Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 104
  1. #76
    Y'know. Pav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boots View Post
    see spurrier’s forgetmenot
    Who?

    -Pav, who doesn't recall such an X-Man...
    2019 Marvel Monthly Buys: Superior Spider-Man Runaways Absolute Carnage: Lethal Protectors Silver Surfer: Black Death's Head House of X Powers of X Contagion

    Closet full of comics? Consider donating to my middle school students! DM for details

  2. #77
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jman27 View Post
    I dont like retcons at all makes it seem like writers just disregard their predecessor work on the series
    No writer writing Spider-Man after OMD can ever make that claim or complaint. They are writing a Spider-Man that actively disregarded and denigrated the previous twenty years' worth of work on Spider-Man titles.

  3. #78
    Spider-Fan Since '95 WebSlingWonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    No writer writing Spider-Man after OMD can ever make that claim or complaint. They are writing a Spider-Man that actively disregarded and denigrated the previous twenty years' worth of work on Spider-Man titles.
    ....unless someone squares up and reverses it.
    The Amazing, Spectacular, Sensational Web-Slinger!

  4. #79
    Extraordinary Member Celgress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,129

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by WebSlingWonder View Post
    ....unless someone squares up and reverses it.
    They should have just rebooted Spider-Man in its entirety during OMD, that said they obviously couldn't do so thanks to the wider MU connection.
    "So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."

  5. #80
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I've probably made this argument before but people think they're smarter and better-looking than they actually are, so they'll gravitate towards smarter and better-looking "everymen."
    The concept of everyman is pretty vague and meaningless as it is. It comes from medieval Europe where the idea was that "the common man" wasn't worth taking seriously, was only worth being the butt of jokes for social betters, and or being someone who needs to be taught Christian values because they are susceptible to temptation more than social betters or so on. In comics, Will Eisner told the story of everymen and everywomen in The Spirit, where the gimmick was that Denny Colt was such a bore that most of the strips focused on ordinary civilians and their stories with the Spirit being a background character and so on. In a democratic context, or Hollywood context, everyman simply means someone who isn't a big time hero on first glance, but someone who can become a hero before the audience in a believable way. Like for instance, Jimmy Stewart was considered an everyman actor in the Golden Age, and Tom Hanks is also considered an everyman actor in the modern times. Heck, a few writers in the 80s, when Tom Hanks was making his mark, said that Tom would make a good Peter Parker on screen.

    In a high school context, if you look at teen movies and so on, you'll find that in a lot of them in very few instances are nerds the lead characters. Often times, the hero's the cool guy or the new kid who shows he's a good dude by palling around with the nerd and so on...Harry Osborn in Raimi's Spider-Man 1 is that character. But the actual picked-on nerd is rarely the hero. Usually it's the class clown, the hustler kid, or so on. If Peter Parker was an actual nerd he would never be a superhero. He is an everyman because he starts as a nerd but he grows out of that and changes and so on.

    The main thing about an everyman is that he's capable of change and transformation. And Peter Parker is capable of change and has changed. At least he did until OMD. Post-OMD Peter would qualify as an everyman in the strictly medieval definition, in that things happen to him (which is the case in Slott's run), he has no agency and he's being talked down to by the narrative.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorIronman View Post
    Here's a though, Peter restarts Parker Industries but under a different direction, in this case under Spider-man. How you might ask? Peter Parker is a man that is devoted to the betterment of society and quality of life (I'd assume anyways) and is a man who reports the news though as a photographer. Peter Parker is looking for ways to be everywhere and he in a sense is.

    Venom, Scarlet Spider, Ben Reilly, 2099, Iron Spider, Miles Morales, and Superior Spider-man, are all out doing things based on his image in one way or another. The Webware while originally hardware could then be redesigned as software. An app that acts similarly to a neighborhood watch (and in some sens with wrist devices, a friendly neighborhood watch). Anyone can report crime or suspicious activity on it and the Spider-men can then react in real time. And outside of them, the citizens can create a safety net (or web) around themselves with the app also acting as a social media app. It warns of oncoming dangers, it can have citizens react and report in real time, it can create a sense of community even among the extended spider-family, and it can alert out heroes as things are happening.
    The Internet already does that via Google, Social Media, YouTube. You can have Spider-Man form a community with other Spiders and so on and do it without forming Parker Industries.

    At the end of the day, Parker Industries was a boring concept. Peter being in a board room and so on just doesn't fit him. Being a millionaire isn't the logical end-game of being a scientist and inventor. In fact in real life, that almost never happens. So-called billionaire geniuses like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk didn't invent squat. Musk didn't invent the Tesla car. Thomas Edison did invent some stuff at one point but most of his life after that was unremarkable and devoted to stealing other people's work.

  6. #81
    Spider-Fan Since '95 WebSlingWonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celgress View Post
    They should have just rebooted Spider-Man in its entirety during OMD, that said they obviously couldn't do so thanks to the wider MU connection.
    Honestly, they really should have. Just go all the way, if you're going to do it, you know? They're already disrespecting the original stuff, so why not? Haha
    The Amazing, Spectacular, Sensational Web-Slinger!

  7. #82
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    683

    Default

    Peter David originally planned for Peter to be the CEO of Alchemax (and morally ambiguous), so it’s impossible for Peter to become the CEO of a company.

  8. #83
    Spider-Fan Since '95 WebSlingWonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    Peter David originally planned for Peter to be the CEO of Alchemax (and morally ambiguous), so it’s impossible for Peter to become the CEO of a company.
    What? That sentence doesn't even make sense.
    The Amazing, Spectacular, Sensational Web-Slinger!

  9. #84
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,609

    Default

    -- CEO Peter was a bad guy in Spider-Man Shattered Dimensions, the game that PAD wrote.
    -- CEO Peter was also a bad guy in the Fox Cartoon's final season, in that dimension where he was married to Gwen.
    -- Also businessman Peter is a bad person (if not really a bad guy) in House of M.
    -- Otto who started Parker Industries by hijacking Peter's body is also a bad guy.
    -- Life Story Peter is also a CEO and a bit of a jerk, and his big character development is walking away from his company.

    Basically, the overall meta-narrative across the franchise is that Peter should never be a businessman or CEO. It will make him a bad person.

    And again, there's other ways of success than being a CEO. I think this mentality that people have that the only idea of success is being a CEO and anything else is not progressing is more Randian than Ditko.

  10. #85
    Spider-Fan Since '95 WebSlingWonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    -- CEO Peter was a bad guy in Spider-Man Shattered Dimensions, the game that PAD wrote.
    -- CEO Peter was also a bad guy in the Fox Cartoon's final season, in that dimension where he was married to Gwen.
    -- Also businessman Peter is a bad person (if not really a bad guy) in House of M.
    -- Otto who started Parker Industries by hijacking Peter's body is also a bad guy.
    -- Life Story Peter is also a CEO and a bit of a jerk, and his big character development is walking away from his company.

    Basically, the overall meta-narrative across the franchise is that Peter should never be a businessman or CEO. It will make him a bad person.

    And again, there's other ways of success than being a CEO. I think this mentality that people have that the only idea of success is being a CEO and anything else is not progressing is more Randian than Ditko.
    While I get the whole CEO meta-narrative, it just sounds like the writers need to stop saying "CEO bad, everyman good." Not every CEO is a monster, and not every everyman is a good guy. Otherwise, it comes off as one-dimensional.

    Personally, I don't mind seeing Peter as a CEO, but it's not the job he seems best suited for. To this day, his science teaching position was the most realistic and character growing to me.
    The Amazing, Spectacular, Sensational Web-Slinger!

  11. #86
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebSlingWonder View Post
    While I get the whole CEO meta-narrative, it just sounds like the writers need to stop saying "CEO bad, everyman good." Not every CEO is a monster, and not every everyman is a good guy. Otherwise, it comes off as one-dimensional.

    Personally, I don't mind seeing Peter as a CEO, but it's not the job he seems best suited for. To this day, his science teaching position was the most realistic and character growing to me.
    The problem is that nobody has ever sold this as something Peter really wants or thinks of as a dream job for anyone to really care except as some external projection. i.e. writers expect and fans assume that this is the end-game for a smart guy based on what the wider culture assumes, which is basically part of the idea "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" that in and of itself is pretty anti-intellectual and contemptuous. It suggests that rich people are smart which isn't true. Look at the current POTUS. He believes it as do some of his voters, "Very stable genius" and so on. Being smart doesn't make you rich. And plenty of people who aren't smart become rich, and are rich. Albert Einstein, smartest man of the 20th Century wouldn't qualify in the top 1 million richest people of the 20th Century.

    Peter's first instinct after getting powers was to become Justin Bieber, to perform and to be appreciated. Deep down Peter wants to be loved and accepted just like all wannabe celebrities and actual celebrities. That's something even Roger Stern pointed out in The Daydreamers where Peter's fantasy was getting a Nobel Prize, a Pulitzer Prize, being head-hunted by both the Avengers and the Fantastic Four (where both want him to be their leader) and of course Jameson kisses his boots, literally (the last bit is creepy...why would you want that?). Between "wealth and fame" Peter would choose fame.

    So since this isn't something Peter wanted, it doesn't feel like a big loss when it goes away. The entire time peter was a CEO in Slott's run, there was never a sense that Peter enjoyed being one or was happy being one or anything. He seems way happier now in Spencer's run then before. It's just not who he is.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 07-24-2019 at 11:16 PM.

  12. #87
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    -- CEO Peter was a bad guy in Spider-Man Shattered Dimensions, the game that PAD wrote.
    -- CEO Peter was also a bad guy in the Fox Cartoon's final season, in that dimension where he was married to Gwen.
    -- Also businessman Peter is a bad person (if not really a bad guy) in House of M.
    -- Otto who started Parker Industries by hijacking Peter's body is also a bad guy.
    -- Life Story Peter is also a CEO and a bit of a jerk, and his big character development is walking away from his company.

    Basically, the overall meta-narrative across the franchise is that Peter should never be a businessman or CEO. It will make him a bad person.

    And again, there's other ways of success than being a CEO. I think this mentality that people have that the only idea of success is being a CEO and anything else is not progressing is more Randian than Ditko.
    CEO Fox Peter wasn't a bad guy. A bit of a jerk, yes, but the same can be said of quite a number of Peter Parkers. Also, CEO Fox Peter didn't need his uncle to die to become a superhero.

    Quote Originally Posted by WebSlingWonder View Post
    While I get the whole CEO meta-narrative, it just sounds like the writers need to stop saying "CEO bad, everyman good." Not every CEO is a monster, and not every everyman is a good guy. Otherwise, it comes off as one-dimensional.

    Personally, I don't mind seeing Peter as a CEO, but it's not the job he seems best suited for. To this day, his science teaching position was the most realistic and character growing to me.
    Hell, a few Spider-Man villains could qualify as "everymen".

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The problem is that nobody has ever sold this as something Peter really wants or thinks of as a dream job for anyone to really care except as some external projection. i.e. writers expect and fans assume that this is the end-game for a smart guy based on what the wider culture assumes, which is basically part of the idea "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" that in and of itself is pretty anti-intellectual and contemptuous. It suggests that rich people are smart which isn't true. Look at the current POTUS. He believes it as do some of his voters, "Very stable genius" and so on. Being smart doesn't make you rich. And plenty of people who aren't smart become rich, and are rich. Albert Einstein, smartest man of the 20th Century wouldn't qualify in the top 1 million richest people of the 20th Century.

    Peter's first instinct after getting powers was to become Justin Bieber, to perform and to be appreciated. Deep down Peter wants to be loved and accepted just like all wannabe celebrities and actual celebrities. That's something even Roger Stern pointed out in The Daydreamers where Peter's fantasy was getting a Nobel Prize, a Pulitzer Prize, being head-hunted by both the Avengers and the Fantastic Four (where both want him to be their leader) and of course Jameson kisses his boots, literally (the last bit is creepy...why would you want that?). Between "wealth and fame" Peter would choose fame.

    So since this isn't something Peter wanted, it doesn't feel like a big loss when it goes away. The entire time peter was a CEO in Slott's run, there was never a sense that Peter enjoyed being one or was happy being one or anything. He seems way happier now in Spencer's run then before. It's just not who he is.
    Peter very obviously wants both wealth and fame. The story you referenced even points that out. If he were a rich and famous superhero he'd be happy. If he were a rich and famous CEO he'd be happy. The people who write Peter as a CEO being a bad thing are projecting as much as anyone else.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 07-25-2019 at 03:21 AM.

  13. #88
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    CEO Fox Peter wasn't a bad guy. A bit of a jerk, yes, but the same can be said of quite a number of Peter Parkers. Also, CEO Fox Peter didn't need his uncle to die to become a superhero.
    The general impression I got as did many was that he was a jerk. And less of a person than regular Peter.

    Hell, a few Spider-Man villains could qualify as "everymen".
    Most of Peter's villains are old dudes who are fully formed and so on. There's nothing everyman-ish about Dr. Octopus, Green Goblin, Kraven the Hunter, Chameleon, the Vulture, and others. Take Scorpion, he was a Private Detective before he became a supervillain, which isn't an everyman job. Mysterio I guess qualifies but he was a special effects genius before he became a supervillain, in other words an accomplished artist. Not an everyman. Miles Warren was a creepy professor at ESU who somehow invented human cloning on university salary...being a creep to co-eds is I guess every-manish in the same way Woody Allen is an everyman, but the human cloning part not so much. Freddie Myers, Boomerang, qualifies as an everyman more than others, but again he's a baseball player who went pro and then went on the take.

    The people who write Peter as a CEO being a bad thing are projecting as much as anyone else.
    Perhaps.

    Or maybe because since only a few people in real life have a chance to be CEO (they amount to about less than 1% of the population in USA and smaller than that in terms of global population), and that number will only grow smaller on account of automation and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few IP holders, it's logical to infer that a lot of readers and viewers realistically don't think of that as the be-all and end-all and since a product like Spider-Man has to appeal to the majority of consumers, it's natural on part of writers and readers to show Peter as operating within the reasonable limit of reader experience and expectations.

    I mean if you think about it, in terms of proportion to how many CEOs there are in real life versus comics, they do seem disproportionately represented far more than other fields.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 07-25-2019 at 04:18 AM.

  14. #89
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebSlingWonder View Post
    What? That sentence doesn't even make sense.
    You’re right. I meant to say possible.

  15. #90
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The general impression I got as did many was that he was a jerk. And less of a person than regular Peter.
    The same could have been said of all the alternate Spider-Men. It’s not like any of them got much fleshing out besides Ben Reilly.

    Most of Peter's villains are old dudes who are fully formed and so on. There's nothing everyman-ish about Dr. Octopus, Green Goblin, Kraven the Hunter, Chameleon, the Vulture, and others. Take Scorpion, he was a Private Detective before he became a supervillain, which isn't an everyman job. Mysterio I guess qualifies but he was a special effects genius before he became a supervillain, in other words an accomplished artist. Not an everyman. Miles Warren was a creepy professor at ESU who somehow invented human cloning on university salary...being a creep to co-eds is I guess every-manish in the same way Woody Allen is an everyman, but the human cloning part not so much. Freddie Myers, Boomerang, qualifies as an everyman more than others, but again he's a baseball player who went pro and then went on the take.
    I said a “few of them qualify as everymen” did I not?

    Perhaps.

    Or maybe because since only a few people in real life have a chance to be CEO (they amount to about less than 1% of the population in USA and smaller than that in terms of global population), and that number will only grow smaller on account of automation and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few IP holders, it's logical to infer that a lot of readers and viewers realistically don't think of that as the be-all and end-all and since a product like Spider-Man has to appeal to the majority of consumers, it's natural on part of writers and readers to show Peter as operating within the reasonable limit of reader experience and expectations.

    I mean if you think about it, in terms of proportion to how many CEOs there are in real life versus comics, they do seem disproportionately represented far more than other fields.
    Last I heard, we have a zero percent chance of getting spider powers too. Not to mention all the other stuff that’s happened to Peter since his conception. Marvel stopped caring about realism a long time ago, if they ever cared at all.

    Hell, two of the most popular superheroes in existence are Batman and Iron Man, two CEOs. It seems the more accurate answer is that Marvel simply doesn’t think being a CEO gives them the type of drama they like to write with Peter.

    You are right about one thing; not every smart person ends up rich. But when it comes to Peter, there seems to be a rather disturbing element of glorifying poverty by writers and fans alike.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •