I feel up until parker industries, Peter never grew up?

[Spidercide]

What my evidence is that profession and maturity can be related?
Common logic?

As I have already said several times now, and you seem to not understand it because you want a conflict for some reason, the two can certaintly be related.
Its has nothing to do with certain professions being more mature then others, but that "growing up" can be that instead of just doing the same job you did as a 15 year old that is relatively easy for you to do, trying something that is more difficult or more in line with your dream job can be maturing.
Is that allways the case? No off course not that is why I said its debateable if that is the case with Peter here.

But saying the two can not be related at all is to me rather narrow minded and somewhat childish.

That isn't common logic whatsoever.



Even if it was common logic you'd need to actually explain and exemplify your statement.



Yeah, doing soemthing different or in line with your dream job could be a form of maturing.



But what if you don't have that oppertunity?



What if you are stuck doing that job you did at 15 years old because you can't afford the educaton necesarry to do the job you'd ideally want?



What if you could afford it but you have people in your life who rely on you and therefore you have to sacrifice your chance to stay at the job you did at 15 in order to support them?



What if you have a physical or mental handicap which means you literally cannot do anything other than this one job you've been doing since you were 15?



What if you as a 15 year old maybe lucked out and it was your dream job?



What if you as a 15 year old lucked out and got a good job or a job somewhere that allowed you to climb the ladder in that same place?



I'm in my mid-20s. I have my dream job right now pretty much. I don't want to leave, I'd happily stay there forever. Is this immaturity?



By virtue of all these examples, by virute in fact of you yourself admitting that changing your job from when you were 15 is not necesarilly a form of maturing then 'common logic' would indicate that actually it has nothing to do with your job.



Maturing is a state of being, a state of mind, or life.



Hence you have...well Donald Trump for instance who is a 70+ year old billionaire with what is literally the most important job on Earth and he is catagorically mentally/emotionally immature.



He's changed jobs.



He's got what is for many people a dream job.



But it doesn't matter.



Why?



Because one's occupation is entirely unrelated to one's state of maturity.



You could be 50 years old stacking shelves and be a mature person.



You can be 15 years old serving food at McDonalds but be mature for your age, saving that money for college or supporting your sick mother.



You could be over 70 years old and President of the most powerful nation on Earth and be a man-child nevertheless.

Im just gonna say, you dont need to be a poor clumsy underdog to be a everyman. Heck you can be rich and still an everyman in a fictional sense. This is pretty much what Danny Rand the Iron Fist Runs off on.

Danny Rand wasn't an everyman at all, he was a Kung Fu dude who grew up in a mystical monestary.

Peter is not a "true everyman", he just lives one because hes emotinally crippled to inner city youth mindset and lives an eternal teenage/college soap opera.

a) he is a true everyman
b) he isn't emotionally crippled, he doesn't live an eternal teenage.college soap opera, you just misinterpeted the text
c) That is a cynical interpretation in the first place
d) Read JMS and JMD's runs of Spider-Man where he's an adult. Hell read the MIchelinie run even. Most of that is Spider-Man as a mature adult albeit one who makes mistakes
e) Spider-Man lived in the suburbs until he was 19 years old. Then he lived in an off campus apartment for a year or three with a rich kid then he lived in a crappy Chelsea apartment in his early-mid 20s. The Hell could he be an inner city youth let alone adopt that mindset?

[Lee]

I don't really understand the point of a mature Peter Parker. It makes him a more generic character. The angst and neuroticism are what made him interesting to begin with.

[WebLurker]

As for USM Peter, again, you are being waaaaaay too insular with your definitions. Being an everyman does not forbid him from being a scientist and his great intelligence was something established early on because lets be real 1960s comics weren’t that great at realism, having established that it got grandfathered in so now he’s a really scientifically smart person who is in most other respects a normal guy. He sucks at social stuff for instance.

Not sure where the USM reference is coming from, but anyone who thinks that series supports the idea of a Tony Stark-like Spider-Man needs to re-read it. In fact, it very strongly makes the case that Spider-Man is fundamentally an everyman character.

[Bor]

That isn't common logic whatsoever.



Even if it was common logic you'd need to actually explain and exemplify your statement.



Yeah, doing soemthing different or in line with your dream job could be a form of maturing.



But what if you don't have that oppertunity?



What if you are stuck doing that job you did at 15 years old because you can't afford the educaton necesarry to do the job you'd ideally want?



What if you could afford it but you have people in your life who rely on you and therefore you have to sacrifice your chance to stay at the job you did at 15 in order to support them?



What if you have a physical or mental handicap which means you literally cannot do anything other than this one job you've been doing since you were 15?



What if you as a 15 year old maybe lucked out and it was your dream job?



What if you as a 15 year old lucked out and got a good job or a job somewhere that allowed you to climb the ladder in that same place?



I'm in my mid-20s. I have my dream job right now pretty much. I don't want to leave, I'd happily stay there forever. Is this immaturity?



By virtue of all these examples, by virute in fact of you yourself admitting that changing your job from when you were 15 is not necesarilly a form of maturing then 'common logic' would indicate that actually it has nothing to do with your job.



Maturing is a state of being, a state of mind, or life.



Hence you have...well Donald Trump for instance who is a 70+ year old billionaire with what is literally the most important job on Earth and he is catagorically mentally/emotionally immature.



He's changed jobs.



He's got what is for many people a dream job.



But it doesn't matter.



Why?



Because one's occupation is entirely unrelated to one's state of maturity.



You could be 50 years old stacking shelves and be a mature person.



You can be 15 years old serving food at McDonalds but be mature for your age, saving that money for college or supporting your sick mother.



You could be over 70 years old and President of the most powerful nation on Earth and be a man-child nevertheless.





Danny Rand wasn't an everyman at all, he was a Kung Fu dude who grew up in a mystical monestary.




a) he is a true everyman
b) he isn't emotionally crippled, he doesn't live an eternal teenage.college soap opera, you just misinterpeted the text
c) That is a cynical interpretation in the first place
d) Read JMS and JMD's runs of Spider-Man where he's an adult. Hell read the MIchelinie run even. Most of that is Spider-Man as a mature adult albeit one who makes mistakes
e) Spider-Man lived in the suburbs until he was 19 years old. Then he lived in an off campus apartment for a year or three with a rich kid then he lived in a crappy Chelsea apartment in his early-mid 20s. The Hell could he be an inner city youth let alone adopt that mindset?

So in other words you want to argue and your claim is that it cant be a sign of maturing to try and better yourself by doing something in your life that you actually want to do instead of just doing what you did as a 15 year old to get by?

I never said that just because you have "higher paying job", or whatever, that you were mature.
I responded to a post that said maturity and profession had nothing to do with each other, a general statement, and I am saying of course it can be a sign of maturing depending on the situation. Is that the case here with Peter? Debateable.

But saying they cant have anything to with each other is your opinion and you are entitled to that. I think you are wrong and quite frankly clueless if that is your worldview.
I fully agree that some of the most mature people in the world are working the same job they did as 15 year olds to support a family. I never said otherwise which you seem to have a hard time understanding.
But pretending that maturity and bettering your profession, wheter that means to a job you really want or whatever, cant be related is something someone who works a job they hate would use as an excuse to not try and go for a goal they might actually want to reach.

If your definiton of being mature is not even trying to go for something if given the oppertunity and underr the right conditions then fine.
But dont expect me to agree with that stuff.

[Spidercide]

I don't really understand the point of a mature Peter Parker. It makes him a more generic character. The angst and neuroticism are what made him interesting to begin with.

No it isn't.

EVERY Marvel hero was angsty and neurotic early on to varying degrees.

What made Spider-Man interesting was his relative normalacy. And as part of that was his growing up as we all do.

Mature doesn't equal a set behavioural pattern or being generic. You can still have a vivid personality whilst being mature. Hence Magneto, Wolverine, Beast, Captain America and so on.

Hell LOOK at JMS' Spider-Man or DeFalco's Spider-Man of the 90s onwards. Mature yes, but generic no?

So in other words you want to argue and your claim is that it cant be a sign of maturing to try and better yourself by doing something in your life that you actually want to do instead of just doing what you did as a 15 year old to get by?

I never said that just because you have "higher paying job", or whatever, that you were mature.
I responded to a post that said maturity and profession had nothing to do with each other, a general statement, and I am saying of course it can be a sign of maturing depending on the situation. Is that the case here with Peter? Debateable.

But saying they cant have anything to with each other is your opinion and you are entitled to that. I think you are wrong and quite frankly clueless if that is your worldview.
I fully agree that some of the most mature people in the world are working the same job they did as 15 year olds to support a family. I never said otherwise which you seem to have a hard time understanding.
But pretending that maturity and bettering your profession, wheter that means to a job you really want or whatever, cant be related is something someone who works a job they hate would use as an excuse to not try and go for a goal they might actually want to reach.

If your definiton of being mature is not even trying to go for something if given the oppertunity and underr the right conditions then fine.
But dont expect me to agree with that stuff.

No I’m saying switching your occupation specifically hasn’t got anything to do with maturing.

You are arguing that deciding to change your life circumstances is a sign of maturation.

Sure.


But you are codifying that so that it is specifically to do with your occupation when that isn’t true at all.

Your job isn’t your life, it’s just a part of it.

If you want tochange your life to make yourself happier yes that can depending upon the circumstances be something linked to your maturity.

But under other circumstances where you could leave your job staying where you are is the mature thing to do. Maybe the job you have provides job security that you need to support your family and what you want to do is a major gamble that rarely pays off.

You are also codifying falsely that every 15 year old who works a job is definitely just doing that to get by and it’s obviously not what they really want to do. But there are different strokes for different folks. What if you are working in the family business at age 15 and you honestly like it?

So no maturity and occupation don’t have anything to do with one another.

Or rather maturity and occupation only have as much to do with one another as almost any given aspect of your life. Leaving a relationship you’ve been in for a long time that doesn’t fulfil you is something mature. Choosing to travel can be mature. Choosing to stay can be mature.

But there is nothing specific about occupation. It goes beyond opinion because as I’ve pointed out the logic that no there is something specific to your job is faulty. Thus I hardly think it is I who are clueless.

I am saying that your occupation doesn’t define your maturity, that going for a new job doesn’t define your maturity 100%.

Sometimes doing that is a mark of maturity but only in as much as many other aspects of your life.

There is nothing specific to your job though.

[Bor]

No it isn't.

EVERY Marvel hero was angsty and neurotic early on to varying degrees.

What made Spider-Man interesting was his relative normalacy. And as part of that was his growing up as we all do.

Mature doesn't equal a set behavioural pattern or being generic. You can still have a vivid personality whilst being mature. Hence Magneto, Wolverine, Beast, Captain America and so on.

Hell LOOK at JMS' Spider-Man or DeFalco's Spider-Man of the 90s onwards. Mature yes, but generic no?



No I’m saying switching your occupation specifically hasn’t got anything to do with maturing.

You are arguing that deciding to change your life circumstances is a sign of maturation.

Sure.


But you are codifying that so that it is specifically to do with your occupation when that isn’t true at all.

Your job isn’t your life, it’s just a part of it.

If you want tochange your life to make yourself happier yes that can depending upon the circumstances be something linked to your maturity.

But under other circumstances where you could leave your job staying where you are is the mature thing to do. Maybe the job you have provides job security that you need to support your family and what you want to do is a major gamble that rarely pays off.

You are also codifying falsely that every 15 year old who works a job is definitely just doing that to get by and it’s obviously not what they really want to do. But there are different strokes for different folks. What if you are working in the family business at age 15 and you honestly like it?

So no maturity and occupation don’t have anything to do with one another.

Or rather maturity and occupation only have as much to do with one another as almost any given aspect of your life. Leaving a relationship you’ve been in for a long time that doesn’t fulfil you is something mature. Choosing to travel can be mature. Choosing to stay can be mature.

But there is nothing specific about occupation. It goes beyond opinion because as I’ve pointed out the logic that no there is something specific to your job is faulty. Thus I hardly think it is I who are clueless.

I am saying that your occupation doesn’t define your maturity, that going for a new job doesn’t define your maturity 100%.

Sometimes doing that is a mark of maturity but only in as much as many other aspects of your life.

There is nothing specific to your job though.

Lets see: Long sentence rambeling on that once again misses the whole point: check. You are good at that.

At this point I am really going to question whether or not you read other peoples posts before posting. It really does not seem like you do.

I have clarified several times now but you hillariously seem to miss it every time. Have fun with that. Its so much fun seeing someone try so hard to argue something and being so dishonest to keep on putting words in other posters mouth. I honestly dont know at this point if its because you are trolling, want to have fight for some reason, or you just are not getting it. I never said that your occupation defined your maturity 100 %. Thats all in your head. Just as the vast majority of the things you arguing there.

I will say this: If you are not willing to actually read what I write, and it really does does not seem you are, then I dont see a point discussion this any further. If you think its a good idea to keep on making up what other posters are saying then have fun with that. I think its rude. I say words like "can have a conncetion" and suddenly you are talking in absolutes and claiming I am saying a million things that I am not.

[Mia]

Tell that to Nikola Tesla and Philo Farnsworth. Both real life genious who ended their life in poverty,depiste their inventions affected the lives of millions of people. Being a genius in sciencie and technology doesn't make you authomatically rich. You must to have social and economic skills. And in that areas Peter is not definitevely as capable as Tony Stark.

Very true.

I don't read SM so I have no idea what is going on in the books, besides what I've gleaned from the occasional lurking on this board. But I really found it incredible that we are supposed to believe that the marriage makes Peter un-relatable, yet we are supposed to believe that he has the killer instinct and drive to be a corporate mogul.

I work in the business world, and trust me, Peter does not have the kind of drive or instincts to be a CEO. And as for the comparison to Jobs or Zuckerberg. Any article on Jobs or even watching the Social Network[. Will tell you that Peter is nothing like those two men. Peter's a nice guy, but he is not a type A personality like Steve Rogers, Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne to survive or thrive in that kind of world. A more plausible story would have been for him to have invented something and gone into business with a more astute business man. Sort of like the partnership of Mike Lazeridis and Jim Ballsillie of Blackberry.

[suemorphplus209]

All the details point to Peter being on a boat without a paddle or a fish out of water with Parker Industries. He's more suited with a startup small business or being a scientist who works at a company than a CEO. It's seasonal and will be a small fraction of the 55 years he has been around when it's done. IMO, his majority status and the various aspects of his life make him a character that interests me, he's anything but average though.

[SpideyCeo]

Very true.

I don't read SM so I have no idea what is going on in the books, besides what I've gleaned from the occasional lurking on this board. But I really found it incredible that we are supposed to believe that the marriage makes Peter un-relatable, yet we are supposed to believe that he has the killer instinct and drive to be a corporate mogul.

I work in the business world, and trust me, Peter does not have the kind of drive or instincts to be a CEO. And as for the comparison to Jobs or Zuckerberg. Any article on Jobs or even watching the Social Network[. Will tell you that Peter is nothing like those two men. Peter's a nice guy, but he is not a type A personality like Steve Rogers, Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne to survive or thrive in that kind of world. A more plausible story would have been for him to have invented something and gone into business with a more astute business man. Sort of like the partnership of Mike Lazeridis and Jim Ballsillie of Blackberry.

Thats a pretty big opinionand headcannon you got thereeven though Dan Slott proved you wrong since Peter has thrived as a ceo and made it believable to me, and seriously Peter isn't a a type a guy even though hes obviously has more friends, takes better care of people and has stood up for people lesser than him and fought for everyone who hated him?

Alot of people say being rich and millionaire is ooc but so was being a teacher, an fantastic four membet, a father and even captain universe but peter somehow managed to make it work since hes already of multi tasking superhero genius who dates hit women and can actually do any job he's thrown in if he focuses his life beyond hero work.

Marvel means big, its naturally for the company mascot to step up and make it big to, hos small time life has outgrown his own age, hes a grown man. Again spiderman has never been a believable everydude, marvel should stick to this big time status quo for as long as possible, having real life carreers in superhero comics and keeping it is more unrealistic than actually being rich enough to do superhetoics 24/7.

[Tuck]

Thats a pretty big opinionand headcannon you got thereeven though Dan Slott proved you wrong since Peter has thrived as a ceo and made it believable to me,

It's believable because Peter has nothing to do with the company's success, and in fact everything Peter-ish he does with the company is harming it. The business has thrived because of Otto, the Zodiac investor guy, and to some extent Anna Maria's and Sajani's more business-savvy approach to running things . . . mostly in spite of Peter.

If anything, the book is in line with Mia's view of Peter's suitability to the job.

[SpideyCeo]

It's believable because Peter has nothing to do with the company's success, and in fact everything Peter-ish he does with the company is harming it. The business has thrived because of Otto, the Zodiac investor guy, and to some extent Anna Maria's and Sajani's more business-savvy approach to running things . . . mostly in spite of Peter.

If anything, the book is in line with Mia's view of Peter's suitability to the job.

I don't see how expanding his business to save lives is a bad business man. And he should leave business priorities to his staff since he has to manage the company as Spider-Man.

Man I wish peter was like Batman as a progressive hero

[Mister Mets]

I don't see how expanding his business to save lives is a bad business man. And he should leave business priorities to his staff since he has to manage the company as Spider-Man.

Man I wish peter was like Batman as a progressive hero

That would make it difficult to separate their take on his business decisions with their take on politics (a story where Peter's business does well would be an endorsement of liberal policy; a story about business struggles could be seen as a criticism of progressive politics.)

[SilverWarriorWolf]

Alright, I know I'm late to the game, but I want to put my two cents in.

First of all, I don't really read the comics. However, I do follow storylines through websites and discussion boards, and I have read over this one. On top of this, I love almost every other adaptation, so I think I have a feel for the character. Take that as you will considering what I'm about to say, and you can disregard me on those grounds if you wish.

I don't have a problem with Peter Parker the scientist, but I do have an issue with Peter Parker the CEO. My issue is that I don't think he'd have the right personality to be a CEO. I do prefer the genius Peter interpretation, but genius in science does not equate genius in business. Tony Stark happens to have both; I don't think Peter does, just the science part.

Now, to play it more believably, I could see Peter entering into a partnership where he handles the science/tech portion of the company while his partner handles the business part. That way, things stay true to the character while letting him develop.

[blackspidey2099]

Alright, I know I'm late to the game, but I want to put my two cents in.

First of all, I don't really read the comics. However, I do follow storylines through websites and discussion boards, and I have read over this one. On top of this, I love almost every other adaptation, so I think I have a feel for the character. Take that as you will considering what I'm about to say, and you can disregard me on those grounds if you wish.

I don't have a problem with Peter Parker the scientist, but I do have an issue with Peter Parker the CEO. My issue is that I don't think he'd have the right personality to be a CEO. I do prefer the genius Peter interpretation, but genius in science does not equate genius in business. Tony Stark happens to have both; I don't think Peter does, just the science part.

Now, to play it more believably, I could see Peter entering into a partnership where he handles the science/tech portion of the company while his partner handles the business part. That way, things stay true to the character while letting him develop.

Yeah, this would be really cool too - however, a problem might come up if the business partner is selling Peter's tech for less than reputable purposes (or weapons, or whatever), or screwing over some people for profit. Though, now that I think about it, those would be really interesting conflicts for stories, which is always a good thing. I'd totally be down with Peter partnering up with someone else like that, personally.

[WeirdSpider]

Peter was a grown up for most of the history of the franchise till Marvel decided that he was aged way too much and tried to make him seem yonger again with OMD. Parker Industries is not the first time Peter "grew up". And frankly even with Parker Industries he's still written as the same manchild that he's been since Bland New Day in 2008.