Spider-Man: Life Story By Chip Zdarsky & Mark Bagley

[Digifiend]

AND HE STICKS THE LANDING! THE KICK IS GOOD! THE GOAL IS MADE!
In all seriousness...wow. What a powerful and uplifting miniseries. This will undoubtedly go down as one of the best Spider-Man miniseries ever, up there with Spider-Man: Blue easily. Zdarsky and Bagley crafted an excellent tale of sacrifice, power, and responsibility using the history of Spider-Man. Of this last issue, I particularly loved spoilers:

Peter's last words to MJ and his last dream of catching the burglar.

end of spoilers Such great stuff.

I'm intrigued by how much actually went into this, and I'm actually glad with the way it turned out overall. I think a 12-issue maxiseries would've been just as great, but having each issue represent a different decade made it feel so much richer to me. Overall, I'm all for how this story turned out, and I loved it from beginning to end. This is one of my favorite Spider-Man stories, period.

The spoiler code is spoil, not spoiler.

Wanna be honest.

It's a meddling story overall.

[SPOILERS]

It started great. It managed to make sense of the Clone Saga, which is quite the accolade by itself, but the ending in space is very weak and out character(s).

Also it tried to force Peter too much into the overall greater Marvel universe. C'mon, Peter is the last of the old heroes to be alive? Old men fighting Civil War? Tony Stark acting like a villain? Norman not being aware of Harry's death? Ezekiel just name dropped? Peter willingly omitting Ben how Morlun is dangerous and let his inexperienced kids fight him on their own? That's more than irresponsible, it's stupidly reckless.

I'd say that the first three parts were incredibly amazing, including Secret Wars and the Symbiote Saga and Kraven's last hunt (although Hobgoblin deserved a mention).

Everything else after it, it's just a weak rehearsal of already weak stories.

[/SPOILERS]

I take it you didn't know about the spoil tag either?

[Prof. Warren]

The spoiler code is spoil, not spoiler.

I take it you didn't know about the spoil tag either?

Also doesn't know the difference between "meddling" and "middling."

[Prof. Warren]

-- Zdarsky said that Spider-Man is the best character to explore aging with since that's an unresolved debate that went public in a big way with OMD and undoing the marriage. He said that Peter aged in real-time in the Lee-Ditko era and than later the brakes were applied, meaning that whether Marvel likes it or not, Spider-Man aging is a part of the foundation of the character. Zdarsky is kind of neutral on that, although I think the series itself and his silence makes it clear that he prefers Peter growing up and becoming an adult.

Well, Peter did become an adult. He is an adult. Zdarsky wrote him as such in his SSM run. No one would say that Peter should have remained an eternal teenager.

But becoming an adult and continuing to age into an old man are two different things. I'm sure Zdarsky realizes that having Peter reach a general, loosely defined age in regular continuity and hover in that range is what makes sense in the long term. Peter couldn't believably stay a teen through over fifty plus years of continuity but he can be a twentysomething forever.

-- Brevoort in interview repeats his claim (Absolutely BS but unchallenged here) about Peter aging coming because writers didn't know he'd be successful (forgetting that sales increased after he went to college and increased every time he aged which is a provable and proven fact).

I think it's safe to say that Brevoort speaks with more authority on the matter than you.

Also, sales increased because the audience was growing as awareness of the character spread. Saying that it was a direct correlation to him aging and going to college would be an erroneous assumption. Once Peter left high school, he was a college student for ages. It's not like he was celebrating a birthday every year and aging in real time. And for anyone who wants to point to the wedding and the marriage, weddings and marriages are a proven ratings stunt with TV shows. They always spike interest. But with TV shows, you have actors aging in real time and an inevitable end of the series to reckon with. Marrying characters off, having their stories come to some kind of resolution before the plug gets pulled, is part of that medium. Not so with comics, where the narrative is unending and characters are impervious to the passage of time.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

No one would say that Peter should have remained an eternal teenager.

Marvel have said that repeatedly. Brevoort said that multiple times in the past as did Quesada. John Byrne actually tried to damn Peter for legit to high school forever. And that wretched manifesto that Brevoort wrote kept citing Ultimate Spider-Man as a case in point. They pretend that USM's success is down to Peter being teenage rather than Bendis' writing, forgetting the failure of Chapter One a year before that.

I think it's safe to say that Brevoort speaks with more authority on the matter than you.

IN terms of his job as a story editor and so on, working with writers and artists on beats, and pacing, and structure, Brevoort is very skilled. But when he is speaking and reflecting historically on the reasons for Spider-Man's success, he is making arguments via assumptions, and in that realm, he's as capable of being right/wrong as anyone who throws out stuff without backing up their statements.

Brevoort's argument that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko wrote the characters without knowing they would last forever, which others like Byrne and Mark Waid have repeated, presupposes that Spider-Man would have been successful regardless of anything Lee and Ditko did, which is ridiculous. It also suggests that Lee and Ditko didn't put every effort into Spider-Man as they did on every comic to make it last, stick and be popular.

Likewise, real-time aging wasn't commonly practiced by anyone back then. The idea that "if they knew they were successful" presupposes that every character starts out with real-time aging but that's not true. Batman and Superman were conceived by creators to live in a static background. Walt Disney (and Ub Iwerks) didn't know when he made Steamboat Willie that Mickey Mouse would be big but that doesn't mean that Mickey or Donald aged in real-time in their early cartoons.

Characters aging and story progression was something that Lee introduced and it was one of the most unique defining features of Marvel as many of its early readers noted.

Also, sales increased because the audience was growing as awareness of the character spread. Saying that it was a direct correlation to him aging and going to college would be an erroneous assumption.

Not exactly. Lee-Romita was far more successful commercially than Lee-Ditko's run. That much is widely agreed on and agreed by most people who look back on that era. And a lot of people who had experienced the Marvel Revolution identified real-time aging as one of the factors that distinguished and defined Marvel at the time. Did Romita benefit from the good-will that Ditko had gained and scored a windfall, unlikely since you know that was an era when comics still sold on word-of-mouth, and didn't have the luxury (and curse) of the internet?

Once Peter left high school, he was a college student for ages.

He graduated in Wolfman's run around 1980 or so. That was a decision that Marvel Editorial (I think EIC Shooter since he was in charge) took over Wolfman's objections. Peter has been in grad school or more precisely in-and-out of grad school for ages.

And for anyone who wants to point to the wedding and the marriage, weddings and marriages are a proven ratings stunt with TV shows. They always spike interest.

How do you explain sustaining interest then? Spider-Man sales were the highest they have been (before and since) during David Michelinie's run with the marriage and he ran that title for 7 years from 1987-1994. Sales declined under the Clone Saga and the shrinking of the comics market after that. Since the Clone Saga wanted to undo the marriage...that doesn't speak in favor of undoing it.

[HypnoHustler]

One thing I don’t get... spoilers:

how did Peter and Miles breathe (and talk) in deep space once their helmets were destroyed and the ship was broken and exposed?

end of spoilers

[Revolutionary_Jack]

One thing I don’t get... spoilers:

how did Peter and Miles breathe (and talk) in deep space once their helmets were destroyed and the ship was broken and exposed?

end of spoilers

Maybe having superpowers gives them extra time in the vacuum of space than normal people?

When I read that, I thought that one part of the glass section was standing at least during spoilers:

Otto-in-Miles' fight with Peter.

end of spoilers

[AlexCampy89]

Also doesn't know the difference between "meddling" and "middling."

Autocorrect shenanigans.

[Prof. Warren]

Autocorrect shenanigans.

It happens.

[Mister Mets]

Marvel have said that repeatedly. Brevoort said that multiple times in the past as did Quesada. John Byrne actually tried to damn Peter for legit to high school forever. And that wretched manifesto that Brevoort wrote kept citing Ultimate Spider-Man as a case in point. They pretend that USM's success is down to Peter being teenage rather than Bendis' writing, forgetting the failure of Chapter One a year before that.



IN terms of his job as a story editor and so on, working with writers and artists on beats, and pacing, and structure, Brevoort is very skilled. But when he is speaking and reflecting historically on the reasons for Spider-Man's success, he is making arguments via assumptions, and in that realm, he's as capable of being right/wrong as anyone who throws out stuff without backing up their statements.

Brevoort's argument that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko wrote the characters without knowing they would last forever, which others like Byrne and Mark Waid have repeated, presupposes that Spider-Man would have been successful regardless of anything Lee and Ditko did, which is ridiculous. It also suggests that Lee and Ditko didn't put every effort into Spider-Man as they did on every comic to make it last, stick and be popular.

Likewise, real-time aging wasn't commonly practiced by anyone back then. The idea that "if they knew they were successful" presupposes that every character starts out with real-time aging but that's not true. Batman and Superman were conceived by creators to live in a static background. Walt Disney (and Ub Iwerks) didn't know when he made Steamboat Willie that Mickey Mouse would be big but that doesn't mean that Mickey or Donald aged in real-time in their early cartoons.

Characters aging and story progression was something that Lee introduced and it was one of the most unique defining features of Marvel as many of its early readers noted.



Not exactly. Lee-Romita was far more successful commercially than Lee-Ditko's run. That much is widely agreed on and agreed by most people who look back on that era. And a lot of people who had experienced the Marvel Revolution identified real-time aging as one of the factors that distinguished and defined Marvel at the time. Did Romita benefit from the good-will that Ditko had gained and scored a windfall, unlikely since you know that was an era when comics still sold on word-of-mouth, and didn't have the luxury (and curse) of the internet?



He graduated in Wolfman's run around 1980 or so. That was a decision that Marvel Editorial (I think EIC Shooter since he was in charge) took over Wolfman's objections. Peter has been in grad school or more precisely in-and-out of grad school for ages.



How do you explain sustaining interest then? Spider-Man sales were the highest they have been (before and since) during David Michelinie's run with the marriage and he ran that title for 7 years from 1987-1994. Sales declined under the Clone Saga and the shrinking of the comics market after that. Since the Clone Saga wanted to undo the marriage...that doesn't speak in favor of undoing it.

Wouldn't real-time aging have ended towards the conclusion of the Lee/ Ditko run? That's when Peter became a college student.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Wouldn't real-time aging have ended towards the conclusion of the Lee/ Ditko run? That's when Peter became a college student.

As this article points out (http://zak-site.com/Great-American-N..._universe.html), Marvel Time didn't become the only game in town until after the Jim Shooter era. Before there were ebbs and flows. Shooter was more keen on encouraging progression and development than any editor after him.

[Mister Mets]

As this article points out (http://zak-site.com/Great-American-N..._universe.html), Marvel Time didn't become the only game in town until after the Jim Shooter era. Before there were ebbs and flows. Shooter was more keen on encouraging progression and development than any editor after him.

Ebbs and flows is not real-time.

Conceivably, Peter Parker's Lee/ Ditko adventures could have happened close to real-time, with the high school stories mainly published in a period of a 2 1/2 years followed by two issues during summer and Peter going to college. But that's no longer the case when he goes to college and he's not appreciably older at later points of the Lee/ Romita run than he was in the beginning of it.

[Prof. Warren]

Marvel have said that repeatedly. Brevoort said that multiple times in the past as did Quesada. John Byrne actually tried to damn Peter for legit to high school forever. And that wretched manifesto that Brevoort wrote kept citing Ultimate Spider-Man as a case in point. They pretend that USM's success is down to Peter being teenage rather than Bendis' writing, forgetting the failure of Chapter One a year before that.

I can't imagine anyone legitimately thinking that Peter could or would stay a high schooler forever. That's just ridiculous.

Given the chance to do things over, as they did with USM, keeping him in high school longer makes sense. But even Miles is in college now so clearly no one at Marvel really thinks that Spider-Man, in any incarnation, can remain a high schooler for an infinite amount of time.

I do think that part of USM's success was due to how refreshing it was to have a young Peter Parker again. Yes, you can also credit the strength of Bendis' writing but on the other hand, you have to also peg the failure of Chapter One on the poorness of that work. Had Chapter One been done with another writer, maybe it would have been a huge success.

IN terms of his job as a story editor and so on, working with writers and artists on beats, and pacing, and structure, Brevoort is very skilled. But when he is speaking and reflecting historically on the reasons for Spider-Man's success, he is making arguments via assumptions, and in that realm, he's as capable of being right/wrong as anyone who throws out stuff without backing up their statements.

I feel his deep involvement with Marvel and with the creative and editorial talents that preceded him lends his opinions a greater weight of authority. He's not on the same level of someone who has only dealt with this stuff from afar.

Brevoort's argument that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko wrote the characters without knowing they would last forever, which others like Byrne and Mark Waid have repeated, presupposes that Spider-Man would have been successful regardless of anything Lee and Ditko did, which is ridiculous. It also suggests that Lee and Ditko didn't put every effort into Spider-Man as they did on every comic to make it last, stick and be popular.

Sure, they put all they had into their characters. They also could not have, in any way, anticipated not just the success of Spider-Man but the lasting success. No one in the early '60s at Marvel or anywhere else would have thought that these characters would still be published well into the next century.

Likewise, real-time aging wasn't commonly practiced by anyone back then. The idea that "if they knew they were successful" presupposes that every character starts out with real-time aging but that's not true. Batman and Superman were conceived by creators to live in a static background. Walt Disney (and Ub Iwerks) didn't know when he made Steamboat Willie that Mickey Mouse would be big but that doesn't mean that Mickey or Donald aged in real-time in their early cartoons.

Are we going to be so ridiculous that we're going to compare a mouse and duck with a human being? Are we?

Do I have to explain the difference we're talking about here?

Yes, introducing the passage of time was something that separated Marvel from DC in terms of their superhero universes. But clearly no one at Marvel knew how long their characters would endure. Industry people at the time expected the whole comic book biz to collapse any day. Once it became obvious that these characters and these books were going to last past those initial years, the idea of "Marvel Time" was introduced (even if it wasn't immediately labeled as such) so characters could still age...to a point. But never so much that they aged past a certain "evergreen" status.

Characters aging and story progression was something that Lee introduced and it was one of the most unique defining features of Marvel as many of its early readers noted.

Yes, but again, once it was clear these characters were not going anywhere, they stopped aging so quickly.

Not exactly. Lee-Romita was far more successful commercially than Lee-Ditko's run. That much is widely agreed on and agreed by most people who look back on that era.

Well, no sh*t. It's the difference between Ditko and Romita Sr.. ASM went from being a quirky creation to being a slick, streamlined, far more mainstream product.

Of course sales shot up. For very obvious reasons.

And a lot of people who had experienced the Marvel Revolution identified real-time aging as one of the factors that distinguished and defined Marvel at the time. Did Romita benefit from the good-will that Ditko had gained and scored a windfall, unlikely since you know that was an era when comics still sold on word-of-mouth, and didn't have the luxury (and curse) of the internet?

See above. Romita Sr.'s art gave ASM a commercial jolt that immediately kicked it into the stratosphere.

He graduated in Wolfman's run around 1980 or so. That was a decision that Marvel Editorial (I think EIC Shooter since he was in charge) took over Wolfman's objections. Peter has been in grad school or more precisely in-and-out of grad school for ages.

"Around 1980 or so" is a long time for someone to be graduating college if they went in in around 1965!

They finally had to move him on to grad school, just for the sake of maintaining some believability, even with the sliding time line.

Grad school, of course, can just go on and on.

How do you explain sustaining interest then? Spider-Man sales were the highest they have been (before and since) during David Michelinie's run with the marriage and he ran that title for 7 years from 1987-1994. Sales declined under the Clone Saga and the shrinking of the comics market after that. Since the Clone Saga wanted to undo the marriage...that doesn't speak in favor of undoing it.

I'll give you a couple of reasons. Todd McFarlane. Erik Larsen.

The marriage gave sales a spike and you had powerhouse, superstar artists helping to maintain that momentum.

As for the Clone Saga, it was a badly mismanaged story. Period. Peter and MJ were still married so if that was all that was keeping people around in the first place, the readers would have stayed. The fact is, when the quality of the product drops, readers walk away. ASM was a juggernaut when McFarlane and Larsen were on it accompanied by a strong writer like Michelinie. The book just lost its way as the '90s went on. It happens.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Ebbs and flows is not real-time.

IT does show that there was no hard rule against growth and progression.

But that's no longer the case when he goes to college and he's not appreciably older at later points of the Lee/ Romita run than he was in the beginning of it.

People age at a slower rate in college. Freshman college grads tend to look like seniors. The difference isn't as drastic as high school junior and high school senior.

In any case, most of Peter's adventures in the L-D and Romita eras, whether in high school or college was spent at the Daily Bugle. That became the focal point of his day-to-day work. Peter working at the Daily Bugle was a far more iconic part of the character than him being in class. How else do you explain Jameson's great popularity and fame?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yes, you can also credit the strength of Bendis' writing but on the other hand, you have to also peg the failure of Chapter One on the poorness of that work. Had Chapter One been done with another writer, maybe it would have been a huge success.

It had John Byrne, big name comics' writer. So on the name alone it didn't do enough as it should.

I feel his deep involvement with Marvel and with the creative and editorial talents that preceded him lends his opinions a greater weight of authority. He's not on the same level of someone who has only dealt with this stuff from afar.

Being an insider has its own disadvantages in terms of knowing stuff. It means you are more guided by office rumors than facts, received wisdom than outside research and so on. As someone who cut his teeth on film history and film criticism, the ways in which inside gossip spreads and catches a life on its own is quite glaring. And everyone gets roped into it, even those who make an effort to be honest and conscientious.

Sure, they put all they had into their characters. They also could not have, in any way, anticipated not just the success of Spider-Man but the lasting success. No one in the early '60s at Marvel or anywhere else would have thought that these characters would still be published well into the next century.

Would Spider-Man have been more successful if they knew that what they were doing would be successful? If you say that someone wrote it without having an idea how successful it would be, you are implying that there's a way to create something successful and lasting knowing it will be that big. To me knowledge, there isn't.

Are we going to be so ridiculous that we're going to compare a mouse and duck with a human being? Are we?

l,
I also mentioned Superman and Batman created with comic book time from the start, but by all means, choose the example that allows you to dismiss and scapegoat me.

Industry people at the time expected the whole comic book biz to collapse any day.

I am sure that would be news to DC who had a pretty healthy time of it in that decade, as did many other lesser known titles at the time (Charlton, Warren, and others). Stan Lee wasn't sure that he would be in comics forever, but Kirby and Ditko whose vocation was entirely in comics weren't angling to leave the industry for certain. And both Kirby and Ditko were in favor of progression. It was Ditko, who had control of the plotting from ASM #25 onwards, that made the decision to have Peter go to college, and Kirby was so in favor of it that he wanted to end the Norse pantheon and replace it with the New Gods, and likewise had issues with DC when they didn't let him finish his story there.

Well, no sh*t. It's the difference between Ditko and Romita Sr.. ASM went from being a quirky creation to being a slick, streamlined, far more mainstream product.

Why didn't Daredevil, where Romita Sr. had also worked on, in much the same style didn't take off then? He used the same slick,, mainstream style there too.

I'll give you a couple of reasons. Todd McFarlane. Erik Larsen.

Sales remained high after both of them left. Like when Mark Bagley took over, who isn't as much of a name creator (and let's face it, self-promoter) as those two. Bagley co-created Carnage and designed the Symbiote and that was after both McFarlane and Larsen left.

[Snoop Dogg]

The book got more popular when Romita came because he and Stan took an already popular title and made every single character more attractive and likable.