-
Other similarities:
* Has ears
* Speaks English
* Eats food
* Currently not in a romantic relationship with Peter Parker
-
[QUOTE=Lee;6165426]* Currently not in a romantic relationship with Peter Parker[/QUOTE]
* Currently in a romantic relationship with Peter's actor
-
The comic book Mary Jane is in a relationship with Peter's actor?
-
We all wear masks..... metaphorically speaking
-
[QUOTE=Lee;6165426]Other similarities:
* Has ears
* Speaks English
* Eats food
* Currently not in a romantic relationship[/QUOTE]
I agree, those are the similarities MCU Peter has with 616 Peter.
-
[QUOTE=Lee;6165459]The comic book Mary Jane is in a relationship with Peter's actor?[/QUOTE]
Thanks for spoiling the secret behind Paul.
-
[QUOTE=Mercwmouth12;6165501]We all wear masks..... metaphorically speaking[/QUOTE]
"But which one is the real mask? Is it the one you wear over your face . . . or the one that [I]is[/I] your face?"
-
Hey I just noticed something about reading Hickman Avengers and X-MEN. Sam Guthrie aka Cannonball, one of the new mutants who was a teen when he premiere in the early 80s, around the time Peter was a College grad being much younger than Peter, has a wife and baby. What you think of that huh?
-
[QUOTE=Rzerox21xx;6167710]Hey I just noticed something about reading Hickman Avengers and X-MEN. Sam Guthrie aka Cannonball, one of the new mutants who was a teen when he premiere in the early 80s, around the time Peter was a College grad being much younger than Peter, has a wife and baby. What you think of that huh?[/QUOTE]
Well, Sam's family kind of came out of nowhere in Hickman's run so :p.
-
[QUOTE=Rzerox21xx;6167710]Hey I just noticed something about reading Hickman Avengers and X-MEN. Sam Guthrie aka Cannonball, one of the new mutants who was a teen when he premiere in the early 80s, around the time Peter was a College grad being much younger than Peter, has a wife and baby. What you think of that huh?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Frontier;6167841]Well, Sam's family kind of came out of nowhere in Hickman's run so :p.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but it does speak to a rather aggravating hypocrisy on Marvel's part --- that other, even more "minor" characters can grow and change and develop from where they started off, but an icon like Spider-Man/Peter Parker has to be effectively kept in suspended animation and arrested development "to keep him relatable," which, at least to me, says something fairly troubling about how Marvel views a lot of its audience.
-
The more popular characters have to remain recognisable and on-brand in the long run. The obscure characters that aren't making Marvel money can be tinkered with more, up until the point they become a successful brand, then they'll be in a similar position.
-
[QUOTE=Lee;6167896]The more popular characters have to remain recognisable and on-brand in the long run. The obscure characters that aren't making Marvel money can be tinkered with more, up until the point they become a successful brand, then they'll be in a similar position.[/QUOTE]
You raise a point, but at the same time, what the hell is Marvel actually saying about the fandom? That if we're to relate to Spider-Man/Peter Parker, we're really just a bunch of overgrown adolescents stuck in our parents' basements and incapable of making any forward progress in our lives?
-
[QUOTE=Huntsman Spider;6167880]Perhaps, but it does speak to a rather aggravating hypocrisy on Marvel's part --- that other, even more "minor" characters can grow and change and develop from where they started off, but an icon like Spider-Man/Peter Parker has to be effectively kept in suspended animation and arrested development "to keep him relatable," which, at least to me, says something fairly troubling about how Marvel views a lot of its audience.[/QUOTE]
A few commentaries people in this thread might find interesting:
Alan Moore's "lost" essay on Stan Lee and Marvel, written in 1983 but still very applicable to today.
[URL="https://seanhowe.tumblr.com/post/32172785745/alan-moores-lost-stan-lee*******-1983-part-1-of"]Part One[/URL]:
[QUOTE]Probably the most remarkable thing that Stan Lee achieved was the way in which he managed to hold on to his audience long after they had grown beyond the age range usually associated with comic book readers of that period. He did this by constant application of change, modification and development.
No comic book was allowed to remain static for long. Iron Man traded in his gunmetal-grey juggernaut of a costume for the sleek red and gold affair that was gradually turned into the costume we know today. The Hulk left the Avengers, never to return. A Howling Commando got killed from time to time. You can say what you like about the early Marvel universe, but it sure as hell wasn’t boring.
As the sixties wore on, Lee’s writing began to mirror the changes that were taking place in the society about him. The gritty, streetwise realism slowly gave way to a sense of adventure and wonder on a grand and cosmic scale, just as thousands of middle class American kids were donning kaftans, growing their hair and setting out for San Francisco in search of cosmic adventures of their own.
To many, this ‘visionary’ period of Lee’s writing stands as his finest work. Personally, although it knocked me for a loop at the time, I can see with hindsight that in many ways it spelled the beginning of the end. That said, while it lasted it was probably the most fun you could have without risking imprisonment.[/QUOTE]
So Marvel was founded on actual change. On responding to the times. NOT keeping characters locked in amber. Yet that is what people currently argue is what is necessary.
[URL="https://seanhowe.tumblr.com/post/32249579180/alan-moores-lost-stan-lee*******-1983-part-2-of"]Part Two:[/URL]
[QUOTE]You see, somewhere along the line, one of the newer breed of Marvel editors… maybe it was Marv Wolfman, maybe it was someone else, had come up with one of those incredibly snappy sounding and utterly stupid little pieces of folk-wisdom that some editors seem to like pulling out of the hat from time to time.
This particular little gem went something as follows; “Readers don’t want change. Readers only want the illusion of change.” Like I said, it sounds perceptive and well-reasoned on first listening. It is also, in my opinion, one of the most specious and retarded theories that it has ever been my misfortune to come across.
Who says readers don’t want change? Did they do a survey or something? Why wasn’t I consulted?
If readers are that averse to change then how come Marvel ever got to be so popular in the first place, back when constant change and innovation was the order of the day? Frankly, it beats it beats the hell out of me.
Perhaps I could have a little more sympathy for pronouncements like this if there was some solid commercial reasoning behind them. If, for example, Marvel’s books suddenly started selling significantly more during the period when this “Let’s-Not-Rock-The-Boat” policy was introduced, then I might have reluctantly been forced to agree with it.
This is not the case. Marvel’s best selling title today is the X Men, or it was when I saw any figures. It sells something like 300,000 copies, and it is regarded as a staggering success.
Listen, in a country the size of America, 300,00 copies is absolutely pathetic. Back in the early fifties it was not unknown for even a comparatively minor-league publication like Lev Gleason’s original Daredevil (no relation) to clear six million copies every month. Even in the early days of the Marvel empire, any comic that was selling only 300,000 copies would have probably been cause for grave concern amongst those in charge of it’s production, and indeed it would have most likely been cancelled. These days, it’s the best we’ve got.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, now a comic is lucky to sell 100,000 copies...
And Moore is right. Who asked the readers? I would LOVE to know if Marvel has ever done any market research. Because Marvel editorial is STILL parroting this line from the 1970s or so, which to me says this is "conventional wisdom" that has been accepted as truth just because people keep saying it.
But where are the stastistics? Where are the reader/retailer focus groups? Where is the market research? Where are the attitudinal surveys? It's funny Marvel keeps saying this but has never, to my knowledge, ever shown there is actual hard evidence this is indeed the reality.
[URL="https://youtu.be/Y0O09KfDTmM"]ComicPop Returns on YouTube:[/URL] They comment on ASM #7 starting around 1:09. But once they get past them talking about JRJR and the issue itself, around 1:15, he goes into a side discussion on how Amazing Spider-Man will never be good again, will never have a critically acclaimed run again. And he makes very good, perceptive points, IMO (although he's wrong about Mickey, Disney put out pretty cutting edge Mickey cartoons in the last few years that went to some adult (inferred, of course) places). Anyway, he has an interesting point of view.
[QUOTE=Huntsman Spider;6167905]You raise a point, but at the same time, what the hell is Marvel actually saying about the fandom? That if we're to relate to Spider-Man/Peter Parker, we're really just a bunch of overgrown adolescents stuck in our parents' basements and incapable of making any forward progress in our lives?[/QUOTE]
Yes. That's how much respect they have for their audience.
-
[QUOTE=Huntsman Spider;6167905]You raise a point, but at the same time, what the hell is Marvel actually saying about the fandom? That if we're to relate to Spider-Man/Peter Parker, we're really just a bunch of overgrown adolescents stuck in our parents' basements and incapable of making any forward progress in our lives?[/QUOTE]
Maybe that is true of some of the fandom, the ones who obsess a little too much over a comic book character aimed at an audience younger than themselves.
All Marvel is doing is trying to keep telling the best stories they can without veering too far away from what makes each character what they are.
Some Marvel/DC fans don't like to hear this, but the characters are designed to last for multiple generations of readers. The most successful characters will never change too much. They're closer to Asterix and Uncle Scrooge than they are Maggie and Hopey.
-
[QUOTE=Lee;6167934]the characters are designed to last for multiple generations of readers. The most successful characters will never change too much. They're closer to Asterix and Uncle Scrooge than they are Maggie and Hopey.[/QUOTE]
You should read Alan Moore's essay.
[quote]All Marvel is doing is trying to keep telling the best stories they can without veering too far away from what makes each character what they are.[/quote]
Intention is not execution.
[QUOTE]Maybe that is true of some of the fandom, the ones who obsess a little too much over a comic book character aimed at an audience younger than themselves.[/quote]
The mythical young new reader (who isn't appearing as Gen Z aren't interested in comics) don't have much disposable income/income of their own and can't afford/parents will balk to spend $10 for just one issue of Amazing Spider-Man, not to mention all of the other merchandise Marvel wants us to buy.
And I'm very curious what you mean by "some of the fandom." Which some of the fandom?
