Thread Drift: Should Spider-Man Get Older?

[Miles To Go]

Have you ever watched the Simpsons?

I'm surprised anyone still does these days.

That's a textbook example of something being reduced to stagnation by the Peter Pan method.

[Lee]

I'm surprised anyone still does these days.

That's a textbook example of something being reduced to stagnation by the Peter Pan method.

The Simpsons' problem since the end of the '90s has been bad writing. If Bart was 40 years old the show wouldn't suddenly become funny again. In fact there have been several episodes set in the future that were still lousy.

South Park is an example of a show that takes the same approach and is still well regarded.

[Miles To Go]

South Park is an example of a show that takes the same approach and is still well regarded.

It's been a mixed bag for a while as well. Season 20 was god awful (although the election had a lot to do with that)

And Barthood is one of those rare recent future-based episodes that was really good, probably the best one next to Lisa's Wedding.

[Spidercide]

Not at all. The passage of time is the same as it's ever been. Sometimes it goes faster, sometimes slower, but it always goes back to status qou (more or less.) You just don't like the stories anymore. Don't try to say it's anything else because it's not.

No. You are entirely mistaken.

History lesson time:


Progression was a MAJOR thing in the 1960s era of Marvel, deliberately so to reject the DC way or working.

In the 1970s Marvel foolishly attempted to implement the 'illusion of change'. This was a major cause of their problems during that decade.

Indeed many 1970s Marvel franchises were a shitton less vital and creative in the 1970s than beforehand. In fact this is a major reason why Gwen Stacy was killed off. Her death led to major consequential change which injected life back into the franchise.

Change and progression was also a vital component to Claremont's/the most successful ever run of X-Men. He even wrote that in a forward to I think the original Wolverine mini-series.

And that was published during the Jim Shooter era of mostly the 1980s when again, progression was a llowed to happen and surprise surprise multiple iconic and acclaimed runs on the characters popped up and it is to this day the most critically and possibly financially successful era of Marvel's entire history.

Marvel's mantra of change and progression was so successful DC in the first Crisis decided to get in on the action orientating thier universe to a new model wherein things could work more like the MU and change and progression happened. It's no surprise one of the most successful and beloved eras of Superman was the era from the beginning of Byrne's run up to about the marriage and a bit beyond.

So no.

Things don't 'always go back to status quo'.

Or did I miss the Spider-Man reverting to a high school or college student living with Harry Osborn?

Daredevil engaged in a love triangle with Karen Page and Foggy/dating Black Widow outside of NYC?

Bucky being Cap's teen sidekick.

Tony's identity being secret from the public.

Etc, etc, etc.

The entire 'everything always goes back to status quo' argument is lazy and doesn't actually show much of an attention to detail, broadburshing events.

Don't try to say it's anything else because it's not.

P.S. The stories have legitimately been garbage if you know anything about good writing, literary analysis,characterization, etc.

P.P.S. Progression>>>>>>>>>>>>>Regresssion/stagnation

[AJBopp]

No. You are entirely mistaken.

History lesson time:


Progression was a MAJOR thing in the 1960s era of Marvel, deliberately so to reject the DC way or working.

In the 1970s Marvel foolishly attempted to implement the 'illusion of change'. This was a major cause of their problems during that decade.

Indeed many 1970s Marvel franchises were a shitton less vital and creative in the 1970s than beforehand. In fact this is a major reason why Gwen Stacy was killed off. Her death led to major consequential change which injected life back into the franchise.

First, when Gwen was killed, Amazing Spider-man was in no need of having life injected into it. It was doing extraordinarily well for a title about 10 years old. Gwen was killed because they didn't know what else to do with Peter's relationship with her (basically the same reason his marriage to MJ was killed). The writes were lazy then and they continue to be lazy today.

Second, I think you might be confusing "change" with "progression" and "character development." It's a common source of confusion. Comic creators are big on change (you can tell by the number of times creators have vowed to "shake things up"). But even in the 60, there was virtually no character development fromd ASM 15 through ASM200. They just kept changing things superficially to portray Peter the same way in a different setting.

It's still happening today. (Note that I'm saying that's necessarily a bad thing)

[Spidercide]

Dude they recycled a plotline from Spec Magazine #1 not that long before Gwen’s death. The overall quality of the late Stan Lee run was generally not that great. Even the death of George Stacy was good more for that one scene than the whole story. The Drug Trilogy had some great scenes with Harry but that was the second time they’d done the “Norman remembers he’s evil!” plotline. Third time if you count Spec magazine #2 and Annual #9 seperately. The Drug Trilogy though I love it because it was early in my reading of Spider-Man, was nowhere near as good in regards to the Norman stuff as Annual #9 and came off as a lighter retread of that stuff spiced up only in two moments across three issues, the first being when Gobby used a chemical to remove Spidey’s wall crawling abilities (why did he never use that again?) and the second being when the sight of Harry caused him to falter.

Then you have the whole Gwen stuff with her Dad. Yeah it was explored more but it was the same basic idea as happened with Betty and her brother. A family member of one of Spider-Man’s love interests dies during a scuffle between him and Doc Ock and his love interest blames him for their death.


Finally you have ASM #100 which is I’m sorry a crappy issue even by Silver Age standards. To begin with its at least arguably OOC for Peter to quit like that but even if you don’t think so the whole issue is more or less a clip show come dream sequence of no consequence beyond a really stupid shock reveal at the end which happened to lead into another weak storyline by Roy Thomas notable only because it debuted Morbius. Morbius is a cool character but a lame ass Spider-Man villain.

Then we got garbage like the Savage Land arc with Gog which ripped off King Kong, maybe existed for the sake of putting Gwen in a bikini, and you know...wasn’t a story with any elements which actually pertain to Spider-Man himself.

Oh...and Aunt May ran away from home because Gwen yelled at her and now she was Doc Ock’s house keeper.

This wasn’t even stuff just in that stretch either. Honestly the series had been slowly starting to go downhill like around issue #60-70. There were SOME good things here and there but over all the series was nowhere near the quality it had had up until the MP trilogy or the early Romita issues.

And iut’s no conicience that was the era where Peter’s aging and progression started to really slow the Hell down compared to the rapid speed of the first say 28 issues.
So yes. 100% the series needed new life injected into it. it was NOT in a good place at all. From Gwen’s death onwards though, as silly as the superhero side of things could be goddam was there waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better plotlines for Peter’s normal life.

Peter’s realistic grieving of Gwen.

Harry’s descent into madness.

Mary Jane’s maturation.

Peter and MJ falling in love.

Peter coping with the return of Gwen.

This is all stuff which was not only better written than a lot of the pre-ASm #121 era stories but was also more in line with the themes and concepts behind Spider-Man rather than having him fight a friggin alien in the savage land.

Gwen wasn’t killed off due to laziness. She was killed off because

a) Some people felt there was nothing else to do with her beyond marriage
b) They were mandated to kill off someone to shake things up and of the two viable options Aunt May was ruled out
c) Conway preferred MJ and thought she was a better character/love interest (accurate)
d) Conway disliked Gwen and thought she sucked shit as a character (also accurate)

Gwen Stacy was so poor as a character that to have ‘developed’ her would’ve meant effectively changing her to the point where she was unrecognizable...at which point you might as well just INVENT a new character wholesale.


Dude...what book were you reading?


Peter Parker in ASm #1 is very obviously not the same as the guy in ASM #33 or ASM #50 or ASm #150 or ASM #200.

He clearly developed as a character. He became a shitton more confidant, more sociable, how he handled his relationship with MJ was markedly different from how he handled things with Gwen or Betty. Hell just compare the first page of AF #15 where he is a shy wall flower who later timidly tries to ask out Sally Avrill to the end of ASM #7 where he is pretty comfortably flirting with Betty Brant.

There was plenty of development for his character it just maybe wasn’t all that obvious all the time.

Mary Jane also developed clearly under Conway’s run though you could argue it began in the Drug Trilogy.

Flash developed from a jock jerkass bully to a genuine friend to Peter and Harry.

Harry developed in ways I really shouldn’t have to spell out.

Really Jonah and Aunt May were the ones stuck in the mud.

Now were there certain traits that were consistent in Peter’s character? Sure, but retaining certain traits doesn’t = no development. Especially when you consider some of those never changing traits are there by virtue of this being a superhero book. E.g. he’s always going to go into action.

So no, it is as I said. Development and progression USED to happen but now Marvel have leaned hard on the toxic illusion of change creative model.

[Alan2099]

So no, it is as I said. Development and progression USED to happen but now Marvel have leaned hard on the toxic illusion of change creative model.

Well, everytime they try to change or make the characters grow now, people cry about how it's out of character and how what the character is doing right now doesn't fit with the character because they've never done it before.

[Lee]

And iut’s no conicience that was the era where Peter’s aging and progression started to really slow the Hell down compared to the rapid speed of the first say 28 issues.

There wasn't any indication of gradual aging. The first 27 issues had a firm status quo, then #28 was a milestone event in Peter's life to shake up that status quo.

To put it another way, if the comic was cancelled and #27 was the last issue, you wouldn't have known that Peter was any older than he was in #1.

[Spidercide]

Well, everytime they try to change or make the characters grow now, people cry about how it's out of character and how what the character is doing right now doesn't fit with the character because they've never done it before.

a) SOME people cry about it not all

b) 90% of the time they do stupid changes.


Look it's not about ANY change. It's about both organic changes and ones along a progressive trajectory or trajectory which goes against the core philosophies of the characters/series.


There is a WORLD of difference between say Spider-Man graduating high school or moving out of Aunt May's house as a source of change and growth and

- Having a mental breakdown and calling himself THE SPIDER

- Being revealed as a clone

- becoming a fugitive with his identity exposed to the world

- Getting an unrealistic dream job which allows him to solve basically any major plot contrivance

- Becoming a CEO of a billion dollar global tech conglomerate.


ALL of those eithe betray older stories, comprmize stories you can do int he future or just fundamentally fuck up the core premise and appeal of the character.

Now compare that to say, Carol Danvers' becoming Captain Marvel. Big change but most people to my observation are okay with it.

Compare it to the fan reaction to MJ's pregnancy in the 1990s. Most people were a-okay with that and accepting of it.

Or to Dick temporarily becoming Batman? Again people were okay with that.

That's because those changes are again organic to the characters and make sense in context. They are invited by the character's past and the core philosophies underpinning the series.

Carol dwarfed Mar-Vell and his family members in popularity and recognition a long ass time ago. Given that and the fact that Marvel wanted to maintain that brand name given it's literally their company's name it made all the sense in the world to have Carol, a character who's been inconsistent with her identities anyway, to take up the moniker of her friend and character who she was originally a distaff counterpart of. Now Marvel has married a popular name they want to maintain with a popular character who's established to readers.

In the case of the pregnancy to many people having a kid after getting married is a fairly common step in life and ties strongly into the themes of responsiility in Spider-Man.

Dick becoming Batman not only had precedent but because Dick was coded as Bruce's son and was objectively his student and metaphorically his squire having him inherit up his 'father's' mantle not only made sense but was welcomed because readers KNEW Dick. He'd more than earned their respect and faith as a character.

You know what none of those things are?

None of those things are Riri Williams becoming the lead of Iron Man after Tony is killed off and after she debuted like a mere year before.

None of those things are Captain America being made old so he's not able to be Captain America...again...for the third time in 30 years...

None of those is making Spider-Man's high school bully, turned soldier, turned alcohollic into a fucking Space Knight for God's sake.

So a loooooooooooooooooooooooot of the time fans crying about what characters do now being OOC or not fitting who they are happens because they are actually 100% CORRECT in that assessment.

Or are we all thinking anyone was acting in character in Civil War II? You know the storyline which could be resolved by watching Minority Report or employing basic knowledge of how the law goddam works.

There wasn't any indication of gradual aging. The first 27 issues had a firm status quo, then #28 was a milestone event in Peter's life to shake up that status quo.

To put it another way, if the comic was cancelled and #27 was the last issue, you wouldn't have known that Peter was any older than he was in #1.

The first 27 issues was just over 2 years dude. No one should be shaking up a status quo within that time span in a monthly comic book series. You need to have a status quo before you shake it up. Although you could easily argue his ups and downs with Betty and Liz would count towards that.

At the same time yeah you could read the first 27 issues and just presume Peter wasn't physically aging...but what does that matter since

a) He was still developing as a character

b) he still aged in issue #28 and thereafte. Like...why are we singling out just the first 27 issues?


I mean by this logic if X-Men was cancelled before issue #...I forget the one where they graduated but it was really early on, you also wouldn't know they were aging either. But given how early into Spider-Man's creation that happened, how it continued in the decades thereafter I don't really see what that statement proves?

[Timmyb52]

Not at all. The passage of time is the same as it's ever been. Sometimes it goes faster, sometimes slower, but it always goes back to status qou (more or less.) You just don't like the stories anymore. Don't try to say it's anything else because it's not.

I have already admitted I don't like the characterization of Peter under Slott...but his stories are OK. Since when have we seen any real indicator of the passage of time, real interaction with his classic supporting cast, or of Peter's character progressing and aging? All we get is just Spiderman adventure after Spiderman adventure with very little of the things I have mentioned involved.Slott is just writing Spiderman adventure stories with no real character progression,substance or real meaning to the character itself, nor his story.And as should be made very clear...I'm not the only one who has pointed out these things, in fact CBR's own John Mayo has just recently admitted as such...which I will be discussing in another thread in more detail as it concerns Amazing # 25.

[Timmyb52]

The only comic book character I know of where there is a set rate of aging is called Judge Dredd. Otherwise, Peter Parker's age is arbitrary to whatever the guys at Marvel say it is. He had close to two years of issues in High School, way more than that in college, and if they had known that he wouldn't fail to sell as a character years ago, which is something that they didn't know in the business climate at the time, they would have kept him in high school or at least in college. The main driver for aging him was that they didn't know how long he would last as a character who sold merchandise and comic books back when he started. They have slowed it down for him. 616 Peter Parker tells one story, the other universes tell others. Look, I know everybody has said this probably at least once, but it's easily the best option to just go support Renew Your Vows if him being older and married is your genuine on/off factor to him as a character.

I do support RYV's but that doesn't mean I have to ignore what is happening with the 616 Peter. This argument to "just be happy" with RYV's seems like an attempt to shut down all the criticism of Slott and his handling of the 616 character of Peter Parker.

[Timmyb52]

I'm surprised anyone still does these days.

That's a textbook example of something being reduced to stagnation by the Peter Pan method.

Yes...exactly my point, and why Spiderman is on the brink of that same stagnation if something meaningful isn't done for his character.At this point the 616 Peter Parker has been reduced to a Saturday Morning Cartoon character.

[Timmyb52]

The Simpsons' problem since the end of the '90s has been bad writing. If Bart was 40 years old the show wouldn't suddenly become funny again. In fact there have been several episodes set in the future that were still lousy.

South Park is an example of a show that takes the same approach and is still well regarded.

And this also applies to the current state of Marvel comics...bad writing!

[Lee]

The first 27 issues was just over 2 years dude. No one should be shaking up a status quo within that time span in a monthly comic book series.

3 years. You said that the first 28 issues had rapid speed aging and progression. They didn't. There was a mostly static status quo followed by a shake-up. There was no noticeable journey between point A and point B. You could read the first 27 issues and have no idea that high school graduation was approaching.

[Spidercide]

3 years. You said that the first 28 issues had rapid speed aging and progression. They didn't. There was a mostly static status quo followed by a shake-up. There was no noticeable journey between point A and point B. You could read the first 27 issues and have no idea that high school graduation was approaching.

Aging and progression are not the same thing a character can progress between ages 15 and 15 and 2 months. Peter as a character clearly changed between ASM #1 and ASM #27 as did Liz, Betty, even Flash and Aunt May (not Jonah though). The fact that you wouldn't have been able to tell at first glance that every issue represented a time skip of several months of his life didn't matter to that. Hell Peter didn't even LOOK the same since he'd dropped the glasses.

Also no, 2 years. ASM #1 was published in 1963. ASM #28 in 1965.