How Spider-Man went from a story about one character to a “team franchise”

[Spiderfan001]

Tbh it's not really what I'm mainly into Spider Man. I like many heroes I don't personally relate to or find myself in.

Agreed.
DD and batman are the most unrelatable for me but i still like him.

Spider-man has many things going for him, this everyman is just a part of it.

Also everyman doesn't mean he is exactly like you, just that he foes through similar struggles.Everyone from the richest to the poorest can relate to him.

[CosmiComic]

Agreed.
DD and batman are the most unrelatable for me but i still like him.

Spider-man has many things going for him, this everyman is just a part of it.

Also everyman doesn't mean he is exactly like you, just that he foes through similar struggles.Everyone from the richest to the poorest can relate to him.

Yeah, I like a bunch of heroes, like Wolverine, Dr. Strange, or Wonder Woman for example, but not necessarily because I can see myself in them, at least not totally.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Peter always having "bad luck" isn't as brought up as one might think. Some runs don't even talk about it. In JMS' run for example, Peter explicitly states he considers himself very lucky that he has such a great life.

Even when it is often brought up, like in the Lee-Romita era, the "bad luck" Peter is referring to is only relative to other superheroes and not to everyday people. Most members of the Avengers and Fantastic Four live incredibly privileged lives compared to Peter who lives like the rest of us, or at best maybe a bit better than us but not by much in the grand scheme of things. So compared to those characters and DC characters like Superman and Batman, Peter does have bad luck.

The idea of Peter having bad luck relative to you and me is a fairly recent one, and one that was only popularized Post-OMD.

Also, dating hot girls and making decent money isn't as uncommon in everyday life as some of the people at Marvel might think.

[CosmiComic]

Peter always having "bad luck" isn't as brought up as one might think. Some runs don't even talk about it. In JMS' run for example, Peter explicitly states he considers himself very lucky that he has such a great life.

Even when it is often brought up, like in the Lee-Romita era, the "bad luck" Peter is referring to is only relative to other superheroes and not to everyday people. Most members of the Avengers and Fantastic Four live incredibly privileged lives compared to Peter who lives like the rest of us, or at best maybe a bit better than us but not by much in the grand scheme of things. So compared to those characters and DC characters like Superman and Batman, Peter does have bad luck.

The idea of Peter having bad luck relative to you and me is a fairly recent one, and one that was only popularized Post-OMD.

Also, dating hot girls and making decent money isn't as uncommon in everyday life as some of the people at Marvel might think.

Plus there are quite a few other heroes who come from underprivileged backgrounds as well. Maybe Peter's the one who popularized that. Idk for sure.

Although how does one tell characters are attractive when they're all drawn that way? What's the difference?

[Citizen Kane]

Spider-Man getting a "Spider Family" is an evolution to Bat Family levels of ridiculousness. And to think this all stems from the nonsensical success of the Fast and the Furious films. Can we just go back to the days when there was only one Spider person?

[CosmiComic]

Spider-Man getting a "Spider Family" is an evolution to Bat Family levels of ridiculousness. And to think this all stems from the nonsensical success of the Fast and the Furious films. Can we just go back to the days when there was only one Spider person?

I disagree. Spider-Man's good but he's not that special. And what does FaF have to do with this?

[Citizen Kane]

I disagree. Spider-Man's good but he's not that special. And what does FaF have to do with this?

Spider-Man is the second most successful superhero IP of all time, only behind Batman, and that was off of the sweat of Peter Parker's back. So yes, Spider-Man really is that special.

The whole "family is whoever you make it to be" trope is a trend that's trickled down from Hollywood into comics. An interesting interview with one of the top creators of FaF attributed their films' newfound successes to their increasingly diverse cast and the "family" concept portrayed in the films. You're seeing the traces of that blueprint in the ever-expanding Bat Family and now the "Spider Family". Unfortunately, the concept just comes off as ridiculous when applied to superheroes like Batman or Spider-Man.

[PCN24454]

Spider-Man is the second most successful superhero IP of all time, only behind Batman, and that was off of the sweat of Peter Parker's back. So yes, Spider-Man really is that special.

Sales don't mean much when it's shown that people will buy comics that they think are bad. I personally have found myself bored with most of Batman's runs, so I don't put too much stock in it.

The whole "family is whoever you make it to be" trope is a trend that's trickled down from Hollywood into comics. An interesting interview with one of the top creators of FaF attributed their films' newfound successes to their increasingly diverse cast and the "family" concept portrayed in the films. You're seeing the traces of that blueprint in the ever-expanding Bat Family and now the "Spider Family". Unfortunately, the concept is just ridiculous and over the top when applied to superheroes like Batman or Spider-Man—similar to what's happened to the FaF films.

The trope is so ubiquitous, that you really can't say that FaF has anything to with its proliferation.

[CosmiComic]

Spider-Man is the second most successful superhero IP of all time, only behind Batman, and that was off of the sweat of Peter Parker's back. So yes, Spider-Man really is that special.

The whole "family is whoever you make it to be" trope is a trend that's trickled down from Hollywood into comics. An interesting interview with one of the top creators of FaF attributed their films' newfound successes to their increasingly diverse cast and the "family" concept portrayed in the films. You're seeing the traces of that blueprint in the ever-expanding Bat Family and now the "Spider Family". Unfortunately, the concept is just ridiculous and over the top when applied to superheroes like Batman or Spider-Man—similar to what's happened to the FaF films.

So what if he sold a lot? Other heroes could've been successful had Marvel put effort into them. That doesn't mean there can't be others like him. Is he just supposed to keep all this to himself? Frankly I think it's good they're spreading it out a bit.

And why exactly is that ridiculous for superheroes? IMO the ridiculousness is acting like one hero is above every other one. I don't think FaF has anything to do with this

[Citizen Kane]

The trope is so ubiquitous, that you really can't say that FaF has anything to with its proliferation.

It didn't have to start with FaF. FaF just wildly popularized a format that many movie studios after it have adopted. But the point of me mentioning that is that both Batman and Spider-Man have been moving further and further away from their roots with the adoption of the "action blockbuster, super family" trope, which I think is a shame.

So what if he sold a lot? Other heroes could've been successful had Marvel put effort into them. That doesn't mean there can't be others like him. Is he just supposed to keep all this to himself? Frankly I think it's good they're spreading it out a bit.

And why exactly is that ridiculous for superheroes? IMO the ridiculousness is acting like one hero is above every other one. I don't think FaF has anything to do with this

I think you're taking my comments the wrong way. They weren't points to debate. I simply pointed out a trend I saw, and how Spider-Man is following a similar formula.

[CosmiComic]

It didn't have to start with FaF. FaF just wildly popularized a format that many movie studios after it have adopted. But the point of me mentioning that is that both Batman and Spider-Man have been moving further and further away from their roots with the adoption of the "action blockbuster, super family" trope, which I think is a shame.



I think you're taking my comments the wrong way. They weren't points to debate. I simply pointed out a trend I saw, and how Spider-Man is following that similar formula.

Ok. But frankly maybe it's good for them to move a bit away from their roots because they've been stuck doing the same things for a while, and even reversed to some pop culture image of who they are, at least in Spider-Man's case. And what exactly his roots? That he's a loner who doesn't want to work with people? What's the value in that? Because I'd rather see Spider-Man progress and be a older hero figure to newer heroes than perpetually scraping by

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Spider-Man is the second most successful superhero IP of all time, only behind Batman, and that was off of the sweat of Peter Parker's back.

a) It was the sweat off the back of the creators - writers/artists/editors and so on.
b) It's more precise to say it was sweat of "Spider-Man's back" rather than Peter Parker. That's Spider-Man on Macy's Thanksgiving Float, not Peter.

You're seeing the traces of that blueprint in the ever-expanding Bat Family and now the "Spider Family". Unfortunately, the concept just comes off as ridiculous when applied to superheroes like Batman or Spider-Man.

In the case of Batman, he's had Robin in his stories and mythos before the arrival of Joker and Batman. And Robin was for a long time the second most important character in the franchise (these days, maybe Joker is). So I'd argue the "Bat Family" is pretty old and quite foundational to Batman.

In the case of Spider-Man you can make a case that it isn't so, at the same time, from a franchise perspective, the truth is Spider-Man has always existed in many forms at once. There's 616 comics, then the trashy 1967 show with the theme song that's outlived it, then the Newspaper Strip that ran from 1977 to a few months after Lee died which until the Sam Raimi movie had a wider readership than monthly comics and was people's introduction to Spider-Man. Then the Raimi movies, the Ultimate comics, Spider-Girl where Mayday is the only Marvel female superhero to clock 100 issues.

To me the concept of Spider-Man having a family can work if Marvel let the character grow up because obviously in 616...Peter's constant self-doubting if he's done the right thing or if being Spider-Man is useful has a direct positive answer...he's grown up to see other people carry his mantle and name and legacy, many of whom follow his life and legacy's example. So on that level, Peter does have validation, the problem is that Marvel doesn't actually write the story that's in front of us...so it creates a disconnect.

So Spider-Man having a "Family" can lead to interesting stuff as opposed to Batman, since the concept of a rich man having a legacy and people affected by his actions isn't uncommon or specially significant. I mean if you were to tell the story of Bruce Wayne rich dude who never became Batman and deal with the people who come in and out of his lives and so on, it would probably look a great deal like Arrested Development or Knives Out or The Royal Tenenbaums (basically any movie about a family with a big house centered on an a--hole patriarch).

[Spider-Chan]

It didn't have to start with FaF. FaF just wildly popularized a format that many movie studios after it have adopted. But the point of me mentioning that is that both Batman and Spider-Man have been moving further and further away from their roots with the adoption of the "action blockbuster, super family" trope, which I think is a shame.

... what?

The whole idea of the Batfamily and the Spider-Family has been a thing since the 90's at least, probably you might go even further with Batman's case if you start counting from the moment Robin and Batgirl were introduced.

By the 90's and early 00's Batman already had plenty of spin-offs starring the members of the Batfamily. You already had events like Knightfall and No Man's Land that showcased the Batfamily.

Same goes for Spider-Man, but to a lesser degree. By the 90's you had Scarlet Spider, Prowler, Nightwatch, Mattie Franklin Spider-Woman, the Slingers, all spin-offs from the pages of Spider-Man. The concept of a family for Batman and Spider-Man has been going on for around 30 years at this point, it has nothing to do with them chasing a Hollywood trend.

[Citizen Kane]

Ok. But frankly maybe it's good for them to move a bit away from their roots because they've been stuck doing the same things for a while, and even reversed to some pop culture image of who they are, at least in Spider-Man's case. And what exactly his roots? That he's a loner who doesn't want to work with people? What's the value in that? Because I'd rather see Spider-Man progress and be a older hero figure to newer heroes than perpetually scraping by

I don't have a problem with minor changes to a character. What I have a problem with is when the main character is either no longer unique or taking a backseat to other characters. It seems that Peter Parker's struggles as Spider-Man are being put on the backburner in favor of other spider people, and that doesn't seem like a useful evolution for the character. It degrades the uniqueness of Spider-Man and Peter Parker, and makes his problems less impactful. I think a better way of handling the "Peter Parker mentor" thing would have been to have Peter onboard as a mentor of a Teen Titans-style superhero team—no extra spider people or sidekicks, just kids with superpowers or special abilities. That way, Peter's struggles as Spider-Man remain unique, and the other superheroes don't have to live in his shadow. I don't see how that wouldn't be an effective way to progress Spider-Man's story.

[phonogram12]

I just think Marvel and DC just like $$$ and just likes to slap a Bat or a Spider to a characters name. And generally, I haven't had a problem with it so far. I've liked most of the characters introduced.