How to Fix Spider-Man (Circa 1997)

[Mister Mets]

I haven't read it in years, but "Sticky Situation," this Wizard article from more than a decade ago probably convinced me that the magazine's staff (who viewed the marriage as a problem, long before Quesada was Editor in Chief of Marvel) had an excellent handle on what the Spider-Man comics should be like..

Presumably there's going to be a lot of disagreement (and some agreement.) But what do you guys think of their criteria for what makes the Spider-Man comics work? What other stuff are they neglecting? And how would the current Spider-Man comics hold up to either standard?

[Mister Mets]

And the rest of it.

[Aruran.]

The funny thing about this though is that it's 10 years before the major retcon that "fixes" Spider-Man.

The thing I found weird was where they wanted his youth to be. I honestly don't find him young when he's in grad school, cause that's optional for him to do. By all means he's as much of an adult going through grad school as he is married.

I think what stands out, is that a ton of people who have a specific version of Spider-Man ends up being that of the 80s. They want him in grad school, struggling on bills, being smart enough to beat a crook but not smart to remember to do his laundry. I find it weird to be honest, cause it's pretty much a crappy life. Like so many adaptions never show that moment in Peter's life, so when I read it, I just don't except his life to be hard at that point. I'm used to the idea of Peter being a teenager, cause I always figured when he's an adult, everything is gonna be fine.

[MrHashasheen]

*shrug* I ain't the biggest Spidey fan. I've watched the films up till AS1, followed Spectacular and Ultimate on television and collected Ultimate + Superior + Mary Jane Loves Spiderman's various miniseries only. I'm just over twenty, have never had the inclination to go back into the deep roster of stories and arcs.

But I can honestly say that I find the "fixed" Spiderman suggestions above to be flat out boring in some aspects. Don't get me wrong, a younger, developing Spiderman obviously works. It did for Ultimates, it's working on television and in film. But I'm of the position that characters, superheroes, the setting itself can and should age and change. Spiderman going from secondary to university to teaching to Horizon to Parker Industries works just fine for me. Him settling down with MJ or anyone else also works fine. Him having kids is just dandy too. So when I see stuff like this, where people are asking for things to go back to a certain period or style, I can understand where they're coming from. It worked once, and I'm sure it was great.

But I'm pretty sure I've seen Spiderman redo his teenage years and early adulthood a dozen times over with another dozen or three that I haven't read. I've seen the classical "villain is born to threaten Spiderman", the "Why is Spiderman such a menace", "Peter you're very unreliable", "Peter, why can't you be there for me?", the "I must guard my secrete jealously and inform no one!", the "I have no money and am an eternal down-on-my-luck loser, but tomorrow is another day!" etc... and it's just not for me.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

A few good points--1997 isn't to my knowledge exactly a golden age for the character, and that does show some good reasons why--but it makes the same mistakes as BND a decade later, thinking hangdog misery, permanently arrested development and refusing to move past 1973 or so are the "keys" to the character.

[Doc Ock]

Back around '97, I totally agreed with this article. I was a teenager, and it spoke to everything that was frustrating about the comics at the time.

But now, 17 years later, I don't agree.

I can handle changes to the character, as long as the essence of the character remains. Conflict and change are fundamental to narratives, so I don't think Peter should be forced to stay young. Let him grow and change, at least a little.

He certainly shouldn't still be struggling to make ends meet. And I think it's OK that a few people know his identity.

Aunt May should know, for goodness sakes. Let that relationship mature too. That's why JDM's and JMD's Aunt May stories were so powerful - they showed the characters growing, changing, maturing.

However, I do agree that the dead should stay dead. Can someone explain to me what was gained by bringing Harry back?

Wow, reading this again took me right back to myself in the 90s - I remember how passionate (and angry) I felt as the Spider-Man stories were going down the toilet during that era.

[Derek Metaltron]

What all this amounts to is that the writer of this article wanted Peter to be exactly the same as he had been 20 years earlier, and I honestly think that's not the way to go. I've varied over Dan Slott's run so far but I have to admit he's let some things change drastically for Peter, even if he's also prevented some logical things from happening too like finally allowing MJ and Peter to at least date again.

Ditto on the Aunt May knowing thing, incidently.

[Cameron Samurai]

Ultimately, none of this fixes Spidey, it just shows some people are trapped in the past and refuse to move forward. That's why I love Spider-Girl and the daily strips far more, they actually advance things and loosen up a lot of the established ideas because they have more freedom to do so due to their "a.u" status. Stories like OMD has actually accomplished nothing in the long run, all they did was convince me and many others the mainstream continuity is a joke and to continue to invest time and money in it beleiving it to be the "end-all/be-all" of canons is, if you ask me, just a tad silly.

This is no longer the same story you've been reading since 1962 and there is no shame in admitting that. People should realize not only that the emperor is naked...but if you know where to look, Peter's story is either complete or is far more routinely uncomplicated, and that's actually proven refreshing and more reallistic. A seasoned pro like Peter would have an easier time as he advances rather than a tough ordeal. Spider-Man should not be about youth, it should be about an everyman's life.

"We're all different people all through our lives, and that's good, you've got to keep moving...so long as you remember all the people that you used to be. I will never forget one line of this. Not one day. I swear"

-Doctor 11, "Time of the Doctor"

[Scott Taylor]

They recommended divorce as the way to keep Spider-Man young and get rid of the marriage.

Most of the recommendations are ok, but similar to Tom Brevoort's manifesto the entire article is overthinking things. Bottom line is that if you get a good writer in there with good ideas that mesh with the fans, then sales happen.

Slott freaking killed Peter and replaced him with Doc Ock! I don't see that anywhere in the recommendations, and yet it was a huge success. JMS did things that, if you heard them out loud before they happened, would have made most Spider-fans cringe. And yet - his run brought back Spidey's popularity. And notice - one of those runs happened during the marriage and the other happened without the marriage.

Status quo is less important than people make it out to be. The marriage makes no difference whatsoever to Spidey's success. Its the writing and creativity that matters. The 1990s started out well but became a cruise-control period of fast-food Spidey.

[Cameron Samurai]

Slott freaking killed Peter and replaced him with Doc Ock! I don't see that anywhere in the recommendations, and yet it was a huge success

It's also a terrible story that doesnt hold up on any objective level and makes every character look terrible, it's, in my opinion, worse than the Clone Saga, which people forget also was a success once upon a time.

Most of JMS's run's acclaim came from advancing the stories and breaking traditions such as Aunt May knowing the identity, Peter exposing his identity, and the strengthening of his relationship with MJ.

I'll take 90s fast-food Spidey over 2007-Present day car-crash Spidey anyday.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

I agree with Doc Ock
Harry's death doesn't bother me though

[Xenon]

The fact that they highlight certain complaints that I've had makes me really want to agree with them....but as others have said a lot of what they say just fits into the "I want it a certain way" territory.

They're completely right about Death, Intelligence, The Depressed Optimist, and Unwavering Ethics. They're right in concept about Humor and Environment, but those seem to be very of the moment complaint. Like, some issues just aren't going to hit the right spot for people in those areas, that doens't mean they're fundamentally broken. And I get their concern about his secret identity...but I'm not sure it was truly warranted in 1997. By 2007, sure. NOW....sure. But MJ, Felicia, and a handful of super-types (on both sides of the law) isn't a big deal.

I'd say they're totally wrong on everything else. Most of them are just nostalgia plays, where they want Spider-Man to be like he was in 1967 or 1982 or whatever. The Rogue's gallery thing I particularly object to because as much as I love Spidey's Rogues, I also really appreciate both trying a new villain out and trying to make a good story with a lesser villain. Obviously, they're not always going to succeed. But at the time this came out we were like a year removed from a really great Mysterio arc that everyone forgets about, so it's not like no A-Listers were around, you just can't rely on them too much.

I guess they're also basically right about the costume, but I have no objection to Reilly having his own suit. So, in context, I say that's wrong too.

Also, note how in the "The Future" they reference the first Clone Saga as a bad thing. It's...interesting.