Is anyone feeling broken up due to the demise of Parker Industries?

[blackspidey2099]

What's wrong with being a teacher though? I get the photography thing but teaching? It's an honourable profession and he gets to teach the next generation about Science.

If Peter was a teacher, he would be doing more of a disservice to his students than anything else. Not only does he not have the time to make lesson plans, grade hundreds of tests and assignments, or even reliably show up to school everyday; he also doesn't have a degree in education (which is a necessity to becoming a teacher in most places). I think people need to remember that a brilliant intellect has no correlation with teaching skills, and a flakey guy like Peter (despite having all the right reasons for it) is exactly the type of person students DON'T need.

[Vegeta]

If Peter was a teacher, he would be doing more of a disservice to his students than anything else. Not only does he not have the time to make lesson plans, grade hundreds of tests and assignments, or even reliably show up to school everyday; he also doesn't have a degree in education (which is a necessity to becoming a teacher in most places). I think people need to remember that a brilliant intellect has no correlation with teaching skills, and a flakey guy like Peter (despite having all the right reasons for it) is exactly the type of person students DON'T need.

Eh, if he can star in 2 titles, be an Avenger, hang out with Deadpool, run Parker Industries and still find time for the occasional guest appearance in another title or event, then finding time to grade papers, etc. should be no problem. It's the nature of comics. and as long as Pete has a master's or whatever he should be able to teach in that particular field.But if for some reason he really needs a degree in education he can just earn it off panel. You know, more or less how Parker Industries was created.

[Carabas]

If Peter was a teacher, he would be doing more of a disservice to his students than anything else. Not only does he not have the time to make lesson plans, grade hundreds of tests and assignments, or even reliably show up to school everyday; he also doesn't have a degree in education (which is a necessity to becoming a teacher in most places). I think people need to remember that a brilliant intellect has no correlation with teaching skills, and a flakey guy like Peter (despite having all the right reasons for it) is exactly the type of person students DON'T need.

Superheroes with secret identities have exactly as much time to devote to both of them as their writers say they have.

[Batman Begins 2005]

No and no.

[Huntsman Spider]

I'm glad PI is over.

-It was NOT Peter's creation. It was Otto's and he did it by "flexing" the law/hijacking the markets whenever he felt it was needed. That's why PI went global so fast. And that's also something Peter would never have done.
-Peter Parker is an hero because he makes personal sacrifices for the greater good. If faced with the choice between personal gain and preventing or stopping someone else's suffering he would always choose the latter. This is a defining trait of his character and the ROOT of the so called "Parker's Luck". The reason why Peter doesn't usually "win at life" is because as an hero he must often make self harming choices in order to pursue his heroic role as Spider-Man. Ceos don't do that, they do exactly the opposite.
-PI made it impossible for Peter Parker to be the "everyman hero" he is at his own core as a character.

And that's also why Parker Industries wasn't nearly as profitable as it could be under Peter's stewardship. Peter always chose to focus the company on doing what was right, what was good for the people and the world around him instead of what was good for the corporate bottom line. He even cut his own pay to compensate for the comparative lack of profitability in the altruistic ventures where he had the company focused. The last couple of arcs, where he decided he'd risk his company to fight a war to liberate a nation from his worst enemy's clutches even if it meant becoming an international pariah and putting himself and the company on S.H.I.E.L.D.'s s*** list, and then decided to destroy the company outright rather than let it be used by HYDRA to hurt and oppress people, drive home that aspect of how Peter chose to run PI, with morality always at the forefront, never as an afterthought. That makes him a good and heroic character like he usually is and should be, but it's not exactly good corporate stewardship.

[TheCape]

Should i be?, Peter didn't seem to care that much for it, so why should i.

[rward777]

And that's also why Parker Industries wasn't nearly as profitable as it could be under Peter's stewardship. Peter always chose to focus the company on doing what was right, what was good for the people and the world around him instead of what was good for the corporate bottom line. He even cut his own pay to compensate for the comparative lack of profitability in the altruistic ventures where he had the company focused. The last couple of arcs, where he decided he'd risk his company to fight a war to liberate a nation from his worst enemy's clutches even if it meant becoming an international pariah and putting himself and the company on S.H.I.E.L.D.'s s*** list, and then decided to destroy the company outright rather than let it be used by HYDRA to hurt and oppress people, drive home that aspect of how Peter chose to run PI, with morality always at the forefront, never as an afterthought. That makes him a good and heroic character like he usually is and should be, but it's not exactly good corporate stewardship.

Sajani was right about one thing. Peter is too nice. He cared too much about the world to be an effective ceo.

[rward777]

And that's also why Parker Industries wasn't nearly as profitable as it could be under Peter's stewardship. Peter always chose to focus the company on doing what was right, what was good for the people and the world around him instead of what was good for the corporate bottom line. He even cut his own pay to compensate for the comparative lack of profitability in the altruistic ventures where he had the company focused. The last couple of arcs, where he decided he'd risk his company to fight a war to liberate a nation from his worst enemy's clutches even if it meant becoming an international pariah and putting himself and the company on S.H.I.E.L.D.'s s*** list, and then decided to destroy the company outright rather than let it be used by HYDRA to hurt and oppress people, drive home that aspect of how Peter chose to run PI, with morality always at the forefront, never as an afterthought. That makes him a good and heroic character like he usually is and should be, but it's not exactly good corporate stewardship.

Tony stark was able to pull it off because unlike Peter, he is an ego driven control freak. Kinda like Donald Trump with a conscience.

[Miles To Go]

Peter Parker is an hero because he makes personal sacrifices for the greater good.

I don't think he's killed himself over the greater good just yet...

[SuperiorIronman]

Tony stark was able to pull it off because unlike Peter, he is an ego driven control freak. Kinda like Donald Trump with a conscience.

Tony Stark is neither of those things. He has an ego but nothing that leads him to do things because of it. He does good because he knows it's the right thing to do, him realizing that was big part of his origin story. His problem is him overstepping as Tony is known to go too far (even as an antagonist he still works within the law). Control freak also doesn't suit him considering that there has been plenty of things at Stark Industries that have slipped past him for one reason or another. The guy controls his immediate interests as all employers do, but there has been Armor wars over things he overlooked. Not to mention with how much people in the MU weaponize his technology can anyone really blame him for being so protective of his secrets? At worst Tony can be a jerk but Tony has been known to simply give away million dollar companies if it means he can help somebody.

Tony's approach is more of finding a problem and solving it whereas Peter will set up shop where the problem is. Neither is entirely a bad approach but Tony tries to hit everything whereas Peter's focus was more on specific issues. Peter during this volume was in mobile technology predominantly and a bit in bio technology and energy. Tony hit mobile technology, automotive technology, efficient energy, peace keeping, homeless shelters, construction, bio technology, surgical devices, and military weapons among others. Tony tries to solve every problem and oversteps whereas Peter's problem comes from a mixture of naivety, most of the early work not being his, and a villain making his company successful where it never was.

[Gnarlly]

Not sad at all about Parker Industries. Let Tony Stark be Tony Stark, globe-trotting with fancy tech, and let Peter Parker be Peter Parker, fighting crime in New York with his plain suit and webshooters while trying to make ends meet and maintaining a "normal" life.

[Carabas]

Not sad at all about Parker Industries. Let Tony Stark be Tony Stark, globe-trotting with fancy tech, and let Peter Parker be Peter Parker, fighting crime in New York with his plain suit and webshooters while trying to make ends meet and maintaining a "normal" life.

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, and really grew bored with it ages ago. And going back to it is harsh now we've seen Peter can be a lot more.

[Gnarlly]

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, and really grew bored with it ages ago. And going back to it is harsh now we've seen Peter can be a lot more.

It would seem you are bored of the "everyman" concept that is at the core of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Going back to it would be a welcome return in my opinion, as that is how the character has been defined over decades, and why many of us choose to follow the character.

Peter Parker has always been able to "be a lot more," but for various reasons he has been held back from doing so or has chosen the more humble path for himself. Primarily, the reasoning for that has been his responsibility to his family and friends, as well as total strangers that he helps. Countless times Peter has chosen to help someone over his own personal needs, and often at his own personal expense. He could have always used his abilities to further his financial situation and prestige, and in fact he did so early on during his short-lived wrestling career. But of course, we know how that ended . . .

Also, Parker Industries really was never Peter's own doing; it was a result of Otto's ego and desires to further himself. Unlike Tony Stark who was born into wealth, "everyman" Peter would never have had the free time to develop a company like PI as he would be too busy with other responsibilities; i.e. different priorities, while Tony Stark is typically unconcerned with maintaining a job, paying rent, bills, going to school, socializing with friends and family (i.e. leading a "normal" life). Good riddance to PI and hopefully a welcome back to a Peter Parker/Spider-Man with more down-to-Earth stories.

[DieHard200904]

Overall, No. I felt that working at Horizon Labs fit him better.

[DieHard200904]

And that's also why Parker Industries wasn't nearly as profitable as it could be under Peter's stewardship. Peter always chose to focus the company on doing what was right, what was good for the people and the world around him instead of what was good for the corporate bottom line. He even cut his own pay to compensate for the comparative lack of profitability in the altruistic ventures where he had the company focused. The last couple of arcs, where he decided he'd risk his company to fight a war to liberate a nation from his worst enemy's clutches even if it meant becoming an international pariah and putting himself and the company on S.H.I.E.L.D.'s s*** list, and then decided to destroy the company outright rather than let it be used by HYDRA to hurt and oppress people, drive home that aspect of how Peter chose to run PI, with morality always at the forefront, never as an afterthought. That makes him a good and heroic character like he usually is and should be, but it's not exactly good corporate stewardship.

But taking less pay is what, IMO, CEOs should do. I hate seeing big corporations cutting the lower people from their jobs while their CEOs make insane amounts of money, then arguing that they have to cut the jobs.