Dan Slott Killed Peter Parker - This Time For Good

[Phantom Roxas]

I don't think he has to fail. It's just that if Peter being a worldwide success points to that being the norm, then failure is what I would default as the opposite of that. But like I said, I could be wrong about what cyberhubbs was getting at, so he might be saying that Peter has to fail either.

[JackDaw]

Surprised thread has gone on so long...not a complaint, just an observation.

After all although the original posting was cogently argued, it's hard to see how any veteran comics fan could really agree with it.

Here are the main reasons why I feel that way (all points made by others):-

Peter has always been written as a genius, very healthy, and with good social skills (his default mode is to treat others well and fairly). People like that often go on to big successes...writing him as getting on is entirely consistent with the way he's always been characterised. Writing a guy like that as an Everyman or a loser forever becomes increasingly fatuous.

In mainstream comics characters come back from the dead, are continually relaunched, and regressed to an earlier set-up in all sorts of ways multiple times. How can anybody believe that any particular change is irreversible?? Given that OP has read a lot of comics, have to assume his argument was largely made for a bit of banter...genuinely struggle to see how a veteran fan could believe it.

[cyberhubbs]

I don't think he has to fail. It's just that if Peter being a worldwide success points to that being the norm, then failure is what I would default as the opposite of that. But like I said, I could be wrong about what cyberhubbs was getting at, so he might be saying that Peter has to fail either.

I don't know if the failure is totally on him. Peter's company could get bushwacked out of nowhere, he loses everything through no real fault on his part. Or maybe he does screw everything up somehow. Maybe he has to make a choice.

There'll be a reversal of fortune, sure, but not quite sure how much of the blame will ultimately fall on Peter's shoulders. Or at least, how much will fall fairly on him.

[jackolover]

Archetype: An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned. I can call it zero-point Spidey if that pleases?

Either way as per your reply, that's progression in one direction, sure. Progress isn't just a straight line A to B on one axis, however. You can progress along many paths, and what happening here is a natural evolution from a different aspect of the character of Peter Parker, namely his aptitude as a technological and scientific genius, which is very much "old Peter". I would argue that many facets of Spider-Man's personality are still very present, just that different sides of it now are being highlighted, which is often mistaken as OH GOD NO, CHAAANGE!.
Beyond all that, have you ever thought this may be a story designed as a cautionary tale of what happens when Spider-Man bites off more than he can chew? Who can say what Slott has planned, but it's not uncommon for a character to be taken into new ground with more power than they're accustomed, only to learn that they've lost sight of themselves. We're only 3-4 issues into this new run but if you want to preemptively call it then that's your prerogative, I guess...

Did Peter Parker have a change of life in Dan Slotts run? I haven't read much Spidey for a while so I might have missed a moment where Peter just says, he has spent too much of his life torturing himself, and now he'll act more responsible by being supportive of his family? That can make Peter Parker change enough that he is unrecognisable from his previous life.

[jackolover]

Who justc o happens to be one of the most beatiful women in Marvel comics to the point where her gorgeousness is a big element for selling pinups of female heroes as a fanservice ploy despite not being a heroine herself. Face it, not everything in spiderman is logically relatable and realistically grounded, Peter is just as much as impossible as superman in its versatility and plotting devices as is any hero is

So you think Peter Parker is a contradiction, in that he acts poor but is in reality rich in reward?

[jackolover]

Would it be too much to suggest that a) Peter Parker would have been a successful person if the spider hadn't bitten him, but b) he never would become a CEO type because being Spidey allowed him to develop the aggressive skills needed to be a business success. Peter, sans spider bite, may have become rich if he lucked into a good deal, based on his science skills (but maybe not; he might have gotten cheated with work for hire contracts), but Peter Parker/Spider Man had the exact skills needed to build a business overnight.

People still talk about the Parker luck and I put this down to Peters arrogance before the Spider bite. I don't know whether the Parker luck dictated Peters life his whole career, but he fought it a lot. Everything he tried, it failed. No that's not right. There was a lot of success there with beating villains and slipping out from under impossible weights. But those were not dealing with his arrogance, but with pushing out all his selfishness and replacing it with selflessness, and this was successful.

[jackolover]

Surprised thread has gone on so long...not a complaint, just an observation.

After all although the original posting was cogently argued, it's hard to see how any veteran comics fan could really agree with it.

Here are the main reasons why I feel that way (all points made by others):-

Peter has always been written as a genius, very healthy, and with good social skills (his default mode is to treat others well and fairly). People like that often go on to big successes...writing him as getting on is entirely consistent with the way he's always been characterised. Writing a guy like that as an Everyman or a loser forever becomes increasingly fatuous.

In mainstream comics characters come back from the dead, are continually relaunched, and regressed to an earlier set-up in all sorts of ways multiple times. How can anybody believe that any particular change is irreversible?? Given that OP has read a lot of comics, have to assume his argument was largely made for a bit of banter...genuinely struggle to see how a veteran fan could believe it.

I'm not sure a Peter Parker type, with all his personable abilities must be a success. One would have to interview his circle of friends and get their real,opinions of Peter from Harry, Gwen, MJ, Aunt May, and JJJ. Then you would find out why Peter never made it.

A Bendis 4 pages of head panels responding to interviews would work well to portray this.

[Rick Dean]

Surprised thread has gone on so long...not a complaint, just an observation.

After all although the original posting was cogently argued, it's hard to see how any veteran comics fan could really agree with it.

Here are the main reasons why I feel that way (all points made by others):-

Peter has always been written as a genius, very healthy, and with good social skills (his default mode is to treat others well and fairly). People like that often go on to big successes...writing him as getting on is entirely consistent with the way he's always been characterised. Writing a guy like that as an Everyman or a loser forever becomes increasingly fatuous.

In mainstream comics characters come back from the dead, are continually relaunched, and regressed to an earlier set-up in all sorts of ways multiple times. How can anybody believe that any particular change is irreversible?? Given that OP has read a lot of comics, have to assume his argument was largely made for a bit of banter...genuinely struggle to see how a veteran fan could believe it.

Hi Jack - I appreciate your reply. The argument wasn't completely meant for banter. I do believe that the Peter we are presented with in Volume 4 is not the Peter we know and love (by 'we' I mean those who have been familiar with the character for decades). I normally do not post, as is evident from the fact that I recently re-joined the forum, and I could not sit back without saying something (which is exactly why I rejoined). I know it will fall on deaf ears and that those in disagreement will come out of the woodwork with poorly formulated arguments and simple minded brush-offs (Dan's made me laugh but he really fails to impress). I get the retcons, regressions, and character developments, and I respect a writer's attempts to both tell a narrative while also catering to his/her employer's (and marketer's) whims. This present Volume reeks of marketing and a desire to build a character that will hopefully sell gadgets, toys, and whatever else is being planned behind the scenes.

So, as a veteran reader, someone who gets, it, and a fan of the medium, I needed to get it off of my chest. That being said, I've been buying the title since the 70's and do have a considerable amount of time invested in the character. I will continue to do so while I wait for another writer to run with the torch.

nuff said?

[Prof. Warren]

Hi Jack - I appreciate your reply. The argument wasn't completely meant for banter. I do believe that the Peter we are presented with in Volume 4 is not the Peter we know and love (by 'we' I mean those who have been familiar with the character for decades). I normally do not post, as is evident from the fact that I recently re-joined the forum, and I could not sit back without saying something (which is exactly why I rejoined). I know it will fall on deaf ears and that those in disagreement will come out of the woodwork with poorly formulated arguments and simple minded brush-offs (Dan's made me laugh but he really fails to impress). I get the retcons, regressions, and character developments, and I respect a writer's attempts to both tell a narrative while also catering to his/her employer's (and marketer's) whims. This present Volume reeks of marketing and a desire to build a character that will hopefully sell gadgets, toys, and whatever else is being planned behind the scenes.

So, as a veteran reader, someone who gets, it, and a fan of the medium, I needed to get it off of my chest. That being said, I've been buying the title since the 70's and do have a considerable amount of time invested in the character. I will continue to do so while I wait for another writer to run with the torch.

nuff said?

As another veteran reader, someone also familiar with the character for decades (started reading when Gerry Conway's first stint on ASM was current, so...quite a while), I feel safe in saying that you're completely off base. People who know the character as well or better than you are enjoying the new status quo and can easily see Peter achieving the success he has with Parker Industries.

Yes, it's a different scenario than we're used to seeing him in but there's nothing in his history or character that would preclude it from happening. While historically he's been the guy who could never catch a break, it's very plausible to imagine that someone as scientifically gifted as he is would eventually find success. As a longtime fan, I'm enjoying seeing Peter finally live up to his full potential.

If it doesn't appeal to you, that's fair. But your familiarity with the character doesn't trump anyone else's.

[JackDaw]

Hi Jack - I appreciate your reply. The argument wasn't completely meant for banter. I do believe that the Peter we are presented with in Volume 4 is not the Peter we know and love (by 'we' I mean those who have been familiar with the character for decades). I normally do not post, as is evident from the fact that I recently re-joined the forum, and I could not sit back without saying something (which is exactly why I rejoined). I know it will fall on deaf ears and that those in disagreement will come out of the woodwork with poorly formulated arguments and simple minded brush-offs (Dan's made me laugh but he really fails to impress). I get the retcons, regressions, and character developments, and I respect a writer's attempts to both tell a narrative while also catering to his/her employer's (and marketer's) whims. This present Volume reeks of marketing and a desire to build a character that will hopefully sell gadgets, toys, and whatever else is being planned behind the scenes.

So, as a veteran reader, someone who gets, it, and a fan of the medium, I needed to get it off of my chest. That being said, I've been buying the title since the 70's and do have a considerable amount of time invested in the character. I will continue to do so while I wait for another writer to run with the torch.

nuff said?

The quote from the original posting that made me smile most was "Unless Peter wakes up from it all to find he’s been dreaming all along there is no coming back from this one folks. Peter is finally dead and I for one miss him greatly.". Was I really the only person thinking..."well yes, that's one of a dozen ways.."

In my experience the only "irreversible" change is the one that sells more comics over the long term. Anything else...one that gives a short term boost but doesn't win the hearts and minds of more fans...can be, and is reversed. In any number of ways. This has happened to Spider-man/ Peter Parker repeatedly over the years. Cosmic powers, new suits, different girl friends, single, married, single, etc, etc. Tell me with a straight face...that with all your experience of the character...that you really believe the latest change is "irreversible".

For me, the one "irreversible" change that has has happened to Peter Parker in his long career came when John Romita changed the way he was drawn. Let's face it...since then he's been drawn like a hollywood star, completely different from the Steve Ditko "ordinary kid". That change will...I predict...never be reversed....because its proven much more popular for large majority of fans. (For the record, I'm in the minority that greatly prefers the Steve Ditko "version")

So real question is that: "Do you really believe that in long term clear majority of fans will prefer new Peter Parker set-up"?? I don't...think eventually we'll get back to "business as usual"...like we've done loads of times over the history of the character. (Again not my personal preference...would love to see genuine long lasting sensible character progression.)

[JackDaw]

I'm not sure a Peter Parker type, with all his personable abilities must be a success. One would have to interview his circle of friends and get their real,opinions of Peter from Harry, Gwen, MJ, Aunt May, and JJJ. Then you would find out why Peter never made it.

A Bendis 4 pages of head panels responding to interviews would work well to portray this.

I agree...never meant to imply that big financial success...was the only possible outcome for some one of Peter's personality and skills. Becoming a successful research scientist, a teacher or another half dozen possibilities come to mind. What I was suggesting that becoming a big financial success is certainly a possible outcome...no need to write Peter out of character for that to happen.

And equally...there are many ways..that the big financial success could be reversed without writing him out of character. No need for any "it was all a dream" scenario in the future if you want to write him again as not having much money. (In fact I'd argue that showing him as walking away from wealth...because he realises other things are more important to him....might be most meaningful character progression he's had for a long time.)

[jimishim12]

I think Peter having a huge grand changing fortune, would mature Peter better than being married or having a teaching job ever did(without having to sacrafice some freedom or limited boundries, CEO's are basically leaders that utilize visions and ideas for the freedom of human society), it helps him see himself what it's like to be the big man on top and puts him ahead in helping comphrend his own mantra a bit better. How he can show people what he always stood for as proof of his life from being a normal average person who could represent the drive to achieve anything. He can finally understand what true "responsibility" means for a man who came from nothing and sets an example as the boss of the statistics he belonged to.

[boots]

Hi Jack - I appreciate your reply. The argument wasn't completely meant for banter. I do believe that the Peter we are presented with in Volume 4 is not the Peter we know and love (by 'we' I mean those who have been familiar with the character for decades). I normally do not post, as is evident from the fact that I recently re-joined the forum, and I could not sit back without saying something (which is exactly why I rejoined). I know it will fall on deaf ears and that those in disagreement will come out of the woodwork with poorly formulated arguments and simple minded brush-offs (Dan's made me laugh but he really fails to impress). I get the retcons, regressions, and character developments, and I respect a writer's attempts to both tell a narrative while also catering to his/her employer's (and marketer's) whims. This present Volume reeks of marketing and a desire to build a character that will hopefully sell gadgets, toys, and whatever else is being planned behind the scenes.

So, as a veteran reader, someone who gets, it, and a fan of the medium, I needed to get it off of my chest. That being said, I've been buying the title since the 70's and do have a considerable amount of time invested in the character. I will continue to do so while I wait for another writer to run with the torch.

nuff said?

most who critiqued your dramatic original post are either long term readers or have read enough to be considered a "troo fann". not that it invalidates their points either way.

one moment while i bring the high horse round for you sir.

[Ravin' Ray]

We are now supposed to believe that awkward young man who only wanted to turn back the hands of time to stop a burglar is now a confident billionaire.

After today's developments in ASM #5 I'd give that a second look

PS - Dan, if you ever read this, I admire your knowledge of the past and your ability to mine it for connections. You simply failed to understand Peter.

Maybe; but it could also be that the Peter you envision is different from the Peter he envisions (and which in turn is different from the Peter I envision), and is there that one definitive official Peter that Slott has abandoned?

[KOSLOX]

(by 'we' I mean those who have been familiar with the character for decades).

No, you're using "we" as a means to validate your own opinion. You're speaking only for yourself so don't use the term "we" unless you have some sort of collective at the desk helping you type.