantly introducing new concepts many of which are worth reusing. That means that the number of concepts worth reusing will be rising steadily. That means that the number of new concepts worth reusing will fall. (A crude mathematical model suggests that the number of new worthwhile concepts introduced in any period should fall in proportion to the square root of the franchise's duration.) One would expect therefore that more of the reusable and important concepts were introduced earlier in the franchise than later. That doesn't impose any normative valuation on concepts from earlier portion of the franchise as such.

In Spider-man's case, John Jameson is a minor supporting character despite having a prominent role in AMS 1, and 'Sally', one of the few named characters in Amazing Fantasy 15, has never reappeared in contemporary continuity. Meanwhile, Kraven's Last Hunt dominates perceptions of that character.

One important thing about the Spider-Man comics is that the foundational comics are considered quite good. The Lee/ Ditko and Lee/ Romita runs rate among the best in comics.

That's different from Batman and Superman where the original runs aren't as acclaimed.

An interesting counter to consider to the “Won't someone think of the hypothetical future audiences!?!” thing here is that any new audience in the marketplace now is far more likely to use digital access to just read the massive amount of Spider-Man material already published than to find a comic shop...

...and they’re still going to be recommended the “authentic” “classic Spider-Man” if they want to read “classic Spider-Man”, rather than this weird post-OMD period. What may or may not help this era with future readers is how good or memorable it is by itself or in concert with the “greatest hits”... which is where Peter and MJ being written more ambitiously and more elegantly pre-OMD might cause problems, and where the desire for ubiquity and a lack of impact is going to work against it.

Like, I don’t think future readers are going to get this era recommended for them for anything beyond the art (nothing wrong with that) or maybe the Superior arc (where they replaced Peter in order to get ambitious again.)

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.

The retcon that the Peter who got married was a clone was undone and stories resumed with the previous status quo. Whatever the writers' and editors' intentions, the clone retcon didn't stick any more than Superior Spider-man stuck.
Original Ultimate Peter may have got better, but he had never had any more ongoing stories. I think his only appearance since then has been a cameo at the end of Bendis' second Spider-men mini? Nor have I seen much evidence of people, even advocates of teenaged Peter, campaigning for the return of original Ultimate Peter. It seems to me generally accepted that that teenaged Peter's story has ended.

After the clone retcon was retconned, it took three years later for MJ to be killed off.

Peter and MJ didn't reconcile for another three years of comics.

One More Day came within five years of that.

[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.

[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]

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

[Lee]

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.

I vaguely remember someone from Marvel saying that back-issues of Spider-Man that Venom showed up in did well digitally. I think it was around the time the Flash Thompson Venom series launched, but I don't recall whether it was an interview, a convention panel, a blog post or something else.

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

Telling someone that they accept slop, that they accept substandard comics, and that they need to raise their standards, is saying that they want bad comics. It's condescending, it's rude, and it isn't conducive to a civil, adult conversation. It's a disproportionate response to a no stakes conversation about a super hero comic.

[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.

[wleakr]

So instead of asking for "better", because the current material is not good, we should instead just "Don't ask questions, consume product and get excited for the next product"?

Nothing wrong with asking for "better".

But if the ask is based on one's perception that the current material "is not good", you can't expect Marvel to act on that.

EVERYONE doesn't share that sentiment.

And for those that are enjoying the current content, there are fans that question their enjoyment as "it's obvious this comic is bad, why don't you want more?"

Your bolded statement shouldn't occur. If you don't enjoy the product, you shouldn't consume OR get excited about it. Question, yes. Suggest, yes. But if you're still (hate) buying, who's fault is that?