Do you think oversaturation is catching up to Peter?

[Lee]

That said, Spider-Man is a tentpole character/franchise for Marvel and thus they will never actually (read: permanently) kill him off or suspend the publication of his comics for any real extended period of time. As for a narrative dead end, only because certain people insist that Spider-Man is first and foremost about "youth" and therefore he can't stray too far from that, i.e. get married, hold down a fairly steady job, have kids . . . or else he'll be "unrelatable" to the audience. Really. It's that kind of B.S. mentality that's putting Spider-Man in a narrative dead end, the fear of him "aging" too much or straying too far from his roots, even though they've had no problem pushing most of the other major Marvel characters beyond their initial boundaries. It's a double standard that needs to be put to rest, quite frankly.

As you said, they'll never kill him off. So at some point, he has to stop aging. What age do you think he should stop aging?

[Frontier]

As you said, they'll never kill him off. So at some point, he has to stop aging. What age do you think he should stop aging?

Probably the age he's at now.

[jblogo]

I don't think they're at a dead end for the character at all, but there's a great resistance from a segment of fans to see anything wildly different done with him. See: Parker Industries.

I wholeheartedly agree. THIS is the problem. There is a large contingent of fans that only see Peter as the down-on-his-luck everyman, and do not want him to change. Personally, I absolutely loved Parker Industries and "Billionaire Spidey". It opened up huge new story opportunities. It created a path to creating a Spider-Man family, similar to the Flash family or the Bat-Family. Peter was training Miles, was employing Miguel Ohara and Hobie Brown, and provided real competition to Tony Stark. We finally got to see how smart Peter was, and that he was more than just spider powers and a sad story. I have been reading Spider-Man since 1985, and that version of Peter Parker is my favorite.

Unfortunately, because Peter was different than he was in the past, there were a number of fans who rejected the new direction.

[emmafrosting]

I wholeheartedly agree. THIS is the problem. There is a large contingent of fans that only see Peter as the down-on-his-luck everyman, and do not want him to change. Personally, I absolutely loved Parker Industries and "Billionaire Spidey". It opened up huge new story opportunities. It created a path to creating a Spider-Man family, similar to the Flash family or the Bat-Family. Peter was training Miles, was employing Miguel Ohara and Hobie Brown, and provided real competition to Tony Stark. We finally got to see how smart Peter was, and that he was more than just spider powers and a sad story. I have been reading Spider-Man since 1985, and that version of Peter Parker is my favorite.

Unfortunately, because Peter was different than he was in the past, there were a number of fans who rejected the new direction.

I wholeheartedly agree. THIS is the problem. There is a large contingent of fans that only see Peter as the down-on-his-luck everyman, and do not want him to change. Personally, I absolutely loved Parker Industries and "Billionaire Spidey". It opened up huge new story opportunities. It created a path to creating a Spider-Man family, similar to the Flash family or the Bat-Family. Peter was training Miles, was employing Miguel Ohara and Hobie Brown, and provided real competition to Tony Stark. We finally got to see how smart Peter was, and that he was more than just spider powers and a sad story. I have been reading Spider-Man since 1985, and that version of Peter Parker is my favorite.

Unfortunately, because Peter was different than he was in the past, there were a number of fans who rejected the new direction.

I think the criticisms for Parker Industries were about how bad the conception/writing was and how unnecessary it seemed to be because it came across as a case of ego by proxy of a writer. That - and the fact that Parker Industries was first presented in OMD as a 'worst reality' for Spider-Man. A soulless commercial entity with a billionaire Peter.

I had no problem with PI alone, but it wasn't done well and could have been handled better. I still enjoyed BND and thought some parts were decent, but I definitely noticed how Peter's characterization did a major downslide post-Superior and once they introduced Parker Industries. So I'm not surprised people hated it.

[NC_Yankee]

I think the criticisms for Parker Industries were about how bad the conception/writing was and how unnecessary it seemed to be because it came across as a case of ego by proxy of a writer. That - and the fact that Parker Industries was first presented in OMD as a 'worst reality' for Spider-Man. A soulless commercial entity with a billionaire Peter.

I had no problem with PI alone, but it wasn't done well and could have been handled better. I still enjoyed BND and thought some parts were decent, but I definitely noticed how Peter's characterization did a major downslide post-Superior and once they introduced Parker Industries. So I'm not surprised people hated it.

PI was simply another plot device that was set up for Peter to fail ( especially because he got his money by less then honorable means).
As far as oversaturation is concerned, the only objective way to know is by Parker book sales. Basic supply and demand. If the demand goes down. ( see Friendly as an example) then the supply will go down ( aka: Cancellation). I do think the day will come when there will be less of a demand for Parker books due to the popularity of diverse Spider-Man Titles ( especially Miles, but others as well). Why? Because those readers who are interested in Spider-Man ( but not so much Pete, MJ etc) now have alternatives.

[Malachi]

But there's a narrative dead end in having him age/ going too far from his roots.

I am curious about what characters have gone radically beyond their initial boundaries. It's worth noting Spider-Man is outselling them.

Comeone you are just picking a extremist point of view and limiting yourself here. Compare him to who? we have what: Batman, Wonderwoman, Superman, Spider-man, Captain America, Hulk. Even for the sake of argument if one would state that your point fits on all of them there is nothing to draw from those conclussions. The pool is to narrow. Other heroes haven't been around for that long and the need to stretch and evolve isn't as necessary for them.

What does make Spider-man sell?`Is it the costume, visability, the writer, the artists and so on. Spider-man is outselling other comics largely becasue he hasn't strayed from his roots? That's a very bold statement to make.

[NC_Yankee]

Comeone you are just picking a extremist point of view and limiting yourself here. Compare him to who? we have what: Batman, Wonderwoman, Superman, Spider-man, Captain America, Hulk. Even for the sake of argument if one would state that your point fits on all of them there is nothing to draw from those conclussions. The pool is to narrow. Other heroes haven't been around for that long and the need to stretch and evolve isn't as necessary for them.

What does make Spider-man sell?`Is it the costume, visability, the writer, the artists and so on. Spider-man is outselling other comics largely becasue he hasn't strayed from his roots? That's a very bold statement to make.

I have always thought the thing that seperates Spider-Man ( Pete) from other comics is that when well done, Amazing has something for everyone. Action? Got it. Good Rogues Gallery? Got it. Romance? Got it? Drama? Got it. Quality storiea? Got it. Art? Got it. Humor? Got it? Excellent supporting cast? Got it. As far as " Not straying far from his roots is concerned it is not why Amazing out sells Iron Man. Why? That not straying can be good: Solo stories as opposed to The Avengers ( I particularly dislike him as Tony Stark jr in the MCU) or bad: Acting like a man-child. Notice in both cases it is acting like a child.

[Mister Mets]

Comeone you are just picking a extremist point of view and limiting yourself here. Compare him to who? we have what: Batman, Wonderwoman, Superman, Spider-man, Captain America, Hulk. Even for the sake of argument if one would state that your point fits on all of them there is nothing to draw from those conclussions. The pool is to narrow. Other heroes haven't been around for that long and the need to stretch and evolve isn't as necessary for them.

What does make Spider-man sell?`Is it the costume, visability, the writer, the artists and so on. Spider-man is outselling other comics largely becasue he hasn't strayed from his roots? That's a very bold statement to make.

I haven't said Spider-Man's success is only because he hasn't strayed from his roots, but it is a reason for Marvel to be careful to not break the character.

[Malachi]

I haven't said Spider-Man's success is only because he hasn't strayed from his roots, but it is a reason for Marvel to be careful to not break the character.

I never said you did either. In the context of outselling comics for instance: batman, superman and other mainstays, you made a case that straying from the roots/initial boundaries made spiderman more succesful. I stated that it was a very bold statement to say that.

[Mister Mets]

That and said changes in society provide an example to filter older stories through a new lens. ie, dating in the 60's versus dating in the 00's. What's old is new again.

Oh yeah.

And there are all sorts of different potential sources of influence.

Earlier today, I listened to a great interview on a podcast (the journalist Sebastian Unger's appearance on Econtalk) where they were talking about meaning in modern society, and these are themes that could be explored in a series about a young man in modern society. One of their points is that community provides meaning as well as a way to process trauma, which has interesting implications for a guy with a secret identity.

Different material can influence other people.