Thread Drift: Should Peter Parker be allowed to grow older?

[Pako]

Marvel is certainly short on young characters that have the mass appeal of Spider-man. Making him older would create a huge hole in their portfolio. I'm afraid stuff like young avengers and Ms. Marvel are too marred in identity politics to have the reach of someone like Spidey.

[jimishim12]

If he doesn't need a predetermined ending, then why the fear of growing a little bit older. No one's saying he should suddenly grow wrinkles and gray hair. Just stop treating him like the perpetual rookie who can't get his act together. The original X-men started out as teenagers should they go back to that stage? It's not like Marvel is short on characters who are young and can appeal to children (Young Avengers and Ms Marvel for example).

What works for X-men may not work for Spidey, since Peter's character is self contained most of the time in his stories which deal with his life learning and adapting from suffering as Spider-Man. And it's a staple that Peter is one of the most unluckiest and self sabotaging sobs in the marvel u, and no matter how much he does for others or makes a milestone in life, he'll stray from it and hold himself back due to another bad situation as spider-man or a someone he cares about suffers on his account or dies. Spider-man is like Batman lite sometimes, he's miserable yet driven to be unhealthly just and righteous for his mental and emotional sake. Tries to fill a void and bring end to his mistakes knowing it's gonna cost him his happiness.

Like I said it's his iconic niche and basis to keep him timeless and recognizable, him beng married and having children doesn't encompass the "Peter Parker" that is reknown through out the world and is characterized as the archtypical everyman and underdog. Fictional characters with spouses or established families should be the complete opposite of Peter Parker.

[Vortex85]

Like I said it's his iconic niche and basis to keep him timeless and recognizable, him beng married and having children doesn't encompass the "Peter Parker" that is reknown through out the world and is characterized as the archtypical everyman and underdog. Fictional characters with spouses or established families should be the complete opposite of Peter Parker.

Yet Spidey's status quo was well known as a married man for 20 years. This is what the comic world accepted him as and thousands of fans grew up on around the world. It could have very well been the primary status quo recognized in outside media and popular culture had they left it in place and adapted it in the movies. Yet, it was Marvel's decision to backpeddle on his progression and try to push a young version of the character that Peter had long ago left behind. Perhaps the success in the 2000s of Ultimate Spidey play a big part in this.

Anyway, was Spidey not Spidey in the countless comics over all those years to you? Was he the complete opposite of who he is at his core all that time? Were people constantly complaining that he was out of character? I certainly never felt that way and I would say the vast majorty of fans collecting all those years would agree. In fact, Peter seemed more like himself during that time because he is a character who is very family centered and for 20 years his was was his heart, his strength, his focus with MJ... and it was even built up in his previous romances to be the goal that he strived toward.

To suddenly say he is not recognizable being married is disproven by all the time that he WAS married and was recognized and known as that. This is why so many fans say Peter changed and is no longer himself after OMD. He is unrecognizable compared to pre-OMD Peter in that he seems to have abandoned his heart and soul and is now a shell of who he was. From the very beginning the idea of finding the one and getting married has been a key aspect of Parker's character. It was a realized fact for a very long time. Since OMD that aspect has been diminished so as to maintain Peter as a forever single, out of luck loser in his romantic endeavers.

Note that post-OMD has contained the longest stretches of non-monogamous relationship status for the character. So if anything, they have altered the norm for the character, in which he was previously in a serious relationsihp with one key love for many years thoughout most of his history. His great loves came in succession one after another and lasted in long stretches with very little gaps in between. These days it is very different, in fact the opposite... he is single mostly with very short romances that fall apart nearly immediately. He is not the same character he was for the past 50+ years when it comes to romance.

[KurtW95]

No. He shouldn't.

[Mister Mets]

Well, the marriage was reversed, so I don't know why they could not bring it back for another couple of decades and then revese it again, and back and forth forevermore.

Also, anyone who started reading Spidey in the late 80s, 90s, or early/mid 00s, grew up on a married Spider-Man.

That was my idea of the character, that was my Spider-Man... that was where I was waiting to see him go in the early movies.. and look forward to seeing adapted on film. Just as he graduated high school, finished up college... my Spider-Man got married and he could possibly also have a child. I found his marraige to MJ fascinating and an endless story engine. His future was still full of possibilities and great stories from there on. That was the character I was interested in.

Marvel defiled that great character and his great history and my excitement for where his life was headed, for something far inferior, a static single character unable to progress because they suddenly feared the character not being a figure of youth. His narrative was sacrificed for their brand. They dumped my Spidey and stuffed him back into his stereotypical mold never to go anywhere and we now know the character is full of impossibility. Once he could go anywhere, his life could change, he could grow. Now he can't, we know what Marvel are not willing to do. How is this better than what we had before?

How many comics were made with a married Spidey? How was that not proof enough that they could sustain that character and keep books selling just as easily as they do today, without having to abandon so much rich backstory that was beloved by so many fans.

Even during the marriage, Marvel made a few efforts to get to a single Peter Parker with the clone saga and the three years in which Peter and MJ were apart (either when she was believed dead, or when they were seperated.) And they were running out of ways to do that.

Personally, I felt that stories published in the 2000s in which Peter was single (The Best of Ultimate Spider-Man, Spider-Man Blue, Spider-Man/ Human Torch #1-4, Return of the Green Goblin, Jenkins' first issues/ Robot Master two-parter, The debut of Fusion, Coming Home) tended to be a better group than the stories in which he was in stable marriage.

The majoirity of the backstory was kept intact, and we've had some pretty good comics since.

Marvel is certainly short on young characters that have the mass appeal of Spider-man. Making him older would create a huge hole in their portfolio. I'm afraid stuff like young avengers and Ms. Marvel are too marred in identity politics to have the reach of someone like Spidey.

To be fair, Spider-Man arguably began as an identity politics character, given the appeal to younger readers in having a teenage hero who wasn't a sidekick.

[Tuck]

YAnyway, was Spidey not Spidey in the countless comics over all those years to you? Was he the complete opposite of who he is at his core all that time?

I remember Quesada saying that being single was integral to Peter's character. Made my head spin. At the time of that statement, the character had been married for nearly half his existence. Something that isn't part of a character's depiction for nearly half its existence is by definition not integral.

Marvel should just have said they believe single Peter is a better bet for the series' longevity. Most everything else they put out there to justify it came off as personal taste or just tap dancing like the above.

[Tuck]

since Peter's character is self contained most of the time in his stories which deal with his life learning and adapting from suffering as Spider-Man.

This requires passage of time.

And everything can't just be "a few years ago" forever. Eventually Secret Wars, Kraven's Last Hunt, The Clone Saga, and Civil War just about happened on top of each other.

[Pako]

To be fair, Spider-Man arguably began as an identity politics character, given the appeal to younger readers in having a teenage hero who wasn't a sidekick.

That's true, even if he still often ends up in the sidekick role outside of his own book. Though, age rarely becomes a literal defining point of character such that you never really hear people say "I love Spider-Man because he's young!" as opposed to "I love *character x* because they are *identity y*!".

[Phantom Roxas]

Even during the marriage, Marvel made a few efforts to get to a single Peter Parker with the clone saga and the three years in which Peter and MJ were apart (either when she was believed dead, or when they were seperated.) And they were running out of ways to do that.

Personally, I felt that stories published in the 2000s in which Peter was single (The Best of Ultimate Spider-Man, Spider-Man Blue, Spider-Man/ Human Torch #1-4, Return of the Green Goblin, Jenkins' first issues/ Robot Master two-parter, The debut of Fusion, Coming Home) tended to be a better group than the stories in which he was in stable marriage.

The majoirity of the backstory was kept intact, and we've had some pretty good comics since.

But were those stories better because they didn't focus on his marriage?

[cyberhubbs]

This requires passage of time.

And everything can't just be "a few years ago" forever. Eventually Secret Wars, Kraven's Last Hunt, The Clone Saga, and Civil War just about happened on top of each other.

For folks trying to figure out the timeline solely to appease their own curiosity, sure. Otherwise, "a few years ago" still works. It's cute when Morrison did it with Batman, but no one is going out of their mind because of it.

[Tuck]

For folks trying to figure out the timeline solely to appease their own curiosity, sure. Otherwise, "a few years ago" still works. It's cute when Morrison did it with Batman, but no one is going out of their mind because of it.

Can't really have it both ways. They want the books to be both episodic and serialized. They want all the history to be part of Spider-Man's past . . . but they want it ignored at the same time. I used the events to use the events. But it matters when Gwen died, and when MJ went to Florida, when Felicia left . . . all that. And it's practically on top of itself.

It goes beyond curiosity. At a certain point, it's no longer asking for suspension of disbelief, it's asking for suspension of interest in the very story the reader needs to be interested in to fork over the increasing cover price.

It works with 15 or 20 years of real-world history. Five decades and counting, it works less every day. Secret Wars is in some way supposed to address this.

[SidheKnight]

Can't really have it both ways. They want the books to be both episodic and serialized. They want all the history to be part of Spider-Man's past . . . but they want it ignored at the same time. I used the events to use the events. But it matters when Gwen died, and when MJ went to Florida, when Felicia left . . . all that. And it's practically on top of itself.

It goes beyond curiosity. At a certain point, it's no longer asking for suspension of disbelief, it's asking for suspension of interest in the very story the reader needs to be interested in to fork over the increasing cover price.

It works with 15 or 20 years of real-world history. Five decades and counting, it works less every day. Secret Wars is in some way supposed to address this.

Let's hope you're right. I was very disappointed when I heard SW wasn't a reboot.

[Mister Mets]

But were those stories better because they didn't focus on his marriage?

At the very least, it doesn't suggest the marriage made for better stories.

That's true, even if he still often ends up in the sidekick role outside of his own book. Though, age rarely becomes a literal defining point of character such that you never really hear people say "I love Spider-Man because he's young!" as opposed to "I love *character x* because they are *identity y*!".

Age has been mentioned as part of the character's appeal.

It's a bit complex in terms of identity politics because there have been plenty of young heroes introduced later, and some people think the major appeal of the character is that he's grown. Age does leads to unusual interest groups, because it's not a permanent characteristic.

[Phantom Roxas]

At the very least, it doesn't suggest the marriage made for better stories.

That's not answering the question. What made those particular stories better? Why do you need to bundle the stories into "groups" to prove that the "single" group (Which includes a series set in a completely different universe) is better than the "married" group?

[jimishim12]

That's not answering the question. What made those particular stories better? Why do you need to bundle the stories into "groups" to prove that the "single" group (Which includes a series set in a completely different universe) is better than the "married" group?

Because Spider-Man as a whole isn't about "Marriage".