Controversial Spider-Man Opinions

[Kevinroc]

Not at all.

I don't agree with the premise that ASM "carries massive "divorced guy" energy and has for the last decade and a half." Or that it is worse in the current run.

But for those that feel that way, there are currently some alternatives to ASM.

In the first issue of this run, Peter stalks his ex as she's with her new family.

Peter has massive "divorced guy" energy radiating off of him.

This is the controversial Spider-Man opinion thread so saying "just read Ultimate Spider-Man" is a "so you hate waffles" defense. (Like most Spider-Man comic fans, I am reading USM. It's very good. That doesn't change that ASM Peter has massive "divorced guy" energy radiating off of him.)

[Daibhidh]

But they are together in USM, so fans now have alternatives to read and enjoy the Spider-man they relate to.

Did that logic apply during the original Ultimate run? Why wasn't editorial satisfied that fans had alternatives to a married Spider-man?
The Spider-man we relate to was the one who got married in Earth-616 after fighting a spider-slayer robot with MJ, who met MJ in the airport in AMS 2 50.

The irony is that marriage fans care about continuity and growth; we're told that non-marriage fans think growth is a bad thing. Why do marriage fans have to have the alternative world where the continuity is being made up from scratch, when that's what the non-marriage fans say would satisfy them? And the non-marriage fans don't want Peter and MJ to be an ongoing story, but they have the continuity in which it was an ongoing story.

UMS is well-written, and engaging, and proof of concept - but I'm not sure we'd care quite so much about these people if we didn't have their history together in Earth-616 to make us care about them already.

[wleakr]

In the first issue of this run, Peter stalks his ex as she's with her new family.

Peter has massive "divorced guy" energy radiating off of him.

This is the controversial Spider-Man opinion thread so saying "just read Ultimate Spider-Man" is a "so you hate waffles" defense. (Like most Spider-Man comic fans, I am reading USM. It's very good. That doesn't change that ASM Peter has massive "divorced guy" energy radiating off of him.)

Let's say he does have "divorced guy" energy.

The book is/has been a top ten seller for Marvel. So maybe fans are ok with "divorced guy" energy.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Im more interested in Aaron getting a Prowler film over Hobie. But im fine with a prowler film starring both.

spoilers:

miles's prowler look is better than his actual look

end of spoilers

[JTait]

Let's say he does have "divorced guy" energy.

The book is/has been a top ten seller for Marvel. So maybe fans are ok with "divorced guy" energy.

In fairness, this is the 'controversial opinions' thread. So it does make sense that several others would disagree.

[wleakr]

In fairness, this is the 'controversial opinions' thread. So it does make sense that several others would disagree.

I do agree on that!

[Mercwmouth12]

In fairness, this is the 'controversial opinions' thread. So it does make sense that several others would disagree.

Also these top ten lists are not real accurate as it's pulling from a skewed amount of stores and the same stores as it did before

[TinkerSpider]

Let's say he does have "divorced guy" energy.

The book is/has been a top ten seller for Marvel. So maybe fans are ok with "divorced guy" energy.

Comics have two distinct markets:

1) comics as entertainment which requires opening the issue to read a story

2) comics as physical collectibles

Ironically, to be the second comics cannot be the first, as each time the comic is opened and read it negatively impacts the collectible value, which puts a premium on untouched, pristine condition to the point that comics are sealed and slabbed and designed to NOT be read.

If market #2 is driving ASM sales, then it doesn’t matter what is on the page. Peter could be a stick figure who beats puppies but as long as the book is in pristine condition and untouched, it retains its value for market #2.

Regardless, the sales for USM by Hickman suggest that the markets are >2x larger for a Peter with happily married guy energy.

[Tuck]

OMD is unfixable. It irreversibly broke the series.

For the same reason the marriage was unfixable.

You can't retcon 20 years of stories and claim it was surgical. (Well, you can, but you can't make readers accept it.) And you can't retcon the retcon with 17 years of stories in the new timeline. And just undoing the deal creates character problems that don't currently exist.

[Alan2099]

If it wasn't for topics online where people complain about things, nobody would actually care about One More Day anymore.

[Tuck]

If it wasn't for topics online where people complain about things, nobody would actually care about One More Day anymore.

Isn't this just a variation o tfhe argument that people didn't complain about choices in comics with intensity before the internet?

[bat39]

My controversial opinion for the day - there's absolutely no reason for Peter, single or not, to be perpetually broke. Its almost become a defining attribute of the character/franchise. Yes, it had its moments of course early on - Peter needing to help pay the pills after Uncle Ben died was part of his 'coming of age' story. And Spider-Man 2 worked wonders with that status quo. But after a point, especially when they keep hitting the reset button on a financially solvent, or even affluent, Peter to make him broke again, it feels like they're trying hard to make Peter's relative poverty as much a part of his brand as Bruce Wayne's wealth is for his

Personally, I'm glad that the Webb Spider-Man movies, and the MCU Spider-Man, moved away from Peter being broke. The MCU Spider-Man is moving in that direction now, but for this iteration of Peter, its actually a bold new status quo, so I'm interested in seeing how it pans out!

I think a man as intelligent as Peter, especially one with the connections he has in both civilian and superhero lives, shouldn't be perpetually struggling to pay rent.

OMD is unfixable. It irreversibly broke the series.

For the same reason the marriage was unfixable.

You can't retcon 20 years of stories and claim it was surgical. (Well, you can, but you can't make readers accept it.) And you can't retcon the retcon with 17 years of stories in the new timeline. And just undoing the deal creates character problems that don't currently exist.

My solution to this is that if ever the marriage is restored, a lot of the post-BND stuff (what can't fit into the 'new' 616 timeline) could be established as taking place on a parallel earth/timeline, with maybe a book or two set there.

[Jman27]

My controversial opinion for the day - there's absolutely no reason for Peter, single or not, to be perpetually broke. Its almost become a defining attribute of the character/franchise. Yes, it had its moments of course early on - Peter needing to help pay the pills after Uncle Ben died was part of his 'coming of age' story. And Spider-Man 2 worked wonders with that status quo. But after a point, especially when they keep hitting the reset button on a financially solvent, or even affluent, Peter to make him broke again, it feels like they're trying hard to make Peter's relative poverty as much a part of his brand as Bruce Wayne's wealth is for his

Personally, I'm glad that the Webb Spider-Man movies, and the MCU Spider-Man, moved away from Peter being broke. The MCU Spider-Man is moving in that direction now, but for this iteration of Peter, its actually a bold new status quo, so I'm interested in seeing how it pans out!

I think a man as intelligent as Peter, especially one with the connections he has in both civilian and superhero lives, shouldn't be perpetually struggling to pay rent.
.

Agree to all of this. same with them keep resetting him to go back to ESU for school

[Frontier]

In the first issue of this run, Peter stalks his ex as she's with her new family.

Peter has massive "divorced guy" energy radiating off of him.

This is the controversial Spider-Man opinion thread so saying "just read Ultimate Spider-Man" is a "so you hate waffles" defense. (Like most Spider-Man comic fans, I am reading USM. It's very good. That doesn't change that ASM Peter has massive "divorced guy" energy radiating off of him.)

He did the same thing in Amazing Spider-Man 2 .

My controversial opinion for the day - there's absolutely no reason for Peter, single or not, to be perpetually broke. Its almost become a defining attribute of the character/franchise. Yes, it had its moments of course early on - Peter needing to help pay the pills after Uncle Ben died was part of his 'coming of age' story. And Spider-Man 2 worked wonders with that status quo. But after a point, especially when they keep hitting the reset button on a financially solvent, or even affluent, Peter to make him broke again, it feels like they're trying hard to make Peter's relative poverty as much a part of his brand as Bruce Wayne's wealth is for his

Personally, I'm glad that the Webb Spider-Man movies, and the MCU Spider-Man, moved away from Peter being broke. The MCU Spider-Man is moving in that direction now, but for this iteration of Peter, its actually a bold new status quo, so I'm interested in seeing how it pans out!

I think a man as intelligent as Peter, especially one with the connections he has in both civilian and superhero lives, shouldn't be perpetually struggling to pay rent.



My solution to this is that if ever the marriage is restored, a lot of the post-BND stuff (what can't fit into the 'new' 616 timeline) could be established as taking place on a parallel earth/timeline, with maybe a book or two set there.

I don't think he needs to be perpetually broke but he should still have a reasonable job and have to make money like a normal person.

I think it's an important part of teen Peter's development that he had to get a job at a young age to provide for his family after Uncle Ben died.

[Kevinroc]

He did the same thing in Amazing Spider-Man 2 .

Stalking your ex when she has a new family gives it a whole new connotation. (Stalking is wrong either way, in case that wasn't clear.)

It just plays into the massive "divorced guy" energy Peter has in this run in particular.