Is Peter Parker truly a loser compared to other heroes?

[The BaRoN]

I blame Slott for the loser ideas, he ruined Spider-man for a long time IMO.

He turned him into a pathetic man child and believed that he should NEVER be happy and his obsession with Ock also made his run a decade of edgy misery.

Spencer has given us a happier more exciting Spiderman again, one who might joke about but isn't a joke.

The reunion with MJ was one of the best moments in years for Spider-man, like his missing piece was finally returned to him. Spider-man isn't a f*ck up he just has some bad luck due to his job, he's a good man who tries his best and puts others first.

Joe Q and Slott ran Pete into the ground, into some edgy moron who was a constant f*ck up, you gave up caring and instead just rolled your eyes by the end. He was so dumb and so pathetic I began to actually hate the character, the slobbing about on mockingbirds sofa like a teenager, the terrible red goblin finale, spider-verse, Ocks MJ rape fantasy, parker industries and its awful conclusion, destruction of Ben Reilly and Phil Urich's characters etc etc

And before his fanboys come at me, I enjoyed Spider-island but everything else was just a mess to me.

[Klaxton]

Calling Peter a torture porn type compared to Wolverine is utter nonsense. Wolverine has suffered in every way that Peter has, and far more too.

[Alan2099]

-- Mary Jane was next door the night Ben died, but since she saw Peter become Spider-Man, she reacted with shock and kept distance from Peter for years after that per Busiek and others. Without the Spider-Bite, Aunt May spent the night Ben died at Anna Watson's house in the aftermath just like OTL, it's likely Peter and MJ meet there for the first time. And MJ and Peter become friends owing to the trauma he experienced. And since Mary Jane drops her guard to Peter and Aunt May owing to their real grief, it's likely she opens up to Peter right away without all the defenses both put up over the years.

Without the Spider-bite and Spider-powers to give him more confidence I'm not sure Peter would open up to MJ, and MJ not already knowing he's something special might not be so willing to drop her facade that she can handle anything.

The relationship we saw in the comics was based on their growth as character and in this set up, the growth isn't there.

I blame Slott for the loser ideas,

That stuff was in place long before Slott.

Joe Q and Slott ran Pete into the ground, into some edgy moron who was a constant f*ck up, you gave up caring and instead just rolled your eyes by the end. He was so dumb and so pathetic I began to actually hate the character, the slobbing about on mockingbirds sofa like a teenager, the terrible red goblin finale, spider-verse, Ocks MJ rape fantasy, parker industries and its awful conclusion, destruction of Ben Reilly and Phil Urich's characters etc etc

You're entitled to your opinion, but to me Slott's Spider-man felt more like how the character should feel than it had in decades.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So do most super-heroes. Jack's right about Pete sabotaging himself, it's part of the impact Ben's death had on him, as well as Gwen's.

How exactly is saving people self-sabotage.

Self-Sabotage is an actual word with actual meaning behind it. I have not come across a single post on this thread written by someone who understood the word meaning and applied it coherently and plausibly to Peter's story with actual reading of comics (panels + text) behind it.

Wrong, he gets shot he dies.

Peter's been shot numerous times, but he recovers because he has an advanced healing factor. Not Wolverine levels but more than any ordinary human. It's also very hard to shoot Spider-Man because of how fast he moves and his Spider-Sense.

Any super-hero, you mean. They're just a Spider-man problem because it's his comic book. True, but someone's going to fill in anyway and the world won't end. That's just super-hero comics.

And how much time do you think the Fantastic Four and the Avengers will be wasting tackling with Spider-Man villains when they could devote all their time to cosmic and mystical threats as well as the Masters of Evil. It's because Spider-Man holds down so much by himself that other teams of heroes can do what they can do.

He would, even before he became Spider-man Pete was a hit with the ladies in his class,

Have you read Spider-man comics? Or for that matter just Amazing Fantasy #15? Where was this ever stated in the comics.

I blame Slott for the loser ideas, he ruined Spider-man for a long time IMO.

He turned him into a pathetic man child and believed that he should NEVER be happy and his obsession with Ock also made his run a decade of edgy misery.

Spencer has given us a happier more exciting Spiderman again, one who might joke about but isn't a joke.

The reunion with MJ was one of the best moments in years for Spider-man, like his missing piece was finally returned to him. Spider-man isn't a f*ck up he just has some bad luck due to his job, he's a good man who tries his best and puts others first.

Joe Q and Slott ran Pete into the ground, into some edgy moron who was a constant f*ck up, you gave up caring and instead just rolled your eyes by the end. He was so dumb and so pathetic I began to actually hate the character, the slobbing about on mockingbirds sofa like a teenager, the terrible red goblin finale, spider-verse, Ocks MJ rape fantasy, parker industries and its awful conclusion, destruction of Ben Reilly and Phil Urich's characters etc etc

And before his fanboys come at me, I enjoyed Spider-island but everything else was just a mess to me.

Dan Slott in his interviews and elsewhere certainly came up with the concept that "saving people is self-sabotage", you can definitely see that wrong notion and poor concept infect his run. He called Spider-Man self-destructive numerous times and in many stories and issues completely misreads the point of Amazing Fantasy #15, namely that being Spider-Man is Peter being his best self. He's a better person for being Spider-Man the superhero. Slott's also responsible for word misue and poor understanding of concepts to justify his take.

Without the Spider-bite and Spider-powers to give him more confidence I'm not sure Peter would open up to MJ, and MJ not already knowing he's something special might not be so willing to drop her facade that she can handle anything.

The relationship we saw in the comics was based on their growth as character and in this set up, the growth isn't there.

Aunt May always had a warm relationship with Mary Jane and she knew all about her past, as exemplified in that Roger Stern issue (ASM#242 or 243) where Peter, MJ, Anna, May have a luncheon ("You've both lost so much") and the foundation for that is based on the fact that Mary Jane and Anna were there for her the night Ben died. Mary Jane and Aunt May were always friends and in the Lee-Romita run, she kept in touch with May and took time to meet her far more than Peter did, proving she's not too cool for her (unlike Peter who at times felt bummed out hanging with his Aunt when he could be with Harry and Gwen). So it's plausible that if Peter met Mary Jane in similar circumstances, a bond could have formed. A friendship at least.

[Huntsman Spider]

What you describe is not far from Miguel O'Hara's backstory and how he became Spider-Man 2099. Corporate scientist who became a whistleblower and then made into unwitting test-subject. Peter comes into Norman's orbit when he reaches college. But how that happens will be different.

To continue with the thought experiment, with and without Spider-Powers, Peter develops web-fluid and web-shooters...now obviously with time and other hero distractions not on his side, Peter probably finds time to hone it and develop that product, but then you wonder will he go into business for himself, or will he take it to some corporation only to have said corporation patent it and deprive Peter of profits and so on.

Hmm, good point with the Miguel O'Hara/Spider-Man 2099 comparison, though if Peter tries to take his web-fluid and shooters to a corporation that patents them for itself and deprives Peter of credit and profits . . . that sounds a lot like the Shocker's origin in Ultimate Spider-Man.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Hmm, good point with the Miguel O'Hara/Spider-Man 2099 comparison, though if Peter tries to take his web-fluid and shooters to a corporation that patents them for itself and deprives Peter of credit and profits . . . that sounds a lot like the Shocker's origin in Ultimate Spider-Man.

Yeah, that was a good interesting issue that Bendis did, and added a dose of realism to the usual "invention = Fortune 500 startup" that so many fans and other Marvel creators (including Spencer's predecessor) bought into.

In real life, there are very few cases where inventors actually become successful businessman. Most of the examples that people have of businessman-inventors were capitalists who didn't do any of the inventing...
-- Steve Jobs did not design the software or hardware of Apple, or the iPod or the iPhone,
-- Elon Musk never invented a single damn thing in his life...the Tesla car was invented by the team of Eberhard-Tarpenning and all Tesla did was invest in and then claimed credit for it.
-- Bill Gates did not design Windows program and all the stuff leading up to the development of the GUI (Graphic User Interface) that was the underpinning for his work was done by many researchers and teams at Palo Alto and others.
-- Mark Zuckerberg is somewhat of an exception since he did, at least partially, invent the algorithm behind Facebook. Though as that movie showed, there are issues with his partners and others feeling stiffed and of course Facebook itself is based on a pre-existing program that existed at Harvard. IN either case, he hasn't invented squat since then.

[Huntsman Spider]

Yeah, that was a good interesting issue that Bendis did, and added a dose of realism to the usual "invention = Fortune 500 startup" that so many fans and other Marvel creators (including Spencer's predecessor) bought into.

In real life, there are very few cases where inventors actually become successful businessman. Most of the examples that people have of businessman-inventors were capitalists who didn't do any of the inventing...
-- Steve Jobs did not design the software or hardware of Apple, or the iPod or the iPhone,
-- Elon Musk never invented a single damn thing in his life...the Tesla car was invented by the team of Eberhard-Tarpenning and all Tesla did was invest in and then claimed credit for it.
-- Bill Gates did not design Windows program and all the stuff leading up to the development of the GUI (Graphic User Interface) that was the underpinning for his work was done by many researchers and teams at Palo Alto and others.
-- Mark Zuckerberg is somewhat of an exception since he did, at least partially, invent the algorithm behind Facebook. Though as that movie showed, there are issues with his partners and others feeling stiffed and of course Facebook itself is based on a pre-existing program that existed at Harvard. IN either case, he hasn't invented squat since then.

Interesting and enlightening points there.

[NC_Yankee]

Without the Spider-bite and Spider-powers to give him more confidence I'm not sure Peter would open up to MJ, and MJ not already knowing he's something special might not be so willing to drop her facade that she can handle anything.

The relationship we saw in the comics was based on their growth as character and in this set up, the growth isn't there.


That stuff was in place long before Slott.


You're entitled to your opinion, but to me Slott's Spider-man felt more like how the character should feel than it had in decades.

Slott’s Spider-Man was exactly why I stopped reading ( Silk was the final straw). Slott saw Peter as a loser ( the Charlie Brown comparisons), he also treated MJ and Felicia like dirt. I used to be very anti-Felicia ( compared to Selina Kyle), but Slott was so nasty I felt sorry for her. Did I hate every story? No he did some good ones like Spider-Island and Renew Your Vows, but I rank him the worst Spider-Man writer ever.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Yeah, that was a good interesting issue that Bendis did, and added a dose of realism to the usual "invention = Fortune 500 startup" that so many fans and other Marvel creators (including Spencer's predecessor) bought into.

In real life, there are very few cases where inventors actually become successful businessman. Most of the examples that people have of businessman-inventors were capitalists who didn't do any of the inventing...
-- Steve Jobs did not design the software or hardware of Apple, or the iPod or the iPhone,
-- Elon Musk never invented a single damn thing in his life...the Tesla car was invented by the team of Eberhard-Tarpenning and all Tesla did was invest in and then claimed credit for it.
-- Bill Gates did not design Windows program and all the stuff leading up to the development of the GUI (Graphic User Interface) that was the underpinning for his work was done by many researchers and teams at Palo Alto and others.
-- Mark Zuckerberg is somewhat of an exception since he did, at least partially, invent the algorithm behind Facebook. Though as that movie showed, there are issues with his partners and others feeling stiffed and of course Facebook itself is based on a pre-existing program that existed at Harvard. IN either case, he hasn't invented squat since then.

Comic books are power fantasies, not real life. It's why Elon Musk thinks he's Tony Stark but the real Tony Stark backs up what he says with his own genius. Reed Richards fails at business, but that's actually very human of him since being a genius in one area won't make someone a genius at everything.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Comic books are power fantasies, not real life.

In the context of a discussion judging Peter for being a "loser" because he doesn't market his genius or science skills...the underlying assumption is simply "if you're so smart why aren't you rich?" i.e. that it'd be realistic and possible for any inventor to instantly become rich.

So that's a claim and assumption, based on an idea of realism, and the criticism against that, as such, should be similarly grounded in empirical reality.

It's why Elon Musk thinks he's Tony Stark but the real Tony Stark backs up what he says with his own genius.

"The real Tony Stark"?!! There is no real Tony Stark. He's a fictional character. Musk is real...Stark isn't. Robert Downey Jr. modelled Stark on Musk in the run up to the 2007 movie (at a time when nobody knew Iron Man but people still knew Musk). Musk makes a cameo in Iron Man 2 in fact.

When Tony Stark was created in the 60s, Stan Lee based him on Howard Hughes. Hughes was the OG eccentric millionaire and while he had more personal courage than Musk (including recklessly endangering his life by flying his own prototype planes, one of which led to a crash that nearly killed him and almost certainly did a number on his mind), he was largely a cartoon and a fraud, who failed upwards, inventing impractical white elephants like the Spruce Goose and sinking thriving movie studios into the ground.

In other words, Stark was always based on PR based media savvy billionaire hypemen rather than actual geniuses. Yesterday Howard Hughes, today Elon Musk. He has nothing to do with the real geniuses of America such as Robert Goddard, John Bardeen and William Shockley of Bell Labs, Jonas Salk among many others. Other game changing inventions weren't developed by private enterprise but in fact by government sponsored think tanks like DARPA, which created the Internet. Closer to Peter Parker's field (rather accurately described in that Christmas Song for ITSV as "chemical engineering)...synthetic fibers like spandex and kevlar were developed by scientists Joseph Shivers and Stephanie Kwolek, when they were employed by DuPont Chemicals. They get credit for inventing the fiber and formula, but DuPont owns the patents.

You want a good real life model for the kind of businessman-inventor Peter Parker could be...take Preston Tucker (on whom Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas made an entertaining and pretty underrated biopic). Tucker was an eccentric inventor and car manufacturer who during World War II created the Tucker Turret that was mounted on PT Boats and others. He also created the Tucker car which was the first automobile to feature seat-belts and other safety features. His radical plans and ambitions led him to overreach but his promotion of safety and pro-consumer views led Big Auto to clamp down on him, and ultimately only a small number of Tucker cars were ever produced and he died in disgrace. But some 20 years later after a lot of problems and criticisms of automobile manufacturers for their lack of safety, Big Auto ultimately utilized all the safety features that Tucker introduced. That could be what awaits Peter. He could be the genius who wanted to do good and help people but whose ideas were unappreciated until he died.

Reed Richards fails at business, but that's actually very human of him since being a genius in one area won't make someone a genius at everything.

Reed Richards was largely based on Richard Feynman, i.e. the American theoretical physicist who was also a playboy and party animal who had a reputation for being a macho dude who contrasted heavily against the nerd image people had about scientists. He was a celebrity scientist of his time (a bit like Neil DeGrasse Tyson since he also took an interest in accessible presentation of theoretical physicists). So that explained how Lee and Kirby could get by with making Reed the dominant partner in a relationship with a hot blonde wife. It was still sexist of course but it was an archetype based on a real figure. You see adaptations miss the issue where the Ultimate Comics and the movies make Reed nerdier and weirder than how Lee and Kirby concieved him.

But you are right that Reed Richards is meant to be the actual scientist. He's the lead theoretical physicist of the Marvel Universe.

[Steel Inquisitor]

In the context of a discussion judging Peter for being a "loser" because he doesn't market his genius or science skills...the underlying assumption is simply "if you're so smart why aren't you rich?" i.e. that it'd be realistic and possible for any inventor to instantly become rich.

So that's a claim and assumption, based on an idea of realism, and the criticism against that, as such, should be similarly grounded in empirical reality.

He's a super-hero in a comic book, we can't ignore that context. He's a male power fantasy. Gets all the girls, handsome, was married to a supermodel (that's Stark tier since everyone is sexy in super-hero comics), incredibly smart, able to invent his own gadgets, funny and as a super-hero he has super-strength, speed, agility, precognition and regularly defeats terrifying super-villains. He's also relatable and sympathetic.

"The real Tony Stark"?!! There is no real Tony Stark. He's a fictional character. Musk is real...Stark isn't. Robert Downey Jr. modelled Stark on Musk in the run up to the 2007 movie (at a time when nobody knew Iron Man but people still knew Musk). Musk makes a cameo in Iron Man 2 in fact.

In Marvel there is, that's the "real" part. He's a fictional character who does things which would make him a wizard in our reality, that's how far outside our technology standards he is. And unlike Musk he makes things work. He can also regrow a business empire within a few years after losing everything. Musk isn't building Iron Man suits, RDJ's Tony is - he backs up his ego, that's what separates him from Musk.

When Tony Stark was created in the 60s, Stan Lee based him on Howard Hughes. Hughes was the OG eccentric millionaire and while he had more personal courage than Musk (including recklessly endangering his life by flying his own prototype planes, one of which led to a crash that nearly killed him and almost certainly did a number on his mind), he was largely a cartoon and a fraud, who failed upwards, inventing impractical white elephants like the Spruce Goose and sinking thriving movie studios into the ground.

In other words, Stark was always based on PR based media savvy billionaire hypemen rather than actual geniuses. Yesterday Howard Hughes, today Elon Musk. He has nothing to do with the real geniuses of America such as Robert Goddard, John Bardeen and William Shockley of Bell Labs, Jonas Salk among many others. Other game changing inventions weren't developed by private enterprise but in fact by government sponsored think tanks like DARPA, which created the Internet. Closer to Peter Parker's field (rather accurately described in that Christmas Song for ITSV as "chemical engineering)...synthetic fibers like spandex and kevlar were developed by scientists Joseph Shivers and Stephanie Kwolek, when they were employed by DuPont Chemicals. They get credit for inventing the fiber and formula, but DuPont owns the patents.

You want a good real life model for the kind of businessman-inventor Peter Parker could be...take Preston Tucker (on whom Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas made an entertaining and pretty underrated biopic). Tucker was an eccentric inventor and car manufacturer who during World War II created the Tucker Turret that was mounted on PT Boats and others. He also created the Tucker car which was the first automobile to feature seat-belts and other safety features. His radical plans and ambitions led him to overreach but his promotion of safety and pro-consumer views led Big Auto to clamp down on him, and ultimately only a small number of Tucker cars were ever produced and he died in disgrace. But some 20 years later after a lot of problems and criticisms of automobile manufacturers for their lack of safety, Big Auto ultimately utilized all the safety features that Tucker introduced. That could be what awaits Peter. He could be the genius who wanted to do good and help people but whose ideas were unappreciated until he died.



Reed Richards was largely based on Richard Feynman, i.e. the American theoretical physicist who was also a playboy and party animal who had a reputation for being a macho dude who contrasted heavily against the nerd image people had about scientists. He was a celebrity scientist of his time (a bit like Neil DeGrasse Tyson since he also took an interest in accessible presentation of theoretical physicists). So that explained how Lee and Kirby could get by with making Reed the dominant partner in a relationship with a hot blonde wife. It was still sexist of course but it was an archetype based on a real figure. You see adaptations miss the issue where the Ultimate Comics and the movies make Reed nerdier and weirder than how Lee and Kirby concieved him.

But you are right that Reed Richards is meant to be the actual scientist. He's the lead theoretical physicist of the Marvel Universe.

I'm not sure where you're going with all that, since they were real people who inspired various heroes not who defined everything about the super-heroes. The super-heroes didn't inherit everything from them and unlike many of them the geniuses in Marvel don't do things they did they do it all. I liked the idea of Peter being inspired as a businessman like Tuckson.

[Restingvoice]

My answer is the same as in other threads, I want development that makes sense

Peter's intelligent, but he's not a businessman, that's why for me it makes sense that it took so long for him to came up with an idea to make a business out of his tech.

That said, it doesn't make sense for that mindset to last forever when he needs money constantly and have seen what Tony Stark can do.

That said, that said, knowing he can make money with his tech doesn't make him a good businessman, so if he pursues that avenue, he will be slower than say, Osborn, especially with his double life.

We have to take into account his personality and priority, and as far as I know, he prefers to help people than himself, that may hinder his income and business sense, excepting the times where he had enough of being framed and underestimated.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

He's a super-hero in a comic book, we can't ignore that context.

Alright, fine. But let's not bring words like "self-sabotage" into the equation then.

As a superhero in a shared universe filled with the likes of Hank Pym, Peter Parker isn't a loser. End of discussion.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

The idea that Peter is a "loser" because he doesn't market his genius or science skills...that is actually based on two underlying assumptions.

1. "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" (as Revolutionary_Jack put it)
2. That CEO's are heroes and that Capitalism is innately good.

The second one is not talked about enough, but the reality is that a CEO's role is to maximize profit above all else. It is not a moral, or even an amoral, job position. The "nicest" of CEO's will ship jobs to countries with underpaid workers like China because they must perform that function or lose their jobs. They also still have to frequently interact and do business with some of the most rotten predators in America (i.e. Wall Street investors). Most people would have a hard time adopting the right attitude for this period, let alone a guy who constantly reflects on the consequences of his actions like Peter does. If you know anything about Peter Parker, you know that he is simply not cut out to be a CEO, genius or not. (The same goes for most Marvel geniuses that aren't Tony Stark.)

Academia is always where Peter was meant thrive as a scientist, as it is much more selfless and compatible with his personality. Under Academia, Peter can be someone like Frederick Banting - the scientist who discovered insulin and chose not to patent is so that everyone has access to it. Was Banting a "loser" because he was never a businessman and never marketed his genius? To imply that he was is disgusting.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The idea that Peter is a "loser" because he doesn't market his genius or science skills...that is actually based on two underlying assumptions.

1. "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" (as Revolutionary_Jack put it)
2. That CEO's are heroes and that Capitalism is innately good.

The second one is not talked about enough, but the reality is that a CEO's role is to maximize profit above all else. It is not a moral, or even an amoral, job position. The "nicest" of CEO's will ship jobs to countries with underpaid workers like China because they must perform that function or lose their jobs. They also still have to frequently interact and do business with some of the most rotten predators in America (i.e. Wall Street investors). Most people would have a hard time adopting the right attitude for this period, let alone a guy who constantly reflects on the consequences of his actions like Peter does. Peter Parker is simply not cut out to be a CEO, genius or not.

I mean Slott's own run skirted the issue. Parker Industries does a deal with the Chinese government, an actual real-world totalitarian nation that has camps for "re-educating" its minorities. The fact that the Chinese government is a major market and investor of Disney (corporate owner of Marvel) means you can't deal with the actual implications to that, i.e. what Peter does with his great power in that capitalist context. If sometime in the 21st Century there's a regime change in China, and you have a democratic regime there...this part of the comic will be flagged for US companies and creators selling out democratic principles. Someone like Peter becoming a businessman could be interesting since it could highlight how little capitalist systems grapple with the great responsibility that comes with their power, and how corporations and owners that behave ethically are crushed or muscled out because that's what happens historically. Capitalism is not a system that is known for rewarding ethical behavior and the little ethics it does have always came from the government or society rather than from within. In short, Peter can't be good and be rich at the same time.

I mean the only reason Tony Stark is able to be so rich is the fact that he has inherited wealth. His dad Howard made the family fortune and then Tony spent the greater part of his adult life (remember per comic time, it's not been long since Tony became Iron Man) as an amoral weapons manufacturer dedicated to the bottom line. The fortune that Tony has didn't come from his ethical turn or change of heart. To quote 44, "he didn't build that", the he being box-of-scraps-in-a-cave Tony.