It’s funny that so many people think Spider-Man works best as a teen...

[Lee]

Gerry Conway thinks Spider-Man should have stayed a teenager.

https://www.scifinow.co.uk/interview...way-interview/

Do you think that made it more difficult to develop Peter as a character because he has to be a certain age the whole time – he can’t mature in quite the same way as other characters?

Well, I’m of the school that believes it’s not necessary to develop a character beyond the individual story. Let me put this into context. The pressure to take Peter Parker, for example, and age him and develop his life led us into the marriage with Mary Jane growing into his early 30s and into a dead end, as a character, to the point where they had to wipe it all out and start over. That was a response to the need of the fans who wanted to continue reading the character, to make that character relevant to their lives as they got older – but that’s not the character! The character is an 18-20 year-old or 17-20 year old teenager, in the same way that Sherlock Holmes basically exists in 1887, and any story that takes place with him in 1914, which Arthur Conan Doyle tried to do, don’t really feel like the real Sherlock Holmes.

It’s not so much that Peter is a character in his era, he’s a character in his life era. He is a teenager. His problems as Spider-Man are teenager problems. Once he develops past that point, he ceases to be the same character. Why would you want to do that? If you want to write a different character, write a different character! If you, as a reader, don’t want to read about a teenage Spider-Man, read some other character who’s of an age more appropriate to your concerns. We wouldn’t want to go back and age Christopher Robin – why would we want to read stories about Christopher Robin in his 30s? It’s this bizarre relationship that fans have with the heroes of their childhood, that they want to them to age with them and develop with them. The big flaw that I think the superhero comic business fell into in the Eighties and Nineties was following that impulse, and taking characters to the next stage of their life stories and in effect, creating new characters that may not have been as popular or iconic as characters that they replaced.

The married Peter Parker is a much less interesting character than the teenaged Peter Parker, and that’s what we’ve seen – the field has taught us that.

[PCN24454]

Spider-man has easily one of the best rogue's galleries in comics. Why would ANYONE want to get rid of them?

Why do people think that GG should’ve stayed dead?

Their stories are done and keeping them around hinders the idea that Peter is progressing with his life.

[TinkerSpider]

s-l1600.jpg

It appears Gerry Conway was wrong about Christopher Robin. Just sayin'.

Fun fact: Winnie the Pooh just fell into the public domain (although the Disney depiction of Pooh is still under copyright). Expect to see non-Disney versions of a grown Christopher Robin imminently.

[Frontier]

Gerry Conway thinks Spider-Man should have stayed a teenager.

https://www.scifinow.co.uk/interview...way-interview/

But Conway wrote a great adult and married Peter. And he arguably did more than enough to shake things up and mature Peter's life when he killed off Gwen and Norman.

It's like how Roger Stern was anti-marriage but knew how to write MJ well, wrote the dynamic well in Hobgoblin Lives, and helped build up MJ to the character that ended up being married.

Why do people think that GG should’ve stayed dead?

Their stories are done and keeping them around hinders the idea that Peter is progressing with his life.

I mean, I think they were able to mine a lot out of Norman coming back but that's just my opinion.

How are their stories done? I mean, we've certainly seen a lot of development with Sandman, Ock, Lizard, Kraven, even Mysterio. The fact that they commit crimes has no real bearing on Peter making progress unless he's expected to ensure they never commit crimes again.

[Kevinroc]

Divorced Middle-Aged Into the Spider-Verse Peter Parker was a more interesting character than Tony Stark fanboy MCU teenage Peter Parker.

[Frontier]

Divorced Middle-Aged Into the Spider-Verse Peter Parker was a more interesting character than Tony Stark fanboy MCU teenage Peter Parker.

I mean, different takes on Peter can work.

Like, I love 90's college-age adult Peter and I love teenage coming-of-age Peter in Spectacular.

But it all comes down to the execution and being willing to do the character justice.

[Kevinroc]

I mean, different takes on Peter can work.

Like, I love 90's college-age adult Peter and I love teenage coming-of-age Peter in Spectacular.

But it all comes down to the execution and being willing to do the character justice.

I don't disagree. My point is that teenage Peter Parker isn't inherently more interesting than an older Peter. And in recent film examples, an older Peter has been more interesting than a younger Peter.

[PCN24454]

I mean, I think they were able to mine a lot out of Norman coming back but that's just my opinion.

How are their stories done? I mean, we've certainly seen a lot of development with Sandman, Ock, Lizard, Kraven, even Mysterio. The fact that they commit crimes has no real bearing on Peter making progress unless he's expected to ensure they never commit crimes again.

He’s a superhero; of course he’s expected to make sure they don’t continue to commit crimes.

If he’s still fighting them “60” years later, then he hasn’t really accomplished anything, and I say that as someone who preferred Norman post-resurrection.

[Alan2099]

He’s a superhero; of course he’s expected to make sure they don’t continue to commit crimes.

If he’s still fighting them “60” years later, then he hasn’t really accomplished anything, and I say that as someone who preferred Norman post-resurrection.

Making sure they don't commit crimes anymore isn't his job. That's for the for the judges, and the prisons, and rehabilitation.

If he's still stopping them 60 years later, that means he's managed to stop them a bunch of times and that is certainly accomplishing something.

[PCN24454]

Making sure they don't commit crimes anymore isn't his job. That's for the for the judges, and the prisons, and rehabilitation.

If he's still stopping them 60 years later, that means he's managed to stop them a bunch of times and that is certainly accomplishing something.

I’m sure Gwen, Captain Stacy, DeWolff, Marla, etc. all feel the same way. /s

I’m not saying it’s Peter’s fault that he looks incompetent, but it just goes to show how hollow a lot of his progress is.

[Lee]

It appears Gerry Conway was wrong about Christopher Robin. Just sayin'.

That film's existence doesn't mean he was wrong. Given his statements, I doubt Conway would think that film is the definitive version of the character. Adult Spider-Man also exists, but he doesn't think that's the definitive version of that character.

[marhawkman]

I’m sure Gwen, Captain Stacy, DeWolff, Marla, etc. all feel the same way. /s

I’m not saying it’s Peter’s fault that he looks incompetent, but it just goes to show how hollow a lot of his progress is.

If bad guys never actually... did anything bad... would they even be bad guys?

[Mercwmouth12]

If bad guys never actually... did anything bad... would they even be bad guys?

They'd hang out at the bar with no name

[Lunala]

Why

Condemning the villains for an author's mistakes is something I've never understood. This is a Superhero comic. We need villains! Creating new ones is good and expected, but they're just as superficial if not worse if the authors are not competent. If Spider-Man has outgrown all his villains, Peter has outgrown being a hero. Spidey will still be treated the same if they're all executed or not.

This may have been rhetorical, but by and large, Fans who want the Green Goblin dead are a fan who:
A. Enjoyed a character or concept he murdered or abused, so anytime Osborn appears they're reminded that someone/thing is dead or abused because of him yet he's still around.
B. Appreciate an underrated villain and have decided he needs to die before the character can get the credit they deserve.
C. Hold heroes and villains on a different standard: If Peter is portrayed badly, it's a bad story. If a villain is portrayed badly, the villain sucks.
D. Are a 60s Goblin enjoyer and are sick of watching Norman get flanderized further by writers.
E. Emphasizes realism in death. Which technically means Spider-Man, Mary Jane, and nearly everyone else should be dead. Unless they mean everyone should be dead, he may get singled out for one of the other reasons.
F. Sees him as a Joker ripoff and have Joker fatigue, so they drag their issues with the Batman franchise into the Spider-Man franchise.
G. Are Triggered by him. Norman reminds them of an abuser, and they cannot enjoy a comic with him because he gives them flashbacks, and the book becomes more challenging for them to enjoy the more presence he has.
H. Something else that I haven't encountered or thought of atm.

[TinkerSpider]

“We wouldn’t want to go back and age Christopher Robin – why would we want to read stories about Christopher Robin in his 30s?”

Disney produces a film about precisely that, demonstrating that people do want to experience stories about Christopher Robin in his 30s.

Perhaps certain people don’t have the definitive handle on what is best for a character’s longevity and how audiences wish to engage, although they are welcome to their opinion which is, after all, just an opinion. Regardless, Conway has written an excellent married Peter and MJ, from newlyweds to parents with a young child. His body of work speaks eloquently.

I’m not saying it’s Peter’s fault that he looks incompetent, but it just goes to show how hollow a lot of his progress is.

Then the the real world should just give up on having a criminal justice system because despite centuries of finding, arresting and locking bad guys up, bad guys still exist and repeat offenders occur.

Not to mention, arresting them, locking them up and/or rehabilitating them are not his job as previously mentioned.