How will the success of Ultimate Spider-Man (2024) impact the franchise?

[bat39]

I feel like Peter would just be a hero in his 40s and you could avoid his kids being heroes or give them reduced powers. It's no different than what DC is doing with Superman or the Flash currently.

I'm fine with Spider-Man being about Youth but Youth doesnt stand still. Having him be 15 forever wouldn't be appealing to me. Youth is temporary so Peter moving forward is the way to go. Otherwise just have him live him in a timeless world like Archie or the Simpsons.

If Naruto and Goku could grow up then so can Peter.

thats a consequence of comic book time. Marvel and DC wanna have it both ways but they should just bite the bullet and commit to one style- either time moves forward or it doesnt.

Yeah, its tricky. Especially with Marvel, where they've more or less had the same unbroken continuity since 1962 (arguably since 1939).

But time has inevitably passed in the Marvel Universe, even if its a fraction of how much has passed in the real world. And if we acknowledge that time is passing, then we should we okay with the characters ageing and progressing in their lives. And since its a shared universe, that has to apply to everyone.

There used to be a 4:1 ratio when it came to calculating 'Marvel Time'. Based on that its been over 15 years since Peter got bitten by the spider, making him 30ish. And I think that lines up well with the sheer volume of events that have happened in his life. While Peter's still young, I don't see the need for him to not have the life of a 30 year old, and instead try to act like a college kid.

[godisawesome]

Yeah, its tricky. Especially with Marvel, where they've more or less had the same unbroken continuity since 1962 (arguably since 1939).

But time has inevitably passed in the Marvel Universe, even if its a fraction of how much has passed in the real world. And if we acknowledge that time is passing, then we should we okay with the characters ageing and progressing in their lives. And since its a shared universe, that has to apply to everyone.

There used to be a 4:1 ratio when it came to calculating 'Marvel Time'. Based on that its been over 15 years since Peter got bitten by the spider, making him 30ish. And I think that lines up well with the sheer volume of events that have happened in his life. While Peter's still young, I don't see the need for him to not have the life of a 30 year old, and instead try to act like a college kid.

An interesting note here in terms of the personality and "maturity" expected of adults in the US right now; there's been an increase in acceptance of heart-on-their-sleeve, "young at heart" men as still being mature, grown-ass adults, so long as they nail the serious moments and demonstrate personal responsibility and perspective. I'd argue this is sort of a two-way situation - enough of the old "be serious!" guys have started revealing they're still childish in their own way (see: most MAGA politicians, celebrities, and supporters) to offset that role model, and at the same time you've got guys like Jason Kelce redefining what a MAN can be without many of the old traits we were raised to expect.

The weird thing about this with Peter is that most young versions of him actually end up working hard to make him come off as wise beyond his years in spite of his inexperience and youth - and that most of the older, more experienced versions of him retain some of that dichotomy by reversing it a bit, and making him be a mtured hero, but still young at heart.

Peter's rarely been a true man-child, except in mostly these post-OMD stories.

[Huntsman Spider]

An interesting note here in terms of the personality and "maturity" expected of adults in the US right now; there's been an increase in acceptance of heart-on-their-sleeve, "young at heart" men as still being mature, grown-ass adults, so long as they nail the serious moments and demonstrate personal responsibility and perspective. I'd argue this is sort of a two-way situation - enough of the old "be serious!" guys have started revealing they're still childish in their own way (see: most MAGA politicians, celebrities, and supporters) to offset that role model, and at the same time you've got guys like Jason Kelce redefining what a MAN can be without many of the old traits we were raised to expect.

The weird thing about this with Peter is that most young versions of him actually end up working hard to make him come off as wise beyond his years in spite of his inexperience and youth - and that most of the older, more experienced versions of him retain some of that dichotomy by reversing it a bit, and making him be a mtured hero, but still young at heart.

Peter's rarely been a true man-child, except in mostly these post-OMD stories.

Particularly the original Ultimate Spider-Man, who was basically almost the only genuine hero in that iteration of the Marvel Universe, frequently railing against the hypocrisy and corruption prevalent in the adult world that even those who were supposed to be his role models or heroes in their own right just went along with, resigned themselves to, or otherwise accepted.

[Garlador]

True.

Mind you, Stan Lee did propose the "illusion of change" approach to Marvel continuity...which has since mutated into brand-enforced stagnancy.

But Stan also conceived of the Marvel Universe as a growing, evolving, changing world, and under his pen, Peter Parker did grow from a high-schooler to a college student - so it is but natural that he would eventually become a married man and a father over time.

This comes across from time to time, and I wanted to just chime in with Stan's response to the "Illusion of Change" claim.

"I don't recall ever emphasizing the 'illusion of change' or even using that phrase, though I might well have. As for the changes I did make, it was probably because I thought the series needed something to inject new life into it, yet something that wouldn't be out of character for our principals. It's difficult to have hard-and-fast rules when you're writing. Sometimes something hits you which you think would be a great idea, even if it goes against certain preconceived notions, or guidelines, you might have had. I tried to be as flexible as possible when writing about our characters." - Stan Lee

Stan was never opposed to making a permanent, sweeping change so long as he felt the book benefited from it.

[Daibhidh]

The weird thing about this with Peter is that most young versions of him actually end up working hard to make him come off as wise beyond his years in spite of his inexperience and youth - and that most of the older, more experienced versions of him retain some of that dichotomy by reversing it a bit, and making him be a mtured hero, but still young at heart.

Peter's rarely been a true man-child, except in mostly these post-OMD stories.

I've said it before: the manchild version of Peter isn't authentically young - it's a middle-aged man's fantasy of being young again.

[Huntsman Spider]

I've said it before: the manchild version of Peter isn't authentically young - it's a middle-aged man's fantasy of being young again.

Pretty much this. The more they try to push it, the more they tell on themselves.

[Frontier]

I think it's fine if Peter is not too young and not too old.

[bat39]

This comes across from time to time, and I wanted to just chime in with Stan's response to the "Illusion of Change" claim.



Stan was never opposed to making a permanent, sweeping change so long as he felt the book benefited from it.

I agree. I think his idea was that he realized the need to maintain some kind of permanent status quo with the characters which kept them in their recognizable (and 'brandable') forms, while still allowing the narrative to progress - which pretty much set the stage for comic-book continuity as we understand it today. But his approach sort of mutated over time into the mess we see with the Big Two now. Actually, its even messier with Marvel and their 'single' continuity...at least with DC, they literally rewrite the universe to set the clock back (though it doesn't take...as evidenced by their having to undo the New 52, and progress Superman's story even further than the pre-Flashpoint status quo).

I think it's fine if Peter is not too young and not too old.

I think 30 is about fine for where Peter should be right now, even accounting for comic-book time. And a 15 year time-span since the start of the Silver Age fits in with most of the other characters as well. I think the OG X-men are in their early to mid 30's. Tony Stark is in his early 40's. Reed and Ben are probably pushing 50. And so on.

[phonogram12]

In re to 616's age, I once read someone say online somewhere that "32 is 22 in the city and 32 is 52 in the suburbs." I don't necessarily think this is incorrect and I personally think it applies (although I'm sure I'll be lambasted for that lol).

In re to how time passes in the 616, I've read more than once that for every five years in real time, one year passes in the 616. If you use that as a baseline, he probably is around 30.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I've said it before: the manchild version of Peter isn't authentically young - it's a middle-aged man's fantasy of being young again.

Ironically, Spencer and Hickman's Peters feel way younger than Slott/Wells'. The former two actually bothered to portray him as Millennial coded - a guy in his late 20's and mid 30's (respectively) trying to figure out his next step in life.

That's way younger and more relatable than a middle-aged fantasy.

[Kevinroc]

Ironically, Spencer and Hickman's Peters feel way younger than Slott/Wells'. The former two actually bothered to portray him as Millennial coded - a guy in his late 20's and mid 30's (respectively) trying to figure out his next step in life.

That's way younger and more relatable than a middle-aged fantasy.

The problem is Peter under the BND writers has massive divorced guy energy.

[Huntsman Spider]

The problem is Peter under the BND writers has massive divorced guy energy.

Considering One More Day only happened because Quesada thought a simple divorce was worse than a literal Faustian bargain that wiped the marriage from continuity . . .

[JustLuke]

Considering One More Day only happened because Quesada thought a simple divorce was worse than a literal Faustian bargain that wiped the marriage from continuity . . .

[Huntsman Spider]

Indeed . . .

[Xix25]

Considering One More Day only happened because Quesada thought a simple divorce was worse than a literal Faustian bargain that wiped the marriage from continuity . . .

Always found this to be bizarre. Why not at least put in the effort if you want to break a couple up? Always baffling when creatives decide to take lazy shortcuts over hard work.