The C2E2 Spider-man 60th Panel, some interesting things been said.

[Lee]

And I'm very curious what you mean by "some of the fandom." Which some of the fandom?

The ones who spend hours of their lives, day after day, for years on end, being very angry that a long-running corporate-owned comic series aimed at young people no longer appeals to them. That strikes me as the same kind of arrested development they often complain about regarding fictional ageless comic book characters.

[Kevinroc]

Maybe that is true of some of the fandom, the ones who obsess a little too much over a comic book character aimed at an audience younger than themselves.

All Marvel is doing is trying to keep telling the best stories they can without veering too far away from what makes each character what they are.

Some Marvel/DC fans don't like to hear this, but the characters are designed to last for multiple generations of readers. The most successful characters will never change too much. They're closer to Asterix and Uncle Scrooge than they are Maggie and Hopey.

Peter graduated from High School within the first 30 issues of Amazing Spider-Man. Marvel later decided that the passage of time shouldn't be reflected as it had been, but to pretend the characters were designed from the ground up to act as they do now is incorrect. They were intended to age and change. That's why Reed and Sue got married and later had a child. That's why Peter graduated from High School. That's why the Hulk's identity was revealed to the world.

[Huntsman Spider]

The ones who spend hours of their lives, day after day, for years on end, being very angry that a long-running corporate-owned comic series aimed at young people no longer appeals to them. That strikes me as the same kind of arrested development they often complain about regarding fictional ageless comic book characters.

At the risk of being sucked into a pointless feud, I am not arguing that Peter should age much past his mid-to-late twenties. He can be as youthfully spirited as he or his current stewards want. The issue, to me, is equating that youthfulness with the sense that he shouldn't develop or evolve as a character or a hero, that he should remain effectively in adolescence for the rest of his (presumably) never-ending published existence, while other characters and heroes around him get to grow and change and be far more dynamic than static in their evolution. There's also the issue that keeping Spider-Man "the same" doesn't work all that well when you consider that he's been around for 60 years and would have had to have had some changes or updates happen to prevent him from seeming like a total anachronism the way his surrogate family in the Fantastic Four is often viewed (somewhat wrongheadedly) by fans and critics, given how societal standards, norms, and even mores have changed and evolved over those 60 years.

Ultimately, though, Spider-Man is a timeless and iconic figure, but not because of the sense that he is or should be eternally young; more so due to the moral lesson that has been the centerpiece of his character since the end of his first appearance in comics: "With great power, there must also come great responsibility." Given how so many adults in the real world and throughout human history have failed to heed that lesson and thus wrought great suffering and misery upon the world and humanity at large, Spider-Man in comparison, albeit as a work of fiction, is an example very much worth passing onto future generations. That is what truly makes him so timeless and so relatable, not necessarily that he's "young," but that he strives to do what is right with the power that he does have, even (or especially) when doing the right thing isn't easy, which is a lesson more people in real life could and should abide.

[Lukmendes]

They didn't even write a proper romance arc in general. She's very tsundere toward Peter in Homecoming, then she says her nickname is MJ at the end of the movie, and then Peter falls completely in love with her between movies.

MCU romances are not good.

And she was the type of tsundere who's just "Annoying and rude, nothing else", which's not really good for a love interest lol.

Which is why I've been saying for a long time that Spider-Man needs an MCU-set TV series more than he needs yet another set of movies. At this point, all the movies can do within a 2-hour limit is cherry-pick bits and pieces of 60 years of lore and mythos and try to stitch them together into something compelling, whereas a TV series, particularly a longform TV series, could address day-to-day developments in Spider-Man's life and the lives of his supporting castmates and would have more room to flesh out those developments.

Movies can tell complete stories just fine, MCU having bad romance and under developed characters is a consequence of writing incompetence.

They did no such thing. MJ was consistent with how she was portrayed since Stern brought her back to the book and DeFalco added her back story and she became Peter's confidante.

Who actually ignores her established character? Dan Slott and Zeb Wells.

I'll always find it amusing and kinda annoying Slott ignores his own take on MJ too lol.

She's not the only one affected though, Peter and even Otto are affected too.

Perhaps, but it does speak to a rather aggravating hypocrisy on Marvel's part --- that other, even more "minor" characters can grow and change and develop from where they started off, but an icon like Spider-Man/Peter Parker has to be effectively kept in suspended animation and arrested development "to keep him relatable," which, at least to me, says something fairly troubling about how Marvel views a lot of its audience.

I mean, not really hypocrisy, it's just how business handles these things, smaller characters get the benefit of growing and changing if a writer bothers to do so, bigger characters are more static, it's been this way consistently for a long time, even back in golden age, when Superman was forbidden to marry Lois by DC's editorial at the time.

Not that this means being like this is good, and even then there are exceptions like X-Men still having Krakoa around instead of getting rid of it, but thing's that Spidey is the biggest name at Marvel, and current editorial are incompetent at handling him, so they'll make stories that are so mediocre they may make the reader just as miserable as Spidey, which I guess you can argue is one way to make readers immersed.

[Lee]

Peter graduated from High School within the first 30 issues of Amazing Spider-Man. Marvel later decided that the passage of time shouldn't be reflected as it had been, but to pretend the characters were designed from the ground up to act as they do now is incorrect. They were intended to age and change. That's why Reed and Sue got married and later had a child. That's why Peter graduated from High School. That's why the Hulk's identity was revealed to the world.

As you said, Marvel's strategy changed when they realised that super-hero comics weren't just a passing fad, and also that they could have a successful licensing business. Nowadays, if a story changes a popular character too much, then most of the time things will revert back to normal sooner or later.

This was already the case before most of us started reading the comics and it's clearly not likely to change. A decades spanning comic about a successful multi-media kids' character is never going to play by the same rules as a creator owned indie comic. The parts of the fandom insisting that Marvel permanently kill off, age up and make other big changes to their most popular characters are fighting a lost cause. The kind of storytelling they want to see isn't going to be found at Marvel, they'd be better off seeking it in creator owned comics written for adults.

[WebLurker]

Movies can tell complete stories just fine, MCU having bad romance and under developed characters is a consequence of writing incompetence.

Dunno, they've had a few that worked -- Ant-Man/Wasp from the Ant-Man movies, Peter Quill/Gamorra from the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, Captain America and Peggy Carter (until that became fetish of the writers) -- come to mind. I'd even argue that Spider-Man/MJ was pretty well written despite skipping over when Peter developed a crush on her in the first place. Also, seeing how other kinds of relationships in those movies work really well, I don't think it's not that they have totally incompetent writers or anything, since they get other stuff right.

[Kevinroc]

Dunno, they've had a few that worked -- Ant-Man/Wasp from the Ant-Man movies, Peter Quill/Gamorra from the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, Captain America and Peggy Carter (until that became fetish of the writers) -- come to mind. I'd even argue that Spider-Man/MJ was pretty well written despite skipping over when Peter developed a crush on her in the first place. Also, seeing how other kinds of relationships in those movies work really well, I don't think it's not that they have totally incompetent writers or anything, since they get other stuff right.

I thought the Scott Lang/Hope van Dyne romance was bad. I actually wondered where that kiss came from at the end of the first Ant-Man movie. Probably my least favorite MCU Romance outside of whatever the hell was going on in Eternals.

I do think the Quill x Gamora romance was ruined by Infinity War/Endgame killing Gamora and replacing her with an alternate version of herself. If they actually go for it in GotG Vol. 3, I have a hard time holding it in high regard for that reason. She's not the same person Quill originally fell in love with.

That leaves Steve x Peggy. Which undercut Steve's entire arc of getting used to a world that had moved on without him by having him literally return to the past.

MCU romances are bad.

[Kevinroc]

As you said, Marvel's strategy changed when they realised that super-hero comics weren't just a passing fad, and also that they could have a successful licensing business. Nowadays, if a story changes a popular character too much, then most of the time things will revert back to normal sooner or later.

This was already the case before most of us started reading the comics and it's clearly not likely to change. A decades spanning comic about a successful multi-media kids' character is never going to play by the same rules as a creator owned indie comic. The parts of the fandom insisting that Marvel permanently kill off, age up and make other big changes to their most popular characters are fighting a lost cause. The kind of storytelling they want to see isn't going to be found at Marvel, they'd be better off seeking it in creator owned comics written for adults.

These are Marvel's characters and ultimately they decide what to do with them. I do think it is important to allow spaces for certain fans to do what fans do and discuss such topics amongst themselves. People don't need to argue on Marvel's behalf on why certain things are the way they are. Leave that to Marvel or their representatives.

[Frontier]

I thought the Scott Lang/Hope van Dyne romance was bad. I actually wondered where that kiss came from at the end of the first Ant-Man movie. Probably my least favorite MCU Romance outside of whatever the hell was going on in Eternals.

I do think the Quill x Gamora romance was ruined by Infinity War/Endgame killing Gamora and replacing her with an alternate version of herself. If they actually go for it in GotG Vol. 3, I have a hard time holding it in high regard for that reason. She's not the same person Quill originally fell in love with.

That leaves Steve x Peggy. Which undercut Steve's entire arc of getting used to a world that had moved on without him by having him literally return to the past.

MCU romances are bad.

Scott and Hope are my least favorite Ant-Man and Wasp couple precisely because of how little chemistry and actual romance they have together.

MCU completely mishandled Gamora in my opinion from the get-go.

To sell Steve and Peggy they had to basically throw Sharon Carter under the bus and treat her relationship with Steve like an afterthought.

I'm not confident they'll be able to do Stephen Strange and Clea's relationship justice.

[Kevinroc]

Scott and Hope are my least favorite Ant-Man and Wasp couple precisely because of how little chemistry and actual romance they have together.

MCU completely mishandled Gamora in my opinion from the get-go.

To sell Steve and Peggy they had to basically throw Sharon Carter under the bus and treat her relationship with Steve like an afterthought.

I'm not confident they'll be able to do Stephen Strange and Clea's relationship justice.

I said MCU romances are bad, and I stand by that statement.

[Lukmendes]

Dunno, they've had a few that worked -- Ant-Man/Wasp from the Ant-Man movies, Peter Quill/Gamorra from the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, Captain America and Peggy Carter (until that became fetish of the writers) -- come to mind. I'd even argue that Spider-Man/MJ was pretty well written despite skipping over when Peter developed a crush on her in the first place.

I only saw Michelle in the first and third movies, so I can't speak for the second one, but, she was bad character in the first movie, if she could even be considered a character there, and the third one has her just being, some love interest who has a bad sense of humor alongside her boyfriend and her boyfriend's friend.

So yeah, didn't care much for it, and what I saw of Ant-Man/Wasp in their movie, I didn't care much for it too lol.

I thought the Scott Lang/Hope van Dyne romance was bad. I actually wondered where that kiss came from at the end of the first Ant-Man movie. Probably my least favorite MCU Romance outside of whatever the hell was going on in Eternals.

I'm pretty sure the second movie actually mocked how outta nowhere that kiss was lol.

I'm not confident they'll be able to do Stephen Strange and Clea's relationship justice.

The way to expect an MCU romance is to expect a trainwreck, and then get disappointed anyways because the train was carrying bombs .

[Lee]

These are Marvel's characters and ultimately they decide what to do with them. I do think it is important to allow spaces for certain fans to do what fans do and discuss such topics amongst themselves. People don't need to argue on Marvel's behalf on why certain things are the way they are. Leave that to Marvel or their representatives.

I disagree. Without the ability to take a step back and consider the real world context, without perspective, those environments often breed entitlement and obsessiveness that can turn toxic.

It's how you get obsessive fans who take it too far. The Eltingville Club types. The ones who dedicate so much of their free time to impotent rage and whining, directing bile towards writers, artists, editors, or whoever else. The most recent face of this is comicsgate, but it's a type of angry fan entitlement that's been around for decades. Whether they're angry about Marvel, Star Wars, Doctor Who, or whatever other piece of children's entertainment, it's not healthy, it's not good for them or anyone around them.

That's on the most extreme end of the spectrum, of course. But even on the benign end, if a totally chill and well mannered fan has been upset for years that their unrealistic expectations for Spider-Man (or Star Wars, Doctor Who, whatever) aren't being met, it's beneficial for them to consider that there's a reason those expectations aren't being met, and that there are other works of art and entertainment that are better suited to their changing tastes.

[TinkerSpider]

The ones who spend hours of their lives, day after day, for years on end, being very angry that a long-running corporate-owned comic series aimed at young people no longer appeals to them. That strikes me as the same kind of arrested development they often complain about regarding fictional ageless comic book characters.

1) Media that contain depictions of mass shooting victims shot execution style in the head lying in pools of blood and graphic brutal beatings with blood flying; and a genocidal murderer killing the hero, possessing his body and then rifling through his memories for sexual moments with which to self-gratify; and the hero and another superpowered being are compelled to sexual intimacy without consent: they are not aimed at "young people." You seem to be conflating ASM with Spidey and His Amazing Friends. ASM is rated T+, which means younger readers should not read it, teen readers and older (that's the +) are the appropriate reading ages. But T+ is not limited to teens, any more than a PG-13 rated movie is limited only to thirteen year olds.

2) Interesting you are conflating this with failure to launch. You seem to be discussing people with anger management issues instead of being a perpectually stunted manbaby who is the only failure to launch in his peer group ala Peter Parker from 2008 - 2018 and apparently starting again in 2022, and whose depiction is supposed to be relatable to his audience.

As you said, Marvel's strategy changed when they realised that super-hero comics weren't just a passing fad

A passing fad?

Superman debuted in 1938. Batman debuted in 1939. Captain America debuted in 1941.

Superheroes sold very well even with a world war on; this is the Golden Age of comics.

Superheroes started to wan in the 1950s, with the exception of Superman who had his own television series for six years, from 1952-1958. At this point he's turning 20 years old so it's hard to call that a fad.

DC reinvented the Flash in 1956, replacing Jay Garrick with Barry Allen, and many consider this to be the turning point for superheroes as they roared back to popularity; it's the start of the Silver Age. That led to Justice League, which was another success.

According to legend, DC publisher Jack Liebowitz rubbed Justice League's success in the face of Marvel's publisher, Martin Goodman, during a golf game. Goodman then tasked Stan Lee with coming up with Marvel's version of Justice League.

Now, Stan was known to say a lot of things that don't necessarily dovetal with other people's recollections, but in his biography Excelcior! Stan says this, “For once I wanted to write stories that wouldn’t insult the intelligence of an older reader, stories with interesting characterization, more realistic dialogue, and plots that hadn’t been recycled a thousand times before."

Note the "older reader," by the way.

That, of course, was the Fantastic Four. And it was a success for the Marvel from the start.

Per this website, which is a really interesting read but one person's opinion, what actually happened was Marvel was the victim of its own success. They started to publish more titles, which meant continuity was no longer as tightly controlled. Also, they started to lose talent, like Jack Kirby. This is when they invented "Marvel time," or a way to slow down the change which had been a key reason for their skyrocketing success in the first place, as a way to deal with the increased production and lack of tight control and talent who had been there since the start.

And readers noticed. In the 1970s, Marvel sales start to decline. Per the website, Jim Shooter credits the Star Wars license for saving the company; otherwise Marvel would have gone bankrupt then.

Sales came back under Shooter, who brought back tight creative control (for better but also for worse, per creators) and yes, allowed change like Peter Parker's marriage.

Rinse and repeat, only we are now stuck in the rinse cycle. But maybe someday another Stan Lee or Shooter will be EIC again.

Anyway, the website makes many of the same points that have been made over and over in this thread - same points made by Alan Moore, too - and backs them up with sales figures.

A decades spanning comic about a successful multi-media kids' character

Marvel was never aimed at kids. It was written for older audiences from the start of the Silver Age, per Stan Lee.

I disagree. Without the ability to take a step back and consider the real world context, without perspective, those environments often breed entitlement and obsessiveness that can turn toxic.

Agree. There are always people who take it too far. I've seen people attacked elsewhere on the 'net because there are those who seem to spend their time obsessively upset others don't share their same positive view of a corporate entity and take it upon themselves to police behavior accordingly.

most recent face of this is comicsgate

IMO Comicsgate is not about comics any more than Gamergate was about gaming; it's a reflection of a larger sociopolitical cultural attitude, for lack of a better word, that is a response to changing demographics and who has access to power.

it's beneficial for them to consider that there's a reason those expectations aren't being met, and that there are other works of art and entertainment that are better suited to their changing tastes.

Very true. It's also something to consider that if one doesn't like a certain discourse, one can seek out other discouse elsewhere; the internet is a vast place and there a myriad ways to communicate and connect from social media platforms to Discord to Clubhouse to interacting with podcasts and YouTubers, etc.

[Lee]

I think the most obsessive and toxic fans, the ones who spend their free time trashing the same bit of entertainment they latched onto in childhood (Spider-Man, Star Wars, whatever) and the human beings working on that piece of entertainment, every day, for years on end, simply because it no longer caters to their tastes, are acting in a childish and emotionally stunted manner. I think that kind of Eltingville Club/Comic Book Guy behaviour goes beyond anger management. So it's ironic when any of those toxic fans' years long gripe is "Cartoon Man is immature and needs to grow up!"

Most fans are normal and reasonable people, and if they think a comic character is being written too immaturely (or have any other issue with the material), they'll express that opinion, hope things get better, maybe even send a polite email to the letters page, and then get on with their lives. But the extremists out there who obsess over it, feel personally aggrieved by it, and see all the people working on the comic as their enemies (who HATE Cartoon Man!) or obstacles to be taken down, are usually exhibiting behaviour far more immature than whatever comic book character they're concerned about.

[TinkerSpider]

I think the most obsessive and toxic fans, the ones who spend their free time trashing the same bit of entertainment they latched onto in childhood (Spider-Man, Star Wars, whatever) and the human beings working on that piece of entertainment, every day, for years on end, simply because it no longer caters to their tastes, are acting in a childish and emotionally stunted manner. I think that kind of Eltingville Club/Comic Book Guy behaviour goes beyond anger management. So it's ironic when any of those toxic fans' years long gripe is "Cartoon Man is immature and needs to grow up!"

Most fans are normal and reasonable people, and if they think a comic character is being written too immaturely (or have any other issue with the material), they'll express that opinion, hope things get better, maybe even send a polite email to the letters page, and then get on with their lives. But the extremists out there who obsess over it, feel personally aggrieved by it, and see all the people working on the comic as their enemies (who HATE Cartoon Man!) or obstacles to be taken down, are usually exhibiting behaviour far more immature than whatever comic book character they're concerned about.

"Extremists" feels rather, well, extreme.

No one is complaining that Peter Parker can't let things go. They are pointing out he has been acting like a stunted manbaby who continues to fail to launch, who is apparently incapable of learning from mistakes and adjusting. The question was asked if that if Peter Parker has to kept wrapped in amber in this certain status because this status makes him relatable, does this mean Marvel believes their readers are also failures to launch?

Especially when Peter Parker from 1962 - 2008 was in a sense a wholly different character, who learned and grew and progressed. Not in real time, of course, but there was a sense the stories had weight and there was a throughline from one story to the next in ASM.

One might call asking this question "hatred;" another person may call it exercising critical thinking skills and not blindly praising media just because it has a certain brand name on it.

It's all opinion.

These are Marvel's characters and ultimately they decide what to do with them. I do think it is important to allow spaces for certain fans to do what fans do and discuss such topics amongst themselves. People don't need to argue on Marvel's behalf on why certain things are the way they are. Leave that to Marvel or their representatives.

Well stated.

Scott and Hope are my least favorite Ant-Man and Wasp couple precisely because of how little chemistry and actual romance they have together.

MCU completely mishandled Gamora in my opinion from the get-go.

To sell Steve and Peggy they had to basically throw Sharon Carter under the bus and treat her relationship with Steve like an afterthought.

This is probably revealing my taste in movie relationships to be trash, but I enjoyed the progression of Pepper and Tony. Despite Paltrow not being high on my list of favorite people to watch on screen.

I did hate how they threw Sharon under the bus.

I hope the Peter MJ relationship gets more of an arc in the next trilogy, now that they are working from a mostly blank slate again when it comes to establishing them as a couple.