Is Spider-Man Still Marvel's Flagship Superhero?

[Huntsman Spider]

I think you should go over to the Marvel Comics' board because there are some Iron Man fans (yeah they exist) who would quote you chapter-and-verse about how various villains were developed over time.

In some cases, like Justin Hammer, he was interesting in the original comics but the movies failed to do a good job because they made the character into a joke mostly because RDJ's performance much like Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow transformed the original conception of the movies into a comedy** and now everything had to be keyed to RDJ's speed. Until Thanos, there couldn't be any villain who RDJ's Tony can't quip, insult, and joke and have those quips/insults/jokes stick on them. So the character on-screen is very Ubermensch-y. In the case of Mandarin, the racist premise of the character has been impossible to overcome so the movies are giving him to Shang-Chi. And Mandarin was created to be IM's arch-enemy.

Iron Man as a character has always been hard to sell because there's nothing simple and iconic about him. He's got too much stuff going on with him. He's a billionaire weapons manufacturer. That is inherently a premise hard for universal appeal, because you have to think about stuff like Military-Industrial Complex, American Imperialism, Economy from the perspective of the Military-Industrial Complex, Imperialism, and the Economy He's also a 40-year old guy when he becomes a hero, so that again puts him out of reach. Then you have the bomb/shrapnel/device to stop the shrapnel from getting close to him (dollars to donuts, IM is the first time many kids heard the word "shrapnel"). And then you have the suit which is a garish red and gold fully body armor suit lacks a kind of tactility and theatricality and is usually drawn inconsistently (sometimes you can see eyes and even teeth but more recently you have the streamlined movie take which has these two-slit LED screens for eyes but is otherwise a big golden bucket).

So it's not a surprise that the character has been hard to cross-over to the general public until they found an actor who could hook them in on all that business, and RDJ's irreverent-comic approach helped. Pirate movies were a famous box-office deadzone for decades until Johnny Depp found a way to make Jack Sparrow work (though given his recent life issues, even that has a due date) and in the process hijack and transform a movie centered originally on Orlando Bloom as a conventional action-movie hero's journey guy, into one centered on him.

The superheroes that have caught on and taken root in culture -- the big three of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man -- work because story and design have a simplicity and poetry to it. Batman dresses as a giant bat to scare criminals and uses a giant cap and cowl to effect. That theatricality sells immediately. Superman is alien who is also Clark Kent but he wears a boss costume with a giant Yellow Shield on his chest and that's instantly iconic. Spider-Man likewise, dude gets bitten by a spider and gets powers (that's wish-fulfillment there, who hasn't wanted some chance event to come and transform their life) and his costume has a theatrical charm to it.

Fair points on why Iron Man hasn't really caught on that much aside from Robert Downey, Jr.'s (iconic) portrayal of him, especially bringing up his connection to the military-industrial complex. A similar argument could be made of Captain America in terms of him starting off as a propaganda tool to get America and Americans to join World War II and fight the Axis Powers, but the comics (and related media) have gone a long way to distance him from that by having the character and his stories interrogate and challenge the more morally corrupt and/or otherwise suspect aspects of American government and institutions, so he's not exactly a simple puppet or avatar for American militarism anymore. In that same vein, going back to Iron Man as a character and a concept, given how great wealth in modern society is increasingly interrogated and challenged, if not flat-out condemned, as a driver and/or product of moral corruption and deep-seated social inequity, it's rather difficult nowadays to cast him as a completely, unambiguously heroic figure.

[CosmiComic]

I think you should go over to the Marvel Comics' board because there are some Iron Man fans (yeah they exist) who would quote you chapter-and-verse about how various villains were developed over time.

In some cases, like Justin Hammer, he was interesting in the original comics but the movies failed to do a good job because they made the character into a joke mostly because RDJ's performance much like Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow transformed the original conception of the movies into a comedy** and now everything had to be keyed to RDJ's speed. Until Thanos, there couldn't be any villain who RDJ's Tony can't quip, insult, and joke and have those quips/insults/jokes stick on them. So the character on-screen is very Ubermensch-y. In the case of Mandarin, the racist premise of the character has been impossible to overcome so the movies are giving him to Shang-Chi. And Mandarin was created to be IM's arch-enemy.

Iron Man as a character has always been hard to sell because there's nothing simple and iconic about him. He's got too much stuff going on with him. He's a billionaire weapons manufacturer. That is inherently a premise hard for universal appeal, because you have to think about stuff like Military-Industrial Complex, American Imperialism, Economy from the perspective of the Military-Industrial Complex, Imperialism, and the Economy He's also a 40-year old guy when he becomes a hero, so that again puts him out of reach. Then you have the bomb/shrapnel/device to stop the shrapnel from getting close to him (dollars to donuts, IM is the first time many kids heard the word "shrapnel"). And then you have the suit which is a garish red and gold fully body armor suit lacks a kind of tactility and theatricality and is usually drawn inconsistently (sometimes you can see eyes and even teeth but more recently you have the streamlined movie take which has these two-slit LED screens for eyes but is otherwise a big golden bucket).

So it's not a surprise that the character has been hard to cross-over to the general public until they found an actor who could hook them in on all that business, and RDJ's irreverent-comic approach helped. Pirate movies were a famous box-office deadzone for decades until Johnny Depp found a way to make Jack Sparrow work (though given his recent life issues, even that has a due date) and in the process hijack and transform a movie centered originally on Orlando Bloom as a conventional action-movie hero's journey guy, into one centered on him.

The superheroes that have caught on and taken root in culture -- the big three of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man -- work because story and design have a simplicity and poetry to it. Batman dresses as a giant bat to scare criminals and uses a giant cap and cowl to effect. That theatricality sells immediately. Superman is alien who is also Clark Kent but he wears a boss costume with a giant Yellow Shield on his chest and that's instantly iconic. Spider-Man likewise, dude gets bitten by a spider and gets powers (that's wish-fulfillment there, who hasn't wanted some chance event to come and transform their life) and his costume has a theatrical charm to it.

These are good points. I think the ease of marketing the characters with their more easily identifiable symbols helps make the big 3 popular. A Spider-symbol is easy marketing, for example

I guess my point was, even if other Marvel heroes aren't as popular as Spider-Man, their "sub-franchises" shouldn't necessarily be less developed. I know Iron man some villains, but they're not nearly as big as Spider-Man's or even Thor's. Same goes for most Avengers.

[Kevinroc]

I think you should go over to the Marvel Comics' board because there are some Iron Man fans (yeah they exist) who would quote you chapter-and-verse about how various villains were developed over time.

In some cases, like Justin Hammer, he was interesting in the original comics but the movies failed to do a good job because they made the character into a joke mostly because RDJ's performance much like Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow transformed the original conception of the movies into a comedy** and now everything had to be keyed to RDJ's speed. Until Thanos, there couldn't be any villain who RDJ's Tony can't quip, insult, and joke and have those quips/insults/jokes stick on them. So the character on-screen is very Ubermensch-y. In the case of Mandarin, the racist premise of the character has been impossible to overcome so the movies are giving him to Shang-Chi. And Mandarin was created to be IM's arch-enemy.

Iron Man as a character has always been hard to sell because there's nothing simple and iconic about him. He's got too much stuff going on with him. He's a billionaire weapons manufacturer. That is inherently a premise hard for universal appeal, because you have to think about stuff like Military-Industrial Complex, American Imperialism, Economy from the perspective of the Military-Industrial Complex, Imperialism, and the Economy He's also a 40-year old guy when he becomes a hero, so that again puts him out of reach. Then you have the bomb/shrapnel/device to stop the shrapnel from getting close to him (dollars to donuts, IM is the first time many kids heard the word "shrapnel"). And then you have the suit which is a garish red and gold fully body armor suit lacks a kind of tactility and theatricality and is usually drawn inconsistently (sometimes you can see eyes and even teeth but more recently you have the streamlined movie take which has these two-slit LED screens for eyes but is otherwise a big golden bucket).

So it's not a surprise that the character has been hard to cross-over to the general public until they found an actor who could hook them in on all that business, and RDJ's irreverent-comic approach helped. Pirate movies were a famous box-office deadzone for decades until Johnny Depp found a way to make Jack Sparrow work (though given his recent life issues, even that has a due date) and in the process hijack and transform a movie centered originally on Orlando Bloom as a conventional action-movie hero's journey guy, into one centered on him.

The superheroes that have caught on and taken root in culture -- the big three of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man -- work because story and design have a simplicity and poetry to it. Batman dresses as a giant bat to scare criminals and uses a giant cap and cowl to effect. That theatricality sells immediately. Superman is alien who is also Clark Kent but he wears a boss costume with a giant Yellow Shield on his chest and that's instantly iconic. Spider-Man likewise, dude gets bitten by a spider and gets powers (that's wish-fulfillment there, who hasn't wanted some chance event to come and transform their life) and his costume has a theatrical charm to it.

So where does Wolverine, who was clearly Marvel's #2 hero at one point, fit into this?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I guess my point was, even if other Marvel heroes aren't as popular as Spider-Man, their "sub-franchises" shouldn't necessarily be less developed. I know Iron man some villains, but they're not nearly as big as Spider-Man's or even Thor's. Same goes for most Avengers.

At the end of the day you need to appreciate things you have:

-- The Avengers and Iron Man not being as developed as Spider-Man or as iconic as Spider-Man doesn't mean they are without value. Quite obviously the MCU proved this wrong.
-- Not everyone can be successful and transformative. And you need to appreciate that and respect that.
-- Sometimes you can put the effort and work hard, and it still won't lead to what you want. Talented creators have worked on Iron Man several times over the years, and it still didn't strike big until the movie.

Likewise, sometimes you can have a talented creator produce a great character in a great story with great villains and concepts, and still not succeed. Look at Doctor Strange. Developed by Steve Ditko who worked on it the same time as Spider-Man. Artistically, Doctor Strange is better than his Spider-Man stuff with The Eternity Saga being his greatest achievement and the wildest, most creative comics of that time in layout, panel, artwork. There's even thematic similarity between The Eternity Saga and the Master Planner Saga. Ditko's Doctor Strange had a great rogues gallery -- Dormamu, Nightmare, Baron Mordo -- cool characters who were ripe for development -- Eternity, Clea, Wong. And yet despite all that, Doctor Strange never became a regular ongoing while Iron Man did.

Sometimes, that's how things work. You can't control it.

In the case of X-Men that was a comic that was a backbencher in the '60s, went into reprints in the early '70s. Then from 1975 onwards, the X-Men went from the lowest lows to the highest highs, becoming the best-selling comic of the industry, the industry benchmark and Marvel's biggest team bar none. At the height of the '90s the X-Men comics sold so much that if X-Men were treated as a separate comics imprint it would be #3 below DC and Marvel. And ultimately what made X-Men so big so late and so sudden and so fast. X-Men were the biggest any superhero title ever got in the history of the medium. And it wasn't something foreordained or planned. It was like an earthquake, or a revolution, when there come a time when "years happen in weeks, and decades in months" in terms of impact and rapid development.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So where does Wolverine, who was clearly Marvel's #2 hero at one point, fit into this?

Wolverine is a Han Solo-type. He originated in 1974, two years before A New Hope admittedly but the character was reconfigured and altered into his anti-hero personality from the mid-to-late '70s and while I am not saying Han influenced Logan necessarily, the fact is the zeitgeist was primed to like a character who was "not in this for your revolution", who negged the pretty female lead, and was the favored romantic foil for the female lead over the standard male leader, and who had an air of mystery and a vague past.

The "Han Solo type" is a popular mold and so in the MCU -- Tony Stark and Star Lord -- are blatantly Han Solo-types (though with Tony there's also a bit of Harrison Ford's Indy there too). And likewise the ones who start out as Luke become more like Han -- Cap and Thor -- and not coincidentally Old Luke in The Last Jedi is also Han Solo-ish.

Design-wise, the three claws coming out of his fists looks instantly cool and we all have these fantasies of going into rage and having an animal self literally pop out of knuckles is something that creates a great visual. Add in the three-claws (which transcends the costume itself, and works in civies) and an iconic weird hairstyle, and a great sound effect (*snikt*) and you have something that readers can imagine in a tactile and theatrical way.

With Wolverine the character also had his past undefined at first so his popularity rest entirely on his physicality and personality as opposed to his backstory. And in a comic, gimmick and personality, how a character is on-page and on-panel matters a lot more than his backstory. You look at Batman, they didn't tell his origin until several issues after his first appearance and the character already succeeded by then. Superman, a lot of his origin was covered cursorily in the first Action Comics but the stuff we associate with it came a decade later. Joker's always been a popular character even without a fully known origin. I mean a lot of the Ditko rogues in Spider-Man didn't have their origins told in the first run. Doctor Octopus didn't have an origin or backstory until Tom Defalco's issues in the '90s. Vulture didn't have an origin until Roger Stern's run in the '80s. Same with Kraven, Mysterio and others. Mary Jane Watson was likewise a popular and beloved supporting character and love interest long before her origin in the '80s.

So when we say Spider-Man villains were better developed, we shouldn't confuse that with overwritten backstory or characterization, because they became popular first and then got backstories.

As I said, first comes success, then comes all the things people think made that successful. The reality is that success in comics is elementary and visual and essentially unknowable.

[CosmiComic]

At the end of the day you need to appreciate things you have:

-- The Avengers and Iron Man not being as developed as Spider-Man or as iconic as Spider-Man doesn't mean they are without value. Quite obviously the MCU proved this wrong.
-- Not everyone can be successful and transformative. And you need to appreciate that and respect that.
-- Sometimes you can put the effort and work hard, and it still won't lead to what you want. Talented creators have worked on Iron Man several times over the years, and it still didn't strike big until the movie.

Likewise, sometimes you can have a talented creator produce a great character in a great story with great villains and concepts, and still not succeed. Look at Doctor Strange. Developed by Steve Ditko who worked on it the same time as Spider-Man. Artistically, Doctor Strange is better than his Spider-Man stuff with The Eternity Saga being his greatest achievement and the wildest, most creative comics of that time in layout, panel, artwork. There's even thematic similarity between The Eternity Saga and the Master Planner Saga. Ditko's Doctor Strange had a great rogues gallery -- Dormamu, Nightmare, Baron Mordo -- cool characters who were ripe for development -- Eternity, Clea, Wong. And yet despite all that, Doctor Strange never became a regular ongoing while Iron Man did.

Sometimes, that's how things work. You can't control it.

In the case of X-Men that was a comic that was a backbencher in the '60s, went into reprints in the early '70s. Then from 1975 onwards, the X-Men went from the lowest lows to the highest highs, becoming the best-selling comic of the industry, the industry benchmark and Marvel's biggest team bar none. At the height of the '90s the X-Men comics sold so much that if X-Men were treated as a separate comics imprint it would be #3 below DC and Marvel. And ultimately what made X-Men so big so late and so sudden and so fast. X-Men were the biggest any superhero title ever got in the history of the medium. And it wasn't something foreordained or planned. It was like an earthquake, or a revolution, when there come a time when "years happen in weeks, and decades in months" in terms of impact and rapid development.

Ok. To be fair, I've never thought individual heroes needed their own villains to be good, and members of teams like Avengers and X-Men prove that. In light of the recent popularity of cinematic Avengers, they seem to be very popular without having many notable villains, especially since it seems Marvel struggles to add villains to the standard "new villain in every solo movie" of the MCU.

[TheCape]

Wolverine is a Han Solo-type. He originated in 1974, two years before A New Hope admittedly but the character was reconfigured and altered into his anti-hero personality from the mid-to-late '70s and while I am not saying Han influenced Logan necessarily, the fact is the zeitgeist was primed to like a character who was "not in this for your revolution", who negged the pretty female lead, and was the favored romantic foil for the female lead over the standard male leader, and who had an air of mystery and a vague past.

The "Han Solo type" is a popular mold and so in the MCU -- Tony Stark and Star Lord -- are blatantly Han Solo-types (though with Tony there's also a bit of Harrison Ford's Indy there too). And likewise the ones who start out as Luke become more like Han -- Cap and Thor -- and not coincidentally Old Luke in The Last Jedi is also Han Solo-ish.

Design-wise, the three claws coming out of his fists looks instantly cool and we all have these fantasies of going into rage and having an animal self literally pop out of knuckles is something that creates a great visual. Add in the three-claws (which transcends the costume itself, and works in civies) and an iconic weird hairstyle, and a great sound effect (*snikt*) and you have something that readers can imagine in a tactile and theatrical way.

With Wolverine the character also had his past undefined at first so his popularity rest entirely on his physicality and personality as opposed to his backstory. And in a comic, gimmick and personality, how a character is on-page and on-panel matters a lot more than his backstory. You look at Batman, they didn't tell his origin until several issues after his first appearance and the character already succeeded by then. Superman, a lot of his origin was covered cursorily in the first Action Comics but the stuff we associate with it came a decade later. Joker's always been a popular character even without a fully known origin. I mean a lot of the Ditko rogues in Spider-Man didn't have their origins told in the first run. Doctor Octopus didn't have an origin or backstory until Tom Defalco's issues in the '90s. Vulture didn't have an origin until Roger Stern's run in the '80s. Same with Kraven, Mysterio and others. Mary Jane Watson was likewise a popular and beloved supporting character and love interest long before her origin in the '80s.

So when we say Spider-Man villains were better developed, we shouldn't confuse that with overwritten backstory or characterization, because they became popular first and then got backstories.

As I said, first comes success, then comes all the things people think made that successful. The reality is that success in comics is elementary and visual and essentially unknowable.

Wouldn't be more accurate to say that Logan was a Clint Eastwood type, his personality and mannerism during the Claremont days was kind of similar to Harry Callahan.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Wouldn't be more accurate to say that Logan was a Clint Eastwood type, his personality and mannerism during the Claremont days was kind of similar to Harry Callahan.

I can see the Eastwood influence and connection. I feel Han Solo is better because Wolverine at the end of the day is an X-Man and part of a group, whereas Eastwood's famous character archetypes are genuinely lonely types, whereas Han Solo likewise ultimately commits to a group and takes a side.

I can see Eastwood as a reference for later Logan stories and Wolverine movies, obviously LOGAN by Mangold is very much in that mould. Remember for most of the '70s, Wolverine was an X-Man, and he went solo only in the '80s so at the outset, I see Han Solo as closer to Wolverine.

Eastwood and Dirty Harry is obviously a bigger frame of reference for Frank Castle, and also the Batman of Frank Miller in TDKR and YEAR ONE but yeah he was part of the zeitgeist of the '70s so his influence seeped into everything out there.

[Castle]

Spiderman has been tried and tested and he has proven his constant relevance. Apart from X-Men and maybe The Hulk to a limited extent. Spiderman is the only character that has shown to have longevity and cannot be replaced. You cannot replace Spiderman in Marvel with Iron Man, anymore than you can try to replace Inhumans with X-Men or make Avengers the new X-Men by letting Rogue, Beast, Wolverine, Havok and Cable become Avengers. Neither Inhumans, Avengers or Iron Man have any deep substance lore that makes them unique or interesting when people are not all about their cinematic crossover movies, neither inhumans, avengers and iron man have any fantastic rich world of serious comic book literacy like DC counterparts worlds of Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman

And I believe Ike Plummetter and Disney learned in the harshest way. we know the story, disney bought marvel and became obsessed with utilising the characters that had the rights to in movies. this is why people got the idea that Iron Man became the flagship character but that is just laughable, because Iron Man only has movies not to mention his movies have no relevance outside of the MCU world. The Sam Raimi Spiderman films because they were stand alone , made at a different era and more constructed as an authentic film format still gives Spiderman the edge in movies and will continue to do so because those films now, 20 years on have become comic book classics, respected and revered in a way Iron Man films will never be.

Spiderman comics still sells. at least sell enough that marvel dare not consider cancelling his entire comic line as they did with Fantastic 4 or always trying to reboot it as they do with MCU characters comics, or look for other alternatives to boost sales by having the movies start dictating the comics.

the more you get into independent Spiderman stories, the more you are engaged in his universe. spiderman universe is always going to be appealing. There is noting special or appealing about Iron Man once you remove the MCU connection. Spiderman has the second stand alone best universe in Marvel , second only to x-men and this is because xmen had an advantage or been an ensemble series of different main characters.

Spiderman has the factual evidence after 70 years of lore that expands from movies, games, tv, books that secures him as the most important marvel hero. Iron Man has only 10 year of MCU stuff that is over since the character is now dead.

[NC_Yankee]

Spiderman has been tried and tested and he has proven his constant relevance. Apart from X-Men and maybe The Hulk to a limited extent. Spiderman is the only character that has shown to have longevity and cannot be replaced. You cannot replace Spiderman in Marvel with Iron Man, anyone than you can try to replace Inhumans with X-Men or make Avengers the new X-Men by letting Rogue, Beast, Wolverine, Havok and Cable become Avengers. Neither Inhumans, Avengers or Iron Man have any deep substance lore that makes them unique or interesting when people are not all about their cinematic crossover movies, neither inhumans, avengers and iron man have any fantastic rich world of serious comic book literacy like DC counterparts worlds of Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman

And I believe Ike Plummetter and Disney learned in the harshest way. we know the story, disney bought marvel and became obsessed with utilising the characters that had the rights to in movies. this is why people got the idea that Iron Man became the flagship character but that is just laughable, because Iron Man only has movies not to mention his movies have no relevance outside of the MCU world. The Sam Raimi Spiderman films because they were stand alone , made at a different era and more constructed as an authentic film format still gives Spiderman the edge in movies and will continue to do so because those films now, 20 years on have become comic book classics, respected and revered in a way Iron Man films will never be.

Spiderman comics still sells. at least sell enough that marvel dare not consider cancelling his entire comic line as they did with Fantastic 4 or always trying to reboot it as they do with MCU characters comics, or look for other alternatives to boost sales by having the movies start dictating the comics.

the more you get into independent Spiderman stories, the more you are engaged in his universe. spiderman universe is always going to be appealing. There is noting special or appealing about Iron Man once you remove the MCU connection. Spiderman has the second stand alone best universe in Marvel , second only to x-men and this because xmen had an advantage or been an ensemble series of different main characters.

Spiderman has the factual evidence after 70 years of lore that expands from movies, games, tv, books that secures him as the most important marvel hero. Iron Man has only 10 year of MCU stuff that is over since the character is now dead.

I do not put the X-Men over Peter. Why? Lets take Cyclops. He is so boring of a character he makes Dr. Strange seem like Deadpool. Professor X? Preachy. In fact, the only X-Men character that I find to be interesting is Logan. One other factor is this: While Peter is down to Earth, the X-Men live on a mutant only Island ( talk about comic book elitism at its worst). When it comes to rebooting, that is exactly what Marvel did with OMD and its successor BND. How? Why Instead, of an adult married Peter, they essentially rebooted him back to frat boy days. Why? Fear that people would stop buying comics toys etc ( meaning a decline in income). Do not forget,,He was even referred to as “The Kid” in The Avengers movies.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I do not put the X-Men over Peter.

The X-Men historically are not only Marvel's best selling comics but the best selling superhero title in comics. In the late '80s and early 90s, the X-Books sold so well and so much that it constituted by itself the third biggest comic imprint after Rest-of-Marvel and DC.

Spider-Man is individually Marvel's biggest hero but X-Men is its greatest team.

[CosmiComic]

The X-Men historically are not only Marvel's best selling comics but the best selling superhero title in comics. In the late '80s and early 90s, the X-Books sold so well and so much that it constituted by itself the third biggest comic imprint after Rest-of-Marvel and DC.

Spider-Man is individually Marvel's biggest hero but X-Men is its greatest team.

Idk if best selling team = greatest team.

Regardless, of course Spider-Man is bigger than any individual X-Man, because they don't get the benefit of years of solo books.

[NC_Yankee]

The X-Men historically are not only Marvel's best selling comics but the best selling superhero title in comics. In the late '80s and early 90s, the X-Books sold so well and so much that it constituted by itself the third biggest comic imprint after Rest-of-Marvel and DC.

Spider-Man is individually Marvel's biggest hero but X-Men is its greatest team.

Numbers do not always tell the story. For example:,Guardians of the galaxy did better at the Box Office then a couple of the Spider-Man movies. I admit I am not an X-Men fan never was ( except Wolverine), but I would take the FF over the X-Men. Why? A more fun comic ( especially Ben).

[Castle]

I do not put the X-Men over Peter. Why? Lets take Cyclops. He is so boring of a character he makes Dr. Strange seem like Deadpool. Professor X? Preachy. In fact, the only X-Men character that I find to be interesting is Logan. One other factor is this: While Peter is down to Earth, the X-Men live on a mutant only Island ( talk about comic book elitism at its worst). When it comes to rebooting, that is exactly what Marvel did with OMD and its successor BND. How? Why Instead, of an adult married Peter, they essentially rebooted him back to frat boy days. Why? Fear that people would stop buying comics toys etc ( meaning a decline in income). Do not forget,,He was even referred to as “The Kid” in The Avengers movies.

I never said Cyclops.LOL. I said X-Men as a lore-universe. If you find cyclops boring, sure, however in marvel universe own reality and actual character development and good quality writing.Cyclops is one of the most compelling heroes and one of the best written modernized comic heroes since the 2000s. The fact is in the proof of Grant Morrison X-Men and Whedon X-Men.

Cyclops family also defined perhaps what is now the most infamous soap opera family in comic history with the Summers-Grey family, and you know what is the opposite of boring? A Soap Opera. Xavier is one of the most complicated, unpredictable and messed people in marvel with many flaws, failures, secrets and hypocrisies.

it looks as if you are looking at xmen from the movies? and the movies only covered like 5% of the lore. which is as far as their movies are going get.
If you find Logan the only interesting character than I suggest other characters like Gambit, Colossus, Nightcrawler, Cable, Bishop, ArcAngel, Fantom X and don't let me even start with the X-Men females, who not only defined comic book feminism, but made male readers care more about them as real characters aside from their pretty looks

Honesty I am getting a little worried and quite disappointed about why many comic movies fans of marvel dont know much about marvel universe comics? historically watching movies or tv shows always makes people find out more about the source material. Lord of the rings, Harry Potter, Hunger Games, Game of Thrones, many of their fans first saw their tv shows or movies, then they got deep into the books and about 90% of them, always came to the same conclusion that ....the books were better.

Marvel is the one franchise I have seen where fans never cared to get to know the books source material with stretched comments like saying xmen lives on an island alone...when did that happen and thinks this is what defines the series? 2-3 years ago? we are not talking of 1970s or 1960s till now. the long history of the universe to the point there is now Krakoa. There is no weight in putting Avengers, iron man inhumans lore in the same class as Spiderman lore or even a richer stand alone universe like, xmen.

[Castle]

[QUOTE]

NC_Yankee;[/B]5520870]Numbers do not always tell the story. For example:,Guardians of the galaxy did better at the Box Office then a couple of the Spider-Man movies. I admit I am not an X-Men fan never was ( except Wolverine), /QUOTE]

Regardless of what people are personally a fan off. it still does not change more about a series lore , depth, world building and characters.
Furthermore, Marvel has had more than a decade now to try and enrich the lore of their others characters like Iron Man or GOTG as they did with Spiderman/X-Men and they don't seem to care much about that.

but I would take the FF over the X-Men. Why? A more fun comic ( especially Ben).[

X-men more so than Spiderman was not meant to be fun that all you are left with is theme park vibes. yes, they had many fun moment but both series were far more grounded, self aware and dealt with dark subject material with many relatable themes.

The fun thing about marvel, mostly ties more with Disney MCU movies than the source material. Additionally F4 is not as fun as we may want to think, it is definitely heavier than Avengers and GOTG movies and comics.

Dr Doom is the closest thing Comic villains both from marvel and DC ever had to Darth Vader. In fact Vader was sort of a rip off of Dr Doom although George Lucas has called Vader an influence creation of Doom.