Spider-Man: Life Story #2

[PCN24454]

In hindsight, what Captain America is doing isn’t dissimilar to playing both sides.

It’s illogical to think that the reason why the war is going on is all his fault, but I can see what Peter’s thinking when he’s arguing with Reed.

While Reed isn’t completely wrong about upsetting the balance, I think he fails to realize that superheroes already rule the world cause they hold all of the cards. The fact that superheroes like them have access to this kind of technology while other people can only dream of it shows the elitism that Reed fears of creating.

While obviously any form of research should be scrutinized, I’m glad that Dr. Conners finally got to grow his arm back. Was it a mistake to do that kind of research even though it’ll probably lead to the Clone Saga? It’s only because it is possible that we’re really able to discuss its limits and possibilities.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It’s illogical to think that the reason why the war is going on is all his fault, but I can see what Peter’s thinking when he’s arguing with Reed.

He's talking from an emotional place. Flash Thompson died in 1974 and obviously he was someone Cap wasn't able to save. Man this comic is just layered and suggestive.

While Reed isn’t completely wrong about upsetting the balance, I think he fails to realize that superheroes already rule the world cause they hold all of the cards. The fact that superheroes like them have access to this kind of technology while other people can only dream of it shows the elitism that Reed fears of creating.

Historically, implementing technology without the proper social and political conditions in place, doesn't exactly work. Like someone called Hero of Alexandria invented the Steam Engine or some version of it back in Roman times but that didn't create an industrial revolution because of the political and economic conditions in place there not being sufficient to exploit it. During the Cold War, the USSR actually made a lot of innovations across the board, many of them before USA did but couldn't implement it because of totalitarian society and so on.

In our real world, you have tech companies forming a consortium that decides on standards of lightbulbs and other tech and they make sure that it decays so as to sell more bulbs. That happened with old bulbs and with modern LED even if technologically you can make lightbulbs that last, theoretically, forever. This is called (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planne...and_supporters). It happens because of economic reasons not scientific ones. (https://www.newyorker.com/business/c...-built-to-last) This article put its right, "Economics, not physics." So it's paradoxically enough, not unbelievable for Reed's tech and stuff to be kept in the basement or something, or used for top secret bleeding edge exploration only. The only way you can actually go all the way is if physicians and tech inventors got involved in politics and in real life most of those guys are too busy doing the science to get involved in politics and stuff. In a superhero story, the question becomes, do I take over the world to make a better tomorrow.

People have pointed out that we are technologically capable of ending poverty, providing food for the whole planet, and helping people but politics and social norms and so on prevent those problems from being solved. Climate change is this great threat to everything that scientifically we need to solve but implementing those changes needs political will and interest which is again behind the science.

So that's why you ain't getting your jetpack.

[boots]

This is Gibbons-Moore kind of stuff in terms of economy in each panel. Like the next panel shows MJ talking to Flash right away.

If Zdarsky sticks the landing, this has the potential to be Spider-Man's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?.

i wonder how much of that is bagley and how much is zdarsky

[boots]

He's talking from an emotional place. Flash Thompson died in 1974 and obviously he was someone Cap wasn't able to save. Man this comic is just layered and suggestive.



Historically, implementing technology without the proper social and political conditions in place, doesn't exactly work. Like someone called Hero of Alexandria invented the Steam Engine or some version of it back in Roman times but that didn't create an industrial revolution because of the political and economic conditions in place there not being sufficient to exploit it. During the Cold War, the USSR actually made a lot of innovations across the board, many of them before USA did but couldn't implement it because of totalitarian society and so on.

In our real world, you have tech companies forming a consortium that decides on standards of lightbulbs and other tech and they make sure that it decays so as to sell more bulbs. That happened with old bulbs and with modern LED even if technologically you can make lightbulbs that last, theoretically, forever. This is called (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planne...and_supporters). It happens because of economic reasons not scientific ones. (https://www.newyorker.com/business/c...-built-to-last) This article put its right, "Economics, not physics." So it's paradoxically enough, not unbelievable for Reed's tech and stuff to be kept in the basement or something, or used for top secret bleeding edge exploration only. The only way you can actually go all the way is if physicians and tech inventors got involved in politics and in real life most of those guys are too busy doing the science to get involved in politics and stuff. In a superhero story, the question becomes, do I take over the world to make a better tomorrow.

People have pointed out that we are technologically capable of ending poverty, providing food for the whole planet, and helping people but politics and social norms and so on prevent those problems from being solved. Climate change is this great threat to everything that scientifically we need to solve but implementing those changes needs political will and interest which is again behind the science.

So that's why you ain't getting your jetpack.

pertinent with all the discussion over the donations to notre dame

and yeah, until society becomes star trek, other interests over human and social ones will always be in the mix

as for how dangerous it is for superheroes to release advancements into society- like the real world- it's case by case. on the one hand we have ellis' authority releasing technology that after "5 or 10 years of testing, bidding and building" will make the world a better place and on the other we have waid's plutonian rushing out dangerous alien tech to scientists after capitulating to social pressure and realising too late that it was a booby trap.

i'm sure that if reed and superheroes...y'know...consulted other groups and enlisted their aid as equals...things could be mitigated.

[gregpersons]

In hindsight, what Captain America is doing isn’t dissimilar to playing both sides.

It’s illogical to think that the reason why the war is going on is all his fault, but I can see what Peter’s thinking when he’s arguing with Reed.

While Reed isn’t completely wrong about upsetting the balance, I think he fails to realize that superheroes already rule the world cause they hold all of the cards. The fact that superheroes like them have access to this kind of technology while other people can only dream of it shows the elitism that Reed fears of creating.

I was getting the vibe that the conflict in 'Nam was this version of "Civil War" -- where Cap is fighting for ideals rather than government, with Iron Man fighting for specific US interests.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

as for how dangerous it is for superheroes to release advancements into society- like the real world- it's case by case. on the one hand we have ellis' authority releasing technology that after "5 or 10 years of testing, bidding and building" will make the world a better place and on the other we have waid's plutonian rushing out dangerous alien tech to scientists after capitulating to social pressure and realising too late that it was a booby trap.

In the case of The Authority, superheroes actually legit rule the world. So that proves my point. Superheroes going all the way in a comic would basically make them the ultimate authority of that world. Especially if they go all, "All this tech is free and available to everyone, all countries, all backgrounds, all genders and so on" because to do that for real, these superheroes need to be the government.

i'm sure that if reed and superheroes...y'know...consulted other groups and enlisted their aid as equals...things could be mitigated.

For all we know he is doing that. In Life Story and in the Marvel Universe. And they're telling the Fantastic Four that everything in the Baxter Building is a social crisis and revolution waiting to happen, which could unleash what tech-bros at Silicon Valley call "the Singularity" similar to what happens in Ultimate Marvel to the Maker and his City.

I was getting the vibe that the conflict in 'Nam was this version of "Civil War" -- where Cap is fighting for ideals rather than government, with Iron Man fighting for specific US interests.

According to solicitations, Civil War is going to be the story in Issue #5 (The 2000s). The proxy war between Tony and Cap in Vietnam is a set-up to that rather than a substitute for that.

[boots]

In the case of The Authority, superheroes actually legit rule the world. So that proves my point. Superheroes going all the way in a comic would basically make them the ultimate authority of that world. Especially if they go all, "All this tech is free and available to everyone, all countries, all backgrounds, all genders and so on" because to do that for real, these superheroes need to be the government.



For all we know he is doing that. In Life Story and in the Marvel Universe. And they're telling the Fantastic Four that everything in the Baxter Building is a social crisis and revolution waiting to happen, which could unleash what tech-bros at Silicon Valley call "the Singularity" similar to what happens in Ultimate Marvel to the Maker and his City.



According to solicitations, Civil War is going to be the story in Issue #5 (The 2000s). The proxy war between Tony and Cap in Vietnam is a set-up to that rather than a substitute for that.

in the ellis years, the authority didn’t rule the world and gave the tech over without enforcement. which is beside the point that some tech /advancements may be less harmful than others.

as for the superhero benefactors of each of those examples; they both ended up pretty despotic. but again, beside the point

i’m also not saying reed is or isn’t doing that; i’m making a general point on how it could be managed in contrast to a “tyranny of the weak” stance. but if reed is, then the argument with peter would have been a good time to bring it up

maybe rereading my post and omitting the words “authority”, “reed” and “plutonian” would make it clearer

[Scott Taylor]

i wonder how much of that is bagley and how much is zdarsky

Bagley used to do that kind of stuff all the time during USM, so I think its him.

[Russ840]

I so would have been all in for this the be 4 issues per decade.

24 issues, all with Bagley art, would make for a handsome hardcover collection eventually. Imagine the extras Zdarsky could map out.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Bagley used to do that kind of stuff all the time during USM, so I think its him.

From what I gather, Zdarsky doesn't do Marvel Method. And this miniseries being that it's a reduced version of his original plan had to be tightly and minutely plotted. He discussed this in an April 8 podcast, he pointed out how he had to capture characters and subplots in a few panels and condense a decade in an issue, that somehow advances the action to tell a story. Zdarsky also mentioned that he started as a newspaper cartoonist so that allowed him training in being economic and getting as much as he could out of a single panel and image layout. So that fed to his writing too.

I do know that David Michelinie complained about Bagley (and also Larsen) as artists who tended to not listen to his script or follow his details and how he had to fight to get them on the same page. Michelinie had a good relationship with Bob Layton on Iron Man by comparison. But Bendis had a good relationship with him, and his Decompression style put a heavy emphasis on visuals for body language and tone, but it also meant extended scenes took place in one setting and place. I think that a miniseries is different from an ongoing in terms of what the writer and artist can do. There's a designated end, start and stop, whereas in an ongoing, certain issues and stories are loose and have to be stretched out. So there an artist can have more to do.

I so would have been all in for this the be 4 issues per decade.

24 issues, all with Bagley art, would make for a handsome hardcover collection eventually. Imagine the extras Zdarsky could map out.

You know if you make it to 36, you can finish the series by 2022, Spider-Man's 60th Year Anniversary by which time Peter would be 75 years if he aged real-time from AF#15.

[Russ840]

You know if you make it to 36, you can finish the series by 2022, Spider-Man's 60th Year Anniversary by which time Peter would be 75 years if he aged real-time from AF#15.

That would be cool. The last couple of decades could cover Mayday from Peters perspective.

[Digifiend]

Two issues in and I'm REALLY enjoying Spider-Man: Life Story. I'd even say the second issue may be slightly better than the first, primarily because no matter how crazy the departures it takes from continuity, these still feel like the characters we know. Okay, so they're into Disco, sure. Nobody's perfect.

Stillanerd Reviews: Spider-Man: Life Story No. 2 review

That wasn't out of character for MJ and you could tell Peter didn't really want to be there.

[Russ840]

That wasn't out of character for MJ and you could tell Peter didn't really want to be there.

And it was based in the 70’s. Which is an era renowned for disco.

[bat39]

Just caught up with this!

Life Story continues to be a fascinating alternate take on the Spider-Man timeline. I think, more so than being a collection of period pieces recreating past eras, its kind of the ultimate 'What If?' story. What if there was no comic-book time? What if there was no 'status quo'? What if characters took decisions that weren't rolled back and had to live with the consequences? What if superheroes really started to influence the world around them with their power, their tech, and their actions?

spoilers:

Peter's decision to turn Norman in had ripples that ultimately culminated in Gwen's death and Harry becoming the Goblin. Cap's decision to go to Vietnam and save lives on both sides has prolonged the war and caused it to escalate. At the same time, even as he grapples with the consequences of the decisions he did take, Peter is also left contemplating the decisions he or others didn't take - what if he did go to Vietnam? What if Reed used his tech to actually try to change the world? I'm guessing that as we progress further through the decades, we'll see even greater divergences from the actual published stories of the era, as the ripple effects from the alternate decisions taken by Peter, Cap and other heroes back in 1966 grow ever larger with time and have their effects compounded by even more decisions taken that weren't taken in 616. And yet, as the infamous 'Parker luck' would have it, some things just seem destined to happen. Gwen dies, Flash dies, Peter ends up with MJ, Harry becomes a Goblin, Iron Man and Captain America are at war, there are lots of clones and...'Reed Richards is Useless'!

end of spoilers

[NC_Yankee]

He's talking from an emotional place. Flash Thompson died in 1974 and obviously he was someone Cap wasn't able to save. Man this comic is just layered and suggestive.



Historically, implementing technology without the proper social and political conditions in place, doesn't exactly work. Like someone called Hero of Alexandria invented the Steam Engine or some version of it back in Roman times but that didn't create an industrial revolution because of the political and economic conditions in place there not being sufficient to exploit it. During the Cold War, the USSR actually made a lot of innovations across the board, many of them before USA did but couldn't implement it because of totalitarian society and so on.

In our real world, you have tech companies forming a consortium that decides on standards of lightbulbs and other tech and they make sure that it decays so as to sell more bulbs. That happened with old bulbs and with modern LED even if technologically you can make lightbulbs that last, theoretically, forever. This is called (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planne...and_supporters). It happens because of economic reasons not scientific ones. (https://www.newyorker.com/business/c...-built-to-last) This article put its right, "Economics, not physics." So it's paradoxically enough, not unbelievable for Reed's tech and stuff to be kept in the basement or something, or used for top secret bleeding edge exploration only. The only way you can actually go all the way is if physicians and tech inventors got involved in politics and in real life most of those guys are too busy doing the science to get involved in politics and stuff. In a superhero story, the question becomes, do I take over the world to make a better tomorrow.

People have pointed out that we are technologically capable of ending poverty, providing food for the whole planet, and helping people but politics and social norms and so on prevent those problems from being solved. Climate change is this great threat to everything that scientifically we need to solve but implementing those changes needs political will and interest which is again behind the science.

So that's why you ain't getting your jetpack.

I really think we need to be very careful with changes, the cure can be worse then the disease. For example: The first nations to enact gun control were the USSR and Nazi Germany. Venezuela also enacted strict gun control measures. Very few of us want the US to turn into those nations. Certain politicians want to enact a "Green New Deal" that will cost trillions, yet China and India do not have to go along ( it is not like the US is the only nation on earth who pollutes). If they really wanted to make changes they could simply ban products from.nations that do not meet our health, safety, environmental, wage and economic standards, to force needed changes. I will believe that the World Community is committed to ending poverty and the like when Dictatorships like Iran, Syria, Cuba, China and Venezuela have free and open elections. Until then I am for our Constitution that offers "Checks & Balances" on Government ( regardless of the left or right). ps. Wake me up when the World Community makes that happen.