Amazing Spider-Man #1 preview

[Lee]

I don't understand what this specific complaint is. I've gone back to look at the issue, and what Peter said at the end of Spider-Verse wasn't about changing his actions, it was about self-confidence. And he did go on to make big, bold, brash, confident decisions while running Parker Industries.

But helping some good guys beat up some bad guys isn't going to make him savvy businessman.

[The_Sneezing_Stormtrooper]

For Marvel the long-term is keeping their characters recognisable. They'll put them through the ringer, then they'll circle back to where they began, more or less. That's the nature of Marvel Comics. If you want true long-form storytelling that doesn't constantly reset to status quo, then you'd be better off reading creator-owned comics. If you order from McDonald's, you get fast food. For fine dining you need to go elsewhere.



From all the message board posts I've seen, there are certainly some fans who don't want Peter to ever screw up, make a poor choice or act goofy. Some people want him to be Captain America or Superman.



This is human nature. Someone might say "From this day forward I'm eating healthy, counting calories and going to the gym 5 days a week". And they might just do that for a month, before falling back into their old lifestyle.



I know. I read it. I liked most of it.



I never proposed getting rid of the old cast, just adding new characters to the mix. When someone says they're for X it doesn't mean they're against Y.

I agree that the established cast is important, which is why I think it was a big mistake to kill off Harry.

At least Mcdonald's is cheap.

I get that there are certain things about a long-running character that should remain consistent and when you deviate too far from that you should find your way back to a recognizable but I think that it's also fair to point out the tonal whiplash from the end of Spencer's run to Beyond and now to this. There should be some level of cohesion from run to run. I do think a writer should be able to bring what they want to the table but this is still an ongoing series and I would like some level of cohesion and consistency. There's a lot that I dislike about the BND and Slott era but there was at least a general consistent direction that the character was heading in overall. I dislike when terms like "putting toys back in the box" and "going back to basics" are used as an excuse for writers to be lazy and not bother worrying about transitioning from or even incorporating what came before into their vision. Plenty of great runs in comics have built off runs that came immediately before.

You mentioned sacrificing readers in their 30s and 40s for younger readers in their teens and 20s. What about the 12 year old who started with the Spencer run four years ago? Aren't they worth retaining? I mentioned earlier that I was 16 when OMD happened and dropped the book. It wasn't even just about the marriage. I was invested in the Civil War/Back in Black story and have that concluded off screen because of a deal with the devil was incredibly unsatisfying, lazy and lame. What reason did I have to keep reading and trust the next status quo not to pull another lazy status quo reset? It's not just the older folk who are stuck in their ways that are getting chased off like you implied. Young readers don't like having their intelligence insulted and their time wasted either. They have too many entertainment options to choose from to put up with it. Long term payoff isn't just for the people who have been reading for decades. It's also important to keep in mind for people who have been reading for any length of time longer than a couple of years. You can try to get as many new readers if you want but what's the point if you can't retain them?

Also, NO ONE here is asking for Peter to be perfect or like Captain America or Superman. That's been clarified by like 5 people in this thread already. It's not what we're talking about. I can't speak for conversations you've had with other people on this board but I think that it's safe to say that we're all on the same page here in regards to that. Married Spiderman had problems. Older alternate versions that I like including Spidergirl, Renew Your Vows, and Into the Spider-verse Peter have all been shown to not be perfect people while still being preferable to many of us compared to his current iteration. You have to understand that it's the stawman argument that editorial has been throwing our way for the last 15 years so it's a bit frustrating when we've clarified it numerous times here and it's still being repeated. Can we please move past it for this specific conversation?

[TinkerSpider]

I don't understand what this specific complaint is. I've gone back to look at the issue, and what Peter said at the end of Spider-Verse wasn't about changing his actions, it was about self-confidence.

That's what I said. That he learned from his time and was now ready to be a leader. But he went back to being a doofus manchild who couldn't even keep his fly zipped. Spider-Verse had zero affect on him.

But helping some good guys beat up some bad guys isn't going to make him savvy businessman.

I'm talking about Peter saying he has the confidence to be a leader in Spider-Verse, which means he should have then demonstrated it. Instead, he basically abdicated all responsibility to Sanjani, Harry and Anna Maria. No one said he received his MBA.

Here's the real issue:

Slott wrote ASM for ten years. Slott's Peter was a stunted manbaby who makes goldfish look like elephants when it came to retaining memories of what he previously did. Slott's Peter was inherently incapable of anything even remotely resembling growth or change - even the illusion of growth or change.

What people actually seem to be arguing here is whether the Peter Parker of 1963-2008 and 2018-2021, plus multiple non-ASM versions such as Chip Zdarksky's Spectacular, Tom Taylor's Friendly Neighborhood, Gerry Conway's Spiral, etc. etc. etc. is the correct template for the character or if the Slott version is the correct template for the character.

[Lee]

I get that there are certain things about a long-running character that should remain consistent and when you deviate too far from that you should find your way back to a recognizable but I think that it's also fair to point out the tonal whiplash from the end of Spencer's run to Beyond and now to this. There should be some level of cohesion from run to run.

I'm not arguing against smoother transitions between runs. I'm pointing out that characters circling back to a status quo is standard practice at Marvel Comics, and has been for decades. It's not an aberration, it's an inherent feature.

Also, NO ONE here is asking for Peter to be perfect or like Captain America or Superman.

I think the "Peter should grow older and be married and have kids and a stable career" crowd want a Peter who doesn't make mistakes that negatively impact his life in a big way, or make him seem foolish. Every time an issue has released where Peter screws something up, makes a fool of himself, or even faces a setback that wasn't of his own making, people jump on it in the most hyperbolic way.

That's what I said. That he learned from his time and was now ready to be a leader. But he went back to being a doofus manchild who couldn't even keep his fly zipped. Spider-Verse had zero affect on him.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. Peter had his fly unzipped. Oops! Awkward! Can happen to the best of us. A light comedic moment.

Or, through a certain lens, it means Peter is a doofus and a manchild and the lesson he should have taken from the events of Spider-Verse was "always double check your fly".

[TinkerSpider]

I'm not arguing against smoother transitions between runs. I'm pointing out that characters circling back to a status quo is standard practice at Marvel Comics, and has been for decades. It's not an aberration, it's an inherent feature.



I think the "Peter should grow older and be married and have kids and a stable career" crowd want a Peter who doesn't make mistakes that negatively impact his life in a big way, or make him seem foolish. Every time an issue has released where Peter screws something up, makes a fool of himself, or even faces a setback that wasn't of his own making, people jump on it in the most hyperbolic way.

Literally no one is saying this.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. Peter had his fly unzipped. Oops! Awkward! Can happen to the best of us. A light comedic moment.

Or, through a certain lens, it means Peter is a doofus and a manchild and the lesson he should have taken from the events of Spider-Verse was "always double check your fly".

*Sigh* That was example of the forced juvenile humor Slott used when writing Peter as a bumbling incompent fool, not an example of the lesson Peter should have learned. I notice you aren't refuting Peter abdicated all his responsibility to others at Parker Industries, which was my actual point - a lovely move coming from a character best known for "With Great Power Must Also Come Great Responsibility." And running a multinational company worth billions is a form of great power. Just sayin'.

But yes, most adults with a modium of intellect and self awareness know to check their appearance before going on camera before a worldwide audience. It wasn't funny, it was...dumb.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Real people don't reach a dead end. But real people don't mature in the linear way some fans want Spider-Man to. Real people, for the most part, change slowly and subtly, they fall back into bad habits and repeat the same mistakes and patterns over and over again. Some people get worse as they get older. Real people are messier. There's no steady and constant positive maturation. A Peter Parker who is frozen at age 35 but getting more mature with every issue wouldn't end up resembling a real human, and would be difficult to write dramatic stories about.

You nailed it: Real life are "two steps forward, one step back". That is what pre-OMD Peter was too, and what he should be still.

[Aura Blaize]

For Marvel the long-term is keeping their characters recognisable. They'll put them through the ringer, then they'll circle back to where they began, more or less. That's the nature of Marvel Comics. If you want true long-form storytelling that doesn't constantly reset to status quo, then you'd be better off reading creator-owned comics. If you order from McDonald's, you get fast food. For fine dining you need to go elsewhere.

They could easily do both though. Give us compelling stories and characters without doing a complete wipe and reset. Take the Parker Industries thing. You're telling me that a Spider-Man who is intelligent, has gadgets and is pretty well off is unrecognizable? If anything, the story that broke it up was totally out of character (A big tech company doesn't have offsite backups? What???). And even if you didn't plan on keeping him in a CEO position, the answer is seriously to have him go back to being broke, down on his luck, barely scraping by Peter Parker? Hell Otto himself said that with his intellegence, Peter should AT LEAST own a house and a good job.

You can have a Spider-Man that appeals to the everyday man and STILL is successful in some way.

[Spiderfan001]

They could easily do both though. Give us compelling stories and characters without doing a complete wipe and reset. Take the Parker Industries thing. You're telling me that a Spider-Man who is intelligent, has gadgets and is pretty well off is unrecognizable? If anything, the story that broke it up was totally out of character (A big tech company doesn't have offsite backups? What???). And even if you didn't plan on keeping him in a CEO position, the answer is seriously to have him go back to being broke, down on his luck, barely scraping by Peter Parker? Hell Otto himself said that with his intellegence, Peter should AT LEAST own a house and a good job.

You can have a Spider-Man that appeals to the everyday man and STILL is successful in some way.

Literally should have ended the story w/ Peter taking the blame for the attacks but they had off-site back-ups so company still exists but he hands it off to harry and pursues science instead

[Refrax5]

They could easily do both though. Give us compelling stories and characters without doing a complete wipe and reset. Take the Parker Industries thing. You're telling me that a Spider-Man who is intelligent, has gadgets and is pretty well off is unrecognizable? If anything, the story that broke it up was totally out of character (A big tech company doesn't have offsite backups? What???). And even if you didn't plan on keeping him in a CEO position, the answer is seriously to have him go back to being broke, down on his luck, barely scraping by Peter Parker? Hell Otto himself said that with his intellegence, Peter should AT LEAST own a house and a good job.

You can have a Spider-Man that appeals to the everyday man and STILL is successful in some way.

I'm not against Peter having a better job, but making him too rich and successful takes away a lot of the working class appeal of the character for me. I don't much like the kind of people that aspire to be bajillionaire CEOs and I don't like the idea of Peter being some wealthy corporate guy. It feels very far removed from so much of what I like about him.

I will say that I also think that somebody like Peter sacrificing so much of his personal and professional life to help people and be a hero makes it pretty hard to call him a loser. He's not bad at holding down a job because he's a screwup. He's bad at holding down a job because he's always blowing off work to save people's lives. People might think he's a loser, but that's because they don't know what he's actually doing.

He's also been through an absurd amount of trauma in his life and if he were a real person, it would be downright cruel to judge him so harshly. The fact that the guy can even get out of bed in the morning and keep trying and keep his good heart after the Hell he's been through speaks to how extraordinary he is.

I don't want him to be some childish clown or written like a buffoon (like Slott did), but I think this idea that a guy in his 20s is a loser for not being financially successful when he's spending half his time getting kicked across town by the Rhino or whatever seems a little unreasonable.

[your_name_here]

Ouch. Just couldn’t get into this issue.

[Aura Blaize]

Literally should have ended the story w/ Peter taking the blame for the attacks but they had off-site back-ups so company still exists but he hands it off to harry and pursues science instead

THIS! This would totally be in character!

I'm not against Peter having a better job, but making him too rich and successful takes away a lot of the working class appeal of the character for me. I don't much like the kind of people that aspire to be bajillionaire CEOs and I don't like the idea of Peter being some wealthy corporate guy. It feels very far removed from so much of what I like about him.

I will say that I also think that somebody like Peter sacrificing so much of his personal and professional life to help people and be a hero makes it pretty hard to call him a loser. He's not bad at holding down a job because he's a screwup. He's bad at holding down a job because he's always blowing off work to save people's lives. People might think he's a loser, but that's because they don't know what he's actually doing.

He's also been through an absurd amount of trauma in his life and if he were a real person, it would be downright cruel to judge him so harshly. The fact that the guy can even get out of bed in the morning and keep trying and keep his good heart after the Hell he's been through speaks to how extraordinary he is.

I don't want him to be some childish clown or written like a buffoon (like Slott did), but I think this idea that a guy in his 20s is a loser for not being financially successful when he's spending half his time getting kicked across town by the Rhino or whatever seems a little unreasonable.

I'm not saying have him become super rich or anything. But I would like for him to at least be able to make ends meet most of the time. Remember when he was a teacher? Something like that.

Also, for like 20 years while he was married to Mary Jane, they had enough money to survive on and he was still able to be Spider-Man. A super hero that still has a home and a wife to come back to? Sounds working class to me.

You can tell the same stories of sacrifice and heroism without having him like two steps away from homelessness. The fact that he has a intellect that is held in pretty high regard compared to the likes of, say, Tony Stark, but he's still a normal guy should be sacrifice enough.

[Refrax5]

THIS! This would totally be in character!




I'm not saying have him become super rich or anything. But I would like for him to at least be able to make ends meet most of the time. Remember when he was a teacher? Something like that.

Also, for like 20 years while he was married to Mary Jane, they had enough money to survive on and he was still able to be Spider-Man. A super hero that still has a home and a wife to come back to? Sounds working class to me.

You can tell the same stories of sacrifice and heroism without having him like two steps away from homelessness. The fact that he has a intellect that is held in pretty high regard compared to the likes of, say, Tony Stark, but he's still a normal guy should be sacrifice enough.

No, I don't disagree, but if you think teachers don't struggle financially, you are very mistaken. Even when he and MJ were married, they had money problems. I don't think he needs to be constantly on the verge of homelessness or totally miserable and I'm all for he and MJ being married, but I feel like there's gotta be a happy medium in there somewhere.

I feel like Marvel overestimates how much young people care about this stuff. I started reading Spidey in 92. He was married, made okay money and acted mostly like an adult. I absolutely loved him. And when I was in my mid 20s, single and broke, I didn't really like or relate to Brand New Day Peter, even though he was in the same boat. I thought it felt weird and forced and like something was missing from the character I had loved since I was eight. I just don't think young people care about this stuff. I never needed Peter to be a loser or obnoxious comic relief to like him.

[Aura Blaize]

No, I don't disagree, but if you think teachers don't struggle financially, you are very mistaken. Even when he and MJ were married, they had money problems. I don't think he needs to be constantly on the verge of homelessness or totally miserable and I'm all for he and MJ being married, but I feel like there's gotta be a happy medium in there somewhere.

I feel like Marvel overestimates how much young people care about this stuff. I started reading Spidey in 92. He was married, made okay money and acted mostly like an adult. I absolutely loved him. And when I was in my mid 20s, single and broke, I didn't really like or relate to Brand New Day Peter, even though he was in the same boat. I thought it felt weird and forced and like something was missing from the character I had loved since I was eight. I just don't think young people care about this stuff. I never needed Peter to be a loser or obnoxious comic relief to like him.

Oh I know teachers struggle financially, but he still had direction and, quite honestly, it felt normal. And yeah, they had money problems when they were married but it honestly wasn't as big of an issue after awhile because MJ started acting and such.

Honestly the happy medium is just to portray him as a normal 30 or so y/o in 2022. Show him struggling every so often but don't make it a constant thing. Have him taking side gigs or something. Being Spider-Man, that could be pretty lucrative. Maybe have him show off his scientific prowess more. There are sooooooo many ways to portray him as an everyday guy without defaulting to bad luck hobo Parker.

[Spiderfan001]

Oh I know teachers struggle financially, but he still had direction and, quite honestly, it felt normal. And yeah, they had money problems when they were married but it honestly wasn't as big of an issue after awhile because MJ started acting and such.

Honestly the happy medium is just to portray him as a normal 30 or so y/o in 2022. Show him struggling every so often but don't make it a constant thing. Have him taking side gigs or something. Being Spider-Man, that could be pretty lucrative. Maybe have him show off his scientific prowess more. There are sooooooo many ways to portray him as an everyday guy without defaulting to bad luck hobo Parker.

All this, he doesn't need to be broke af to be relatable.

Show him and MJ saving to get into a better apartment, maybe even planning for a baby, etc. When May inevitably dies, maybe have MJ step up and lead FEAST(she the managing experience) w/ Peter helping her out, etc.

[Jwyatt]

Yet in most most iterations across film, animation, AUs, he's more often than not reset as a teenager.
It's just the nature of mainstream superhero comic book characters - as long as their aims as a business is to cater to as many generations of readers as possible with new readers and future generations foremost, you'll never see the apple cart upset too greatly. And I get it, cause why would I want my children to inherit a 65 year old grandpa Peter Parker and subject them to all of the inevitable prune juice jokes? Doesn't seem fair on them.

The same way Savage Dragon (and DC's Earth-2, to a degree) did it -- the title character (SD, Jay Garrick, etc) may age or die, but develop a family or new characters to center the new narrative on.