Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 179

Thread: Pete's career

  1. #61
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    3,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris0013 View Post
    I think the most important question is whether or not editorial will let him get his doctorate because that will mean he is successful at something and there is no way they can have that.

    I really don't think Peter ever cared about getting his doctorate...but with the plagiarism due to Otto's ego needing the "Doctor" title Pete is in a position of having to prove he can earn one.
    Peter is naturally inclined to take the easy route (tbf most people are) which is why he more tries to coast off of his talents rather than be ambitious in his work. That’s why he became a wrestler at first. His superpowers made it easy.

  2. #62
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    3,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    Peter is naturally inclined to take the easy route (tbf most people are) which is why he more tries to coast off of his talents rather than be ambitious in his work. That’s why he became a wrestler at first. His superpowers made it easy.
    My point is that he never really had the ego that others have to prove how smart he is with a doctorate...or multiple doctorates.

  3. #63
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    85,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackspidey2099 View Post
    I agree with this. I don't find any sort of journalism job a good fit for an adult Peter. I think some sort of university professor/researcher job is the best fit for the character.
    Maybe I'm just so used to seeing him as an adult photographer ever since the 90's show that I think it fits just fine.
    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    What you're talking about is the exact opposite of what I want. I want his work not intersect with his superhero life. No "co-worker secretly being the Big Man", no "Workplace opening a Black Hole", none of that!

    Peter wouldn't be restricted to science villains because there's no reason why his work should have anything to do with being Spider-Man or his Rogues Gallery.
    I think there should be a distinction between his Peter Parker and Spider-Man lives but the occasional intersection between them. I feel like that's when the duality works best.

    I feel like the Bugle worked best in that respect.
    That's not being responsible; that's being childish. He's asking for more responsibility than he can actually handle. This is really a lesson in how stupid it is to put all of the pressure on one guy.

    The fact that he's not really able to work with other people makes a lot of his complaints about his life feel hollow like Poseidon or The Hunger Artist by Franz Kafka.
    Isn't that to be expected from a solo protagonist Superhero though? He can work with people in team-ups but he works best operating independently (just look at how he is often written in team books or in team settings).

    You might feel differently but I just don't feel it's in-character for Peter to let others carry a burden for him or it wouldn't feel very Spider-Man.
    Being self-destructive is an appealing trait? Those always make my least favorite interpretations of Batman. Notably, TAS Batman still had a social life before JL.
    I think of it more as self-sacrificing.

  4. #64
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phonogram12 View Post
    Science being the primary focus in Reed Richards and Tony Stark's lives, cool. In Pete's I generally prefer the more grounded every man approach.
    Agreed. The thing about Richards and Stark is, they are both mad scientist archetypes, and as such they screw up spectacularly just as often as they perform miracles. As flawed as Parker is, being prone to mad science isn't one of his flaws. So he works better as someone who knows just enough science to see that someone else is being reckless. Because Marvel is ultimately changeless, this works to his advantage as a character: he can be the one sees that the mad scientists are being reckless and call them out on it just before it proves disastrous. Like he did with movie Doc Ock in the second movie.

    Meanwhile Stark and Richards are forever doomed to a cycle of attempting mad scientist stuff and having it blow up in their faces. Leave that fate to the villains in Spider-Man books like Doc Ock and Lizard.

  5. #65
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    3,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelC View Post
    Agreed. The thing about Richards and Stark is, they are both mad scientist archetypes, and as such they screw up spectacularly just as often as they perform miracles. As flawed as Parker is, being prone to mad science isn't one of his flaws. So he works better as someone who knows just enough science to see that someone else is being reckless. Because Marvel is ultimately changeless, this works to his advantage as a character: he can be the one sees that the mad scientists are being reckless and call them out on it just before it proves disastrous. Like he did with movie Doc Ock in the second movie.

    Meanwhile Stark and Richards are forever doomed to a cycle of attempting mad scientist stuff and having it blow up in their faces. Leave that fate to the villains in Spider-Man books like Doc Ock and Lizard.
    I think the "grounded everyman" approach is just an excuse to see Peter f*ck up.

  6. #66
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    I think the "grounded everyman" approach is just an excuse to see Peter f*ck up.
    How, when the characters who are not grounded everymen screw up even more cataclysmicaly? When Parker screws up, he suffers money problems. When Tony Stark screws up, he warps the genetics of an entire city. When you're talking about Richards and Stark, you're talking about the guys Rick Sanchez is a parody of, but not by much. They screw up in truly horrifying ways. Meanwhile Parker screws up in ways that inspire empathy from the reader.

  7. #67
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    3,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelC View Post
    How, when the characters who are not grounded everymen screw up even more cataclysmicaly? When Parker screws up, he suffers money problems. When Tony Stark screws up, he warps the genetics of an entire city. When you're talking about Richards and Stark, you're talking about the guys Rick Sanchez is a parody of, but not by much. They screw up in truly horrifying ways. Meanwhile Parker screws up in ways that inspire empathy from the reader.
    You're right. Nothing Peter does ever matters. That's why he's allowed to screw up.

    Even if he tried to be better, he'd only fail miserably.

  8. #68
    Y'know. Pav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    If I were in the writing chair, I would probably lean into the "gig economy" situation we find ourselves in these days, that way I (or any other writer) can believably and easily put Peter into any type of job situation. To stay afloat financially, he (and MJ) might find themselves utilizing all the different career paths that past writers have brought into canon, so maybe in some issues Peter is hired to take some photos; maybe he's substitute teaching in other issues; maybe he's even doing new stuff like being a Taskrabbitesque kind of delivery service person for others.

    It also easily allows for stories in which Peter just doesn't have enough time in the day to be successful in all aspects of his complicated life, which I think is a meaningful trope for the character.

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post

    I was thinking he, Hobie Brown and Robert Farrell could make a start-up where they try to make prosthetics like in the PS4 game.
    I've had similar ideas of Peter creating a start-up with those two, and/or Harry Osborn (which doesn't seem likely now) and a few potential others. I'm reminded of the movie Primer in which a couple of random dudes accidentally create a time-machine in their garage Could be some fun opportunities there.


    -Pav, who also likes Peter in grad school...
    Last edited by Pav; 01-16-2022 at 10:00 AM.
    You were Spider-Man then. You and Peter had agreed on it. But he came back right when you started feeling comfortable.

    You know what it means when he comes back
    .


    "You're not the better one, Peter. You're just older."

    --------------------

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

  9. #69
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    You're right. Nothing Peter does ever matters. That's why he's allowed to screw up.

    Even if he tried to be better, he'd only fail miserably.
    Wuh? Everyone in Marvel comics screws up. Perfection is a DC thing. And the mad scientist types like Stark and Richards screw up worst of all.

  10. #70
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    85,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelC View Post
    Wuh? Everyone in Marvel comics screws up. Perfection is a DC thing. And the mad scientist types like Stark and Richards screw up worst of all.
    And even DC heroes being "perfect" isn't all that accurate.

  11. #71
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    What you're talking about is the exact opposite of what I want. I want his work not intersect with his superhero life. No "co-worker secretly being the Big Man", no "Workplace opening a Black Hole", none of that!

    Peter wouldn't be restricted to science villains because there's no reason why his work should have anything to do with being Spider-Man or his Rogues Gallery.
    See, while many derided the last Spider-Man cartoon for being too juvenile, one of the only issues I had with it is that his entire life revolved around science. And that's where most of his antagonists came from. I don't see writers never not using whatever occupation he has as a story point for his rogues gallery.


    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    That's not being responsible; that's being childish. He's asking for more responsibility than he can actually handle. This is really a lesson in how stupid it is to put all of the pressure on one guy.

    The fact that he's not really able to work with other people makes a lot of his complaints about his life feel hollow like Poseidon or The Hunger Artist by Franz Kafka.


    Being self-destructive is an appealing trait? Those always make my least favorite interpretations of Batman. Notably, TAS Batman still had a social life before JL.
    So you're saying if it were up to you Pete just wouldn't be Spider-Man anymore because that's too much responsibility? Or that trying to have a life outside of Spider-Man is ultimately selfish of him? Super confused here.

    Also, that's the point. It is supposed to be a lot of pressure for one guy. That's where the pathos comes from. If that's not something you're particularly interested in, maybe Spidey isn't for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    I think the "grounded everyman" approach is just an excuse to see Peter f*ck up.
    So you want him to be faultless? Just...why? Very few characters can pull that off. When written well, Superman and Captain American can (and I'm not saying they should necessarily should be, mind you), but as mentioned earlier, a faultless Pete is no longer Pete.
    Last edited by phonogram12; 01-16-2022 at 01:42 PM.
    Keep in mind that you have about as much chance of changing my mind as I do of changing yours.

  12. #72
    Extraordinary Member Lukmendes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Maybe I'm just so used to seeing him as an adult photographer ever since the 90's show that I think it fits just fine.
    The problem is how it's such a dead end job that wastes his potential as a science driven character.

    Buggle is a cool place, but it's part of the problem with his potential being wasted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    And even DC heroes being "perfect" isn't all that accurate.
    Specially when they push Batman as their main guy lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCape View Post
    We all know that BND was a collective mid-life crisis from Marvel back then

  13. #73
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    85,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukmendes View Post
    The problem is how it's such a dead end job that wastes his potential as a science driven character.

    Buggle is a cool place, but it's part of the problem with his potential being wasted.
    Arguably news media are now more relevant than ever, so I've never seen it as a dead end job.

    It's just none of Peter's science jobs have ever seemed interesting unless he's working for a Supervillain.

  14. #74
    Formerly Assassin Spider Huntsman Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelC View Post
    Agreed. The thing about Richards and Stark is, they are both mad scientist archetypes, and as such they screw up spectacularly just as often as they perform miracles. As flawed as Parker is, being prone to mad science isn't one of his flaws. So he works better as someone who knows just enough science to see that someone else is being reckless. Because Marvel is ultimately changeless, this works to his advantage as a character: he can be the one sees that the mad scientists are being reckless and call them out on it just before it proves disastrous. Like he did with movie Doc Ock in the second movie.

    Meanwhile Stark and Richards are forever doomed to a cycle of attempting mad scientist stuff and having it blow up in their faces. Leave that fate to the villains in Spider-Man books like Doc Ock and Lizard.
    That idea, that Spider-Man as the "everyman hero" can be the conscience of the superhero community, kind of reminds me of how Green Arrow was depicted in Justice League Unlimited.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelC View Post
    How, when the characters who are not grounded everymen screw up even more cataclysmicaly? When Parker screws up, he suffers money problems. When Tony Stark screws up, he warps the genetics of an entire city. When you're talking about Richards and Stark, you're talking about the guys Rick Sanchez is a parody of, but not by much. They screw up in truly horrifying ways. Meanwhile Parker screws up in ways that inspire empathy from the reader.
    Are you referring to when he unleashed Extremis on San Francisco, passing it off as an app that enabled its users to transform into their ideal selves, only to then charge them $100 per day for continued use of it, which sparked a massive crime wave, while he was "morally inverted" from the events of AXIS?
    The spider is always on the hunt.

  15. #75
    Amazing Member jda95's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelC View Post
    Wuh? Everyone in Marvel comics screws up. Perfection is a DC thing. And the mad scientist types like Stark and Richards screw up worst of all.

    Tell me you don't read DC Comics without telling me you don't read DC Comics...

Posting Permissions

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