Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 54
  1. #16
    Fantastic Member Haquim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpideyCeo View Post
    Peter being written as not being taken seriously/underestimated is bad writing and shitty drama tension. Peter is not normal or realistic anymore than matt murdock is but is written to backtrack and contridict certain expectations that heroes like him should and need to act on. Naruto is peter with more positive and happier consistancy in how he gets through problems, struggles, and achievements without the constant forced melodrama and regression. Peter doing more good doesnt change the fact it comes of as distracting from doing good in a more mature way like for instance selling his marriagebor mephisto to save his aunt may. Would someone like saitama, beast boy or naruto after learning along the better way in being better heroes would do the same for their loved ones?
    In comparison with guys like Thor, Captain Marvel or the Hulk spidey's powers do indeed look puny. Other people like Cap or Black Panther (although nowadays technology may shift this battle towards T'challa) while less powerful than him are always portrayed as more competent or skilled. That said, the point is different: for Peter winning as Spider Man does not mean winning as Peter Parker, one of his most consistent tropes has always been that he defeats the bad guy but there's always a catch, something going wrong with his life and ruining his day. Despite this he perseveres because he's not wearinga costume doing crazy and almost suicidal things for self gratification. He's doing it to help others DESPITE the personal cost and that's an integral part of Peter Parker (and Spider Man obviously) as a character.

  2. #17
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haquim View Post
    In comparison with guys like Thor, Captain Marvel or the Hulk spidey's powers do indeed look puny. Other people like Cap or Black Panther (although nowadays technology may shift this battle towards T'challa) while less powerful than him are always portrayed as more competent or skilled. That said, the point is different: for Peter winning as Spider Man does not mean winning as Peter Parker, one of his most consistent tropes has always been that he defeats the bad guy but there's always a catch, something going wrong with his life and ruining his day. Despite this he perseveres because he's not wearinga costume doing crazy and almost suicidal things for self gratification. He's doing it to help others DESPITE the personal cost and that's an integral part of Peter Parker (and Spider Man obviously) as a character.
    He's not Tony Stark, but he's not a loser. He's not unlike any super-here who's life goes off the rails because of some super-villain wrecking his day. He's typically quite stable, has a vast array of intelligent and attractive women interested in him, has a strong support network, and was married to a super-model for ages. A super-model who could KO super-villains like the Chameleon, and stuck with him through the Clone Saga!


  3. #18
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    82

    Default

    A lot of people want to keep him penniless, alone and down on his luck. I think that's where the perception comes from. Just look at the movies. That's his base level at every film.

  4. #19
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,580

    Default

    Hank Pym is the biggest loser of the Marvel Universe bar none.

    Peter Parker "wins at life" compared to him.

  5. #20
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    45

    Default

    I wouldn’t say he’s a loser compared to the other heroes. He’s more laidback and more of a jokester compared to for example captain america. Plus, the writers always want to make sure spiderman stays young and fun.

  6. #21
    Extraordinary Member jackolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,673

    Default

    You can’t have Spider-Man be a Superman that’s all-powerful. The character was created so we can relate to his insecurities, like we have. I wouldn’t call them weaknesses, but if Spider-Man was unbeatable, you wouldn’t be able to feel the struggle he goes through.

    As to depicting Peter Parker as a loser, there are two schools of thought here.

    1. That Peter can’t achieve success, because he’s driven by guilt to sabotage any success because he has to jump into danger every time it appears, and that negates any commitment to achieving success.

    2. There are people who know Peter is smart and should be in a better position than what he’s in - Reed Richards, and Tony Stark being a couple. The start of ANAD had Peter attempt to be successful as CEO of Parker Industries, (like Superior Spider-Man did for a while), and that was a vision that people had for Peter.

    Who is Spider-Man? I look at him as a symbiote of Spider DNA and human DNA, so Peter is going to tend towards a creature that traps someone and sucks the life out of them. It may look very much like ultruistic heroism, but I see it as some spider tendency as well. That’s a cruel view of what Peter Parker does, but you can’t suppress all the Spider tendency of that creature in the man. It’s scary, and terrifying to the criminals he attacks. It’s going to affect his behaviour and eventually sabotage most of his human tendencies in life. I’d like to think the creators had that in mind when they created Spider-Man.
    Last edited by jackolover; 06-15-2020 at 05:47 AM.

  7. #22
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackolover View Post
    You can’t have Spider-Man be a Superman that’s all-powerful. The character was created so we can relate to his insecurities, like we have. I wouldn’t call them weaknesses, but if Spider-Man was unbeatable, you wouldn’t be able to feel the struggle he goes through.
    There's a difference between being an underdog, which as you say is what Spider-Man should come across, and being a loser. Spider-Man being an underdog is important when he faces against Juggernaut and wins. That wouldn't have the meaning it does without that.

    When Peter fails it should be because he tries his best and it isn't enough, as in The Night Gwen Stacy Died, not because he was an a--hole who got hit by a track. The first is tragic, the second is comedic in the "laugh at him" sense.

    That Peter can’t achieve success, because he’s driven by guilt to sabotage any success because he has to jump into danger every time it appears, and that negates any commitment to achieving success.
    This is how Slott interpreted it and it's totally incoherent. Spider-Man "jumps into danger every time it appears" because A) The danger is real, B) His refusal to do so got Ben killed. To call it sabotage is to say that "the danger isn't real" or that Peter getting hung up about Uncle Ben is wrong.

    It essentially annuls the foundation of the character. Slott in his run kept giving a sense that being Spider-Man is somehow a mistake on Peter's part when originally Stan Lee and Ditko intended it, clearly in AF#15, that being Spider-Man is Peter being his best self, and helping him become a better person.

    There are people who know Peter is smart and should be in a better position than what he’s in - Reed Richards, and Tony Stark being a couple.
    Reed and Tony are the children of settled middle-class academic and ultra-rich capitalists respectively. Both of them became superheroes later in lives than Peter has. So it's not really a fair comparison in terms of both class and age.

    And again, Hank Pym is a smart guy whose biggest scientific contribution was building Ultron, and who is a loser of such low depths that Peter can never fail enough to come close.

    I’d like to think the creators had that in mind when they created Spider-Man.
    Nope. Neither Ditko nor Lee invested much behind the idea of the spider symbol. The idea was simply guy who can crawl walls is a spider right. And again it's "Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man", i.e. Spider-Man is meant to be friendly and down to earth.

  8. #23
    Extraordinary Member jackolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    There's a difference between being an underdog, which as you say is what Spider-Man should come across, and being a loser. Spider-Man being an underdog is important when he faces against Juggernaut and wins. That wouldn't have the meaning it does without that.

    When Peter fails it should be because he tries his best and it isn't enough, as in The Night Gwen Stacy Died, not because he was an a--hole who got hit by a track. The first is tragic, the second is comedic in the "laugh at him" sense.



    This is how Slott interpreted it and it's totally incoherent. Spider-Man "jumps into danger every time it appears" because A) The danger is real, B) His refusal to do so got Ben killed. To call it sabotage is to say that "the danger isn't real" or that Peter getting hung up about Uncle Ben is wrong.

    It essentially annuls the foundation of the character. Slott in his run kept giving a sense that being Spider-Man is somehow a mistake on Peter's part when originally Stan Lee and Ditko intended it, clearly in AF#15, that being Spider-Man is Peter being his best self, and helping him become a better person.



    Reed and Tony are the children of settled middle-class academic and ultra-rich capitalists respectively. Both of them became superheroes later in lives than Peter has. So it's not really a fair comparison in terms of both class and age.

    And again, Hank Pym is a smart guy whose biggest scientific contribution was building Ultron, and who is a loser of such low depths that Peter can never fail enough to come close.



    Nope. Neither Ditko nor Lee invested much behind the idea of the spider symbol. The idea was simply guy who can crawl walls is a spider right. And again it's "Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man", i.e. Spider-Man is meant to be friendly and down to earth.
    I disagree with your summation it’s not sabotage. I agree to disagree.

    On Reed and Tony being irrelevant to Peter, I also agree to disagree. I don’t think it matters what social strata they come from.

    And on if there is a spider dimension to Spider-Man, I agree to disagree here also. It may not be defined but it could be implied in his behaviour.

  9. #24
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackolover View Post
    I disagree with your summation it’s not sabotage.
    How is selflessly helping people in danger sabotage? And if you extrapolate that, does that mean first responders sabotage their lives? Doctors and nurses?

    On Reed and Tony being irrelevant to Peter, I also agree to disagree. I don’t think it matters what social strata they come from.
    I think it matters more than anything. Because not everyone started at the same point on the same even field.

    And again the topic of the thread "Is Peter Parker truly a loser compared to other heroes" so other heroes are being roped into this discussion and I think you do need to compare the background and circumstances of the characters.

    Reed Richards until the 30s had no powers, grew up in a comfortable suburban home, and aside from some time in the army, had a fairly well-heeled existence. He got a long time to enjoy civilian life compared to Peter. Tony Stark until his mid-30s was not only a civilian but a fairly amoral one at that. That Peter Parker got his Damascus moment when he was half their ages is to his greater credit than theirs.

    It may not be defined but it could be implied in his behaviour.
    Fair enough. You can interpret it that way, but saying that the creators intended that is a different thing.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 06-15-2020 at 07:05 AM.

  10. #25
    Kinky Lil' Canine Snoop Dogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    9,346

    Default

    Peter Parker is a "soyboy."
    Quote Originally Posted by ???
    The world has changed, and so have I.

  11. #26
    Formerly Assassin Spider Huntsman Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop Dogg View Post
    Peter Parker is a "soyboy."
    That's how the troglodytes of the world would define him, simply because he's someone who genuinely cares about the wellbeing and happiness of others and is willing to put that above his own needs and desires, as opposed to using his power (and relative social privilege) to trample on others to get what he feels he's entitled to have.
    The spider is always on the hunt.

  12. #27
    X-Cultist nx01a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    47°9′S 126°43′W
    Posts
    11,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huntsman Spider View Post
    That's how the troglodytes of the world would define him, simply because he's someone who genuinely cares about the wellbeing and happiness of others and is willing to put that above his own needs and desires, as opposed to using his power (and relative social privilege) to trample on others to get what he feels he's entitled to have.
    Preach.

    But to be fair... He's an almost Reed Richards-level genius. He really shouldn't be poor all the time. There's such a thing as putting others before yourself too much.
    Quote Originally Posted by The General, JLA #38
    'Why?' Just to see the disappointment on your corn-fed, gee-whiz face, Superman. And because a great dark voice on the edge of nothing spoke to me and said you all had to die. There is no 'Why?'

  13. #28
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nx01a View Post
    But to be fair... He's an almost Reed Richards-level genius.
    I wouldn't say Peter Parker's as smart as Reed Richards. He's still incredibly smart and bright of course in real terms. Reed Richards is supposed to be the Einstein or Heisenberg (i.e. the "Uncertainty Theory" guy not the math-lab dude) of Marvel Universe. In the real world we don't judge scientists on the basis that if they are not Einstein they are a bunch of losers (although many scientists might well feel that way).

    After all Einstein was a theoretical physicist, he was not an inventor or engineer. He created and developed the math, the equations, and the dimensions of modern physics which ultimately inspired inventions (such as the GPS) but he himself didn't invent anything. Superhero science often creates, among fans, misimpressions on how science works and why specialization is a thing. Reed Richards for instance is a theoretical physicist but according to Stan Lee logic, that also means that he would somehow invent stuff like Universal Translator (which would require a knowledge of neuroscience and linguistics) which doesn't connect logically with his field. Tony Stark Iron Man is another example of misinformed and misapplied fields. He was based on Howard Hughes and modern Tony, like RDJ, is based on Elon Musk but neither Hughes nor Musk ever invented anything. They just bought stuff and hired engineers to do it for them. The Tesla car pre-existed Musk (who served as some investment guy).

    Peter's specialty is chemical engineering. He creates a synthetic fabric adhesive that's quite revolutionary in its potential. That seems inspired by real-life breakthroughs in chemical enigeenering in the 50s and 60s, that was the period where Joseph Shivers developed Spandex (which ultimately inspired modern sportswear and gymwear...fun fact, "Spandex" is an anagram for "expands") and Stephanie Kwolek created and developed Kevlar (the material used for modern armor). Nobody knows their names even if they know their products. Both were employees for DuPont chemicals and the company owns patents of their inventions and not them.

    He really shouldn't be poor all the time.
    That falls under the fallacy and expectation, "Because you're so smart, why aren't you rich". That's not true to life and history.

    If you were to do the story of Spider-Man realisticaly, he would eventually have his synthetic fabric bid on and bought out by DuPont Chemicals, and I know a lot of people say that Peter can help mankind by allowing corporations to use his invention, but take a look at the history of DuPont chemicals (there's a recent movie called Dark Waters with Mark Ruffallo in the lead).

    There's such a thing as putting others before yourself too much.
    Depends on the story that writers tell or the point they want to make. Ultimately, a story that Spider-Man is wasting his time being a hero and would have been better off as the selfish fame-obsessed Peter before Ben's death is simply not a story that the character and titles are built to tell. That's fine for a superhero deconstruction a la The Boys or Watchmen but it can never function as a default foundation for the character.

  14. #29
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Hank Pym is the biggest loser of the Marvel Universe bar none.

    Peter Parker "wins at life" compared to him.
    The biggest loser in Marvel is Ted Sallis. Imagine being stuck in the body of Man-Thing? Unless a writer wants to create a story where Sallis is freed and some really rotten villain like Red Skull or Cletus has to live inside of him, Sallis is doomed for eternity.

  15. #30
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NC_Yankee View Post
    The biggest loser in Marvel is Ted Sallis. Imagine being stuck in the body of Man-Thing? Unless a writer wants to create a story where Sallis is freed and some really rotten villain like Red Skull or Cletus has to live inside of him, Sallis is doomed for eternity.
    Nah. Hank Pym is #1 Loser in Marvel. It's the only thing he's #1 at, let him have it.
    Last edited by Conn Seanery; 06-16-2020 at 09:36 AM.

Posting Permissions

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