#if the reboot had been an alternate version like ultimate spider-man

[cantsayidont]

June 1998. Among DC's more infuriating editorial tendencies is a penchant for blowing up characters and continuity and then later bringing back the discarded versions very briefly, either to stomp on them all over again, or just to remind you that the earlier version existed, but you're not allowed to have it anymore. To exemplify the point, here's a scene from LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES #105 where the cutesy reboot Legion's Shrinking Violet encounters the older, butch version of herself from the pre-Zero Hour series.

(The visual parallel between the older Vi and Lightning Lass and the younger Violet comforting Kinetix is just bait — there was nothing to see there.)

[thevindicativevordan]

So, Marvel brough back Ultimate line. What's you opinion?

Anonymous asked: Thoughts on the official announcement for the relaunch of the Ultimate Universe?

Forget HoX/PoX, this is the biggest possible "Daddy's home!" Hickman-related announcement Marvel could make.

After his attempt to revamp the X-Men ended in failure thanks to editorial cockblocking and fellow creator dissent, I can only assume Hickman taking over a revamp of the Ultimate Universe comes with the precondition that he gets free reign. Seems like it's a reboot rather than a continuation of what came before. Seeing others describe it as "Post-Crisis Ultimate Universe" on social media was funny, but probably very on point. Hickman is after all a DC fanboy, and the Ultimate Universe needs to adjust to a post MCU world. Previously the Ultimate Universe had total freedom to revamp the Avengers because the brand was worthless and nobody cared about Cap, Thor, or Iron Man. Today those three starred in the biggest film franchise on the planet, and are incredibly popular with billions knowing who they are. Does that mean these new versions will be closer in personality to their 616 or MCU counterparts? Ultimate Thor carrying a more traditional Mjolnir is an intriguing tease, perhaps this UU won't be as militarized as it's Bendis/Millar predecessor? Hickman doesn't do standard superhero fare, but I can't begin to imagine what this new incarnation of the Ultimates will be like.

And of course there is the matter of the silhouettes. One is clearly Spider-Man, but will it be Peter or Miles? A new Ultimate Peter + the popularity of the Spider-Verse movies might finally be what gets Marvel to fold on the matter of One More Day. They'd have a new Peter in the status quo they prefer, and they could let the nerds have their "boring" married Spider-Man. Alternatively it could be Miles, either moving him back to Earth-1610 or creating a new Ultimate Miles counterpart. Problem Miles has is that he's created to be Peter's replacement. Even in the Spider-Verse movies he is stepping in to take over for the Peter of his world. Since moving Miles over to 616, they clearly have struggled with what his relationship with a living Peter could be. Is Peter his mentor? Should the two interact? Should he fight Peter's villains or have his own? Moving Miles back means he doesn't have to fight with Peter for attention, he gets to be the Spider-Man of his own universe with all the classic Spidey Rogues available to him.

One of those other two silhouettes is clearly Black Panther and that is something I'm excited for. Previous incarnation of Ultimate Black Panther sucked, now they can course correct. What does an Ultimate Black Panther look like post Chadwick? Obviously he's going to be on the Ultimates and will possibly be headlining a book of his own. Would be a godsend for me if there was an Ultimate Black Panther book, given how lousy the handling of 616 T'Challa has been, a fresh version of the character without all the baggage and Hickman involved sounds like a dream come true. As for the other one, two theories come to mind. The first is that it's the Maker. Reed botches his attempt to rebuild the Ultimate Universe and he's the only one who doesn't get rebooted. Instead he ends up like the Psycho-Pirate, the only one who remembers the previous timeline, but with the upside being that no one remembers his crimes. In other words he gets a second chance to be "Mr. Fantastic" again, which he would probably only take as a way to acclimate to this new universe until he's ready to show his true colors. Alternatively it's Ultimate Doom. In a universe where Reed is the villain, Doom is the hero, and Doom is the leader of the Fantastic Four this time.

Very excited to see where this goes.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

I will respond to this. But in future I’m asking you and others not to send me things like this please.

“This month, Marvel Comics relaunched Amazing Spider-Man with a Nick Spencer as head writer, marking the end of Dan Slott's long run with the title and an end of the "Brand New Day" era of Spider-History.”

The problems start here. BND ended before Slott’s solo run began.

“ Spencer's run begins with a bit of a bang.

Well, about as much of a bang as you get from kissing the same person you've known for 50 years.”

This is a reductive and childish mentality towards romance and sex. It prioritizes the novelty and excitement of ‘new love’ (which is scientifically guaranteed to last like 2 years tops) over the deeper and ultimately more potent emotions attached to proper love, which in truth is kind of like friendship on steroids.

In this specific case it’s especially stupid as, putting aside fan reactions, the fact that Peter and Mj were back together after 10+ years was OBVIOUSLY going to be a shocking moment. A ‘bang’ if you will. This is like saying it wasn’t a moment of audience interest whenever Ross and Rachel seemingly got back together or when Monica and Chandler initially got together. They too had known one another for a long time, a roughly equivalent time for their character and Peter and MJ in-universe.

“This has come after Peter and Mary Jane have been apart for about a decade. This recent "surprise" get-back-to-gether is the same sort of "exciting development" that happens eventually after Marvel breaks a couple up, or kills someone in one of their books (See the Hulk, Jean Grey, Peter Parker during Superior Spider-Man, etc. etc. etc.) Peter and Mary Jane getting back together (apparently) is sort of a big deal.”

Yes. Because fans WANTED them to be back together.

Fans aren’t in this for the roller coaster of novelty. They don’t want Spidey or Superman to be with anyone OTHER than MJ or Lois. By the same token the majority do not want anyone other than Luthor or Joker to be Superman or Batman’s archenemies.

“See, in 2007 Marvel Comics made the bold decision to end the marriage between Spider-Man and his longtime wife, Mary Jane Watson.”

Watson Parker

It wasn’t bold it was asinine

How bold is it when it was the third such attempt to do that? “At the time, fans lost their shit.” And they are STILL angry about it. “You can't really blame them because the deed was done in the most asinine way. For some reason, divorce was out of the question. The alternative was somehow more awful. After Peter's Aunt May got shot in the bo-bo at the end of Civil War, Spider-Man literally made a deal with the devil to save her life.” WTF is a bo-bo? “What did this change exactly? Well, the events of Amazing Spider-Man Annual #21 didn't end in a marriage. So everything that happened after was still the same except Peter amd MJ were a common-law couple. Or something.” And MJ was never pregnant, and all the shit specifically related to their wedding rings, dress, photos, anniversary couldn’t have happened and given how to them marriage wasn’t a piece of paper then this would have massive ramifications for their relationship quite a part from the fact there would now be a massive sore spot in their relationship. “Anyway, like I said, a lot of longtime fans hated it.” No. MOST longtime fans hated it. And most SHORT time fans also hated it. And even many newer fans who jumped on-board after it hated it too. “You know, the audience they weren't trying to appeal to anymore.” Which was idiotic. You don’t try to gain a new audience by throwing away your old one. You try to retain the old audience and bring new people into the fold at the same time. Noticeably this happened in the 1990s. This failed  to happen after OMD and it failed  to happen with the Nu52 which was the OMD for the whole DC universe. The latter failed so badly they reverse rebooted many characters, Superman chief among them. Superman’s financial and critical reception increased when they brought back the OLD Superman who was married (and now a father to boot) and used him to replace the younger, single and hip Superman most people disliked. The OLD fans returned. Shockingly appealing to the old AND new fans is possible. “Still, they came up with a storyline that would be relatable to younger readers, and still be relevant to longtime readers as well”

It wasn’t a storyline it was an era

No. It absolutely wasn’t relatable or relevant to younger readers. I was 16-19 when BND was running. I was directly  the demographic they were trying to appeal to. Let me tell you straight. Those stories were not relatable. At all. They weren’t relevant. At all. The PS4 game’s take? Now that shit was reltable but noticeably that version only takes plot concept from BND. The characterization of Peter is far more in line with his pre-OMD self and didn’t represent a regression of the character

Thousands of people became Spider-Man fans reading the marriage era Spidey comics. If it was so unrelatable how is that possible?

The stories were not relevant to the older audience at all because the whole purpose of BND was to basically ignore 90% of Spider-Man history between 1987-2007. And more importantly even the characteriation before then that they were trying to invoke was done incorrectly. The Spidey of BND was a systemically mischaracterizion of Spider-Man even if yu ignored OMD “The fiscal reasoning made sense, there were Spider-Man films that were out roping in a new generation kids who wouldn't relate to a married Spider-Man.”

There was a 5 season long TV show before those movies aimed directly at children. Kids got into Spidey through that and we didn’t care he was married. In fact he was married on the show

To 90s/2000s teens and tweens the struggles of Spidey in the 1994 cartoon and Raimi movies were not all that relatable. The male members of the cartoon audience were too young to be interested in romance and all the demographics were unlikely to relate to Peter’s financial struggles as they were too young to work. Even if they weren’t too young to work they wouldn’t have been the breadwinner of the household the way they might’ve been in the 1960s. By the 1990s and 2000s times had changed

Peter had become a MAN like halfway through the first Raimi movie and that wasn’t even the most popular or successful one. Spider-man 2, where Peter was distinctly an adult and grappling with adult problems, was

Kids have been unlikely to relate to Batman. In fact as times have changed it’s evident they infinitely prefer Batman to Robin, the character actually created specifically for them to relate to. Batman is at least as popular as Spider-Man, if not moreso

The MCU has made Iron Man and Black Panther (who kids could never truly relate to) and Captain America (whom few people regardless of age could ever relate to as he is almost a moral paragon) fan favourite characters. CLEARLY relatability is at best highly subjective and at worst not essential to making a character appealing

BND occurred after Spider-Man 3 where Peter wanted to marry Mary Jane. If anything the JMS era of Spidey where he was married to the main love interest from the movies and where Aunt May knew who he was would’ve been MORE synergetic with the movies of the time than what BND was “Also, times have changed. Fans freaked out that Spider-Man was no longer married and back to living at Aunt May's home? At the time Peter Parker was in his late 20s (Marvel Time).” No, at the time he was 30 years old. “If this is basically you in 2018, you had no reason to bitch about Brand New Day.” Get fucked. Fans had EVERY reason to bitch about BND back then AND now too. Putting aside how we got there (which would be reason enough) the stories themselves were objectively deplorable! “Looking back at the storyline 10 years after the fact,” It’s not a storyline. It was an era. “it's hard to understand what the big deal was.” It’s hard to understand mischaracterization, illogic, continuity contradictions, sexism, racism, juvenile writing, character deconstruction, borderline gaslighting of the fans, talking down to the audience, price gouging, inconsistent writing and art and just generally bad storytelling? “Because I secretly hate myself, I decided to read every Spider-Man comic published.” I somehow doubt that. Even if it’s true there is a massive difference between reading a story and understanding it. Dan Slott READ a lot of Spider-Man. He knew a lot of Spider-Facts. But he clearly never understood  the character. He might KNOW MJ shut that door in ASM #122. But he absolutely doesn’t grasp it’s deeper meaning. “I started about a year ago, and I'm just hitting stories published in 2007. In retrospect, there are a lot of shitty Spider-Man stories. Some of them weren't as bad as they were made out to be (The Clone Saga, being one of them, surprisingly) One thing about the Peter/MJ marriage (which ran from 1987 to 2007) is you quickly realize their marriage was horrible.” Sure. If you are a bad literary analyst, sexist, crap at contextualization and apply a blunt criteria instead of nuance. If you don’t you get that there were ups and downs with the writing as would be expected of almost anything written across 20 years by multiple writers. “Especially for Mary Jane.” Oh cool, sexist it is then. “It wasn't good, it was a burden to telling good stories.” Kraven’s Last Hunt Sensational Spider-Man Annual 2007 Spider-Man Unlimited v3 #2 Story 2 Parallel Lives Anything by JMS involving MJ Revelations Spec #200 Spec #241-245 Sensational v2 #32 Marvel Knights: Spider-man #1-12 And many other stories I could name say otherwise genius. “This is because the writers involved at the time didn't seem to understand how a marriage works.”

JMS clearly did

DeMatteis clearly did

DeFalco clearly did

Sacasa clearly did

Peter David clearly did

Mark Millar clearly did

Even Bendis clearly did

Maybe it’s not how YOUR marriage works. But everyon’es marriage is a different “The marriage was, at best, an excuse for an instant damsel in distress situation,” Remember how the marriage was used as an instant damsel-in-distress situation in KLH? Remember how that was ALL it amounted to in the Eisner nominated Sensational Spider-Man Annual 2007? Remember how badly MJ was in need of rescuing in the Jonathan Caesar storyline? “or at worse a reason for Peter Parker to go on about how "lucky" he was to be married to a model/actress. Like Mary Jane was nothing more than a trophy to pride himself because he was such a fucking loser in high school.” Yes. Peter never argued with MJ. Peter never confided his concerns with MJ. MJ never alleviated his guilt. MJ never grew as a person from her horrible childhood issues through being married with Peter. MJ didn’t become more self-sacrificing due to Peter. Peter was never pushed to become more powerful by thoughts of his believed wife. They never helped one another through traumatic situations. “What I really want to stress here is, Peter and Mary Jane's marrage was awful.” Nah fam. YOUR analytical skills are awful. “Worst. Idea. Ever.” Nah fam. You writing this was the worst idea ever. Scratch that, me subjecting myself to this shit was the worst idea ever. “Can't take my word for it? Here are some reasons why: Mary Jane Had to Swat Away So Many Dicks” An attractive woman with a very public profile draws unwanted attention? How unrealistic! It’s terrible that such a thing would never happen in real life, real life being the baked into the core concept of Spider-Man. Why if it did it’d be a organic way to give MJ subplots and conflicts of her own to deal with that could impact  upon Peter’s life by extension or something. “Almost from the start, Mary Jane had to fend off other men who were obsessed with her and didn't give a shit that she was married. That's not necessarily Peter's fault, but it really says a lot of the opinion towards female characters in comics at the time.” …how…? This happens in real life…A LOT! And what has ‘Peter’s fault’ got to do with this? It’s not even a statement that warrants a ‘necessarily’. What? If Peter was more ‘Alpha’ other men would know not to try it on with ‘his woman’ or something? Also, let’s properly contextualize things okay. Between 1987-2007 MJ was stalked by like 5 people. That’s once every 4 years if you average it out but 3/5 of them occurred in Michelinie’s run alone which is not the be all or end all of the marriage. Another one was for a single issue and the final one was actually obsessed with Peter and used MJ to get to him. I ain’t saying it didn’t get old but this guy is making it out to be something that was an annual event. “Sure, the idea of someone stalking an actress/model isn't outlandish, and a sad fact of the celebrity-driven reality we live in.” YOU DON’T SAY! And it doesn’t just apply to actresses or models btw. “However, the number of times this was used as a plot got a bit out of hand.” I agree. But 5 times across 20 years, when there was a 5 year gap between the third and fourth instances and a 5 year gap between the fourth and final instance (lasting for 1 issue and wasn’t even the main plot) is not reflective of anything. “That said because it's a Spider-Man comic book they couldn't just settle on a dumpy guy wearing sticky jogging pants. They had to kick it up a notch. With horrific implications for poor Mary Jane.” …yeeeeeeeeeeah? And? Stalkers are horrible. You want there to be tension and conflict so the threat of violence is absolutely justifiable. FFS, kraven the Hunter buried Spider-Man alive and Venom threatened to eat parts of him. And VENOM was Spidey’s stalker! “Jonathon Caesar An obsession so cliche, I'm surprised that nobody made a joke about his knife compensating for having a small dick.” Except circa 1989 it wasn’t  cliché. At least not as far as a Spidey comic was concerned. If we are opening this up to ALL media then sure but then by that logic Gwen’s death and countless other stories would also be cliché wouldn’t they. “The first scum bag to enter Mary Jane's married life was Jonathon Caesar. He was a wealthy man with a lot of connections.” …Almost like Harvey Weinstein or something… “He helped Mary Jane get into the Bedford Towers condominium (which Caesar owned). His motivation? To kidnap a married woman and force her to live in a specially made trap room until she agreed to marry him. Spider-Man didn't even save the day! Mary Jane broke free on her own and the wall-crawler showed up in time to do the cleanup.” Holy shit. If anyone ever needed proof this doofus’s analytical skills weren’t there this is it. The Jonathan Caesar storyline was designed  to be a subversion of the damsel-in-distress  trope. The whole fucking POINT was that MJ saved herself instead of Spidey saving her! Jesus Christ how do you miss that. Not to mention how do you complain Caesar as a villain is cliché but then ALSO complain that the damsel-in-distress cliché wasn’t adhered to. “Caesar went to jail but he used his influence to ruin her modeling career and get her evicted from their home.” *coughWeinsteincough* “Not only that, but MJ's money got tied up in a lengthy legal battle, with no apparent end in sight. In fact the money mentioned here is never talked about again.” Er…yes it is. MJ ultimately settles in ASM #333 wiping out her savings. I’d have thought someone who read every  Spider-Man comic book would have known that. “Caesar eventually got out of jail and continued to stalk Mary Jane.” Again, clearly hasn’t read every Spider-Man comic book and/or is a shitty analyst. Yes Caesar did this but he did this BEFORE MJ engaged him in a legal battle. “Her husband didn't do squat to stop it.” What was he supposed to do? Caesar was out legally and Peter couldn’t just kill or assault the guy. Threatening him would likely have helped Caesar’s legal case further, especially due to the public knowing about the association between Peter and Spidey. Touching Caesar would be like trying to get the Kingpin locked up. It’s extremely difficult for someone that rich and powerful. “He was too busy playing Spider-Man to help his own wife.” No. He was busy saving the lives of innocent people. He wasn’t doing this for fun, he is Spidey for the greater good. MJ knows that. MJ knew that she could ask Peter for help if she needed it and he’d come running. She made it clear she could handle it and like a good husband he respected her decision. It wasn’t like she was trying to reach him for help and he was distracted or actively ignored her. But you know, those disingenuous pieces of misinformation aren’t going to write themselves. Also the stories are a little ambiguous about this but there is a possible implication that MJ was keeping Peter somewhat in the dark about Caesar’s activities. “The only person who was interested in Mary Jane's safety was Officer Hal Goldman, who ended up shooting Caesar dead. Was Hal a super-cop detective that ate serial stalkers for lunch? Note really, see the thing about Hal.... Hal Goldman Let's  follow up this sexist scene with the woman regretting her career choices. Very progressive.”

This bozo shouldn’t be lecturing people on what is and isn’t sexist

FFS OF COURSE someone in MJ’s position would be questioning her career choices. She’s just been stalked by 2 lunatics. But noticeably she doesn’t stop  being an actress/model after this. The moment was a dash of comedy given the situation and nothing more. But you wouldn’t know that given how this guy is not bothering to use context or anything

How the Hell is MJ macing a stalker and then knocking him out sexist? “Hal Goldman wasn't actually a police officer. He was just a fat NYPD civilian desk clerk with a terrible bowl cut who had an unhealthy obsession with Mary Jane when she starred in a soap opera called "Secret Hospital". Although he was "investigating" Jonathan Ceasar's attempts to ruin Mary Jane's life again, he was also obsessed with protecting her from everyone who slighted her. He ran over an old woman who slapped MJ in the face, dropped a stage light on her director's head and tried to clobber Peter with a piece of concrete. However, this is an accurate depiction of how fan-boys react to things.” Remember how over 50% of fanboys threatened or actually inflicted violence upon people because of OMD? Neither do I. “When he guns down Caesar he professes his undying love to Mary Jane and admits to committing all the above crimes. Again, Peter is nowhere around,” Of course he’s nowhere around. Peter doesn’t constantly monitor MJ all day every day. You know…like a stalker. Fuck real life husbands don’t do this. Moreover if we bother to check the issue in question (ASM #339) some interesting details are presented to us. For starters MJ was only endangered due to trickery and bad luck. Caesar forced a co-star of MJ’s to handwrite a note and sign it asking for her to meet him at the set of Secret Hospital. Between the set being a relatively safe environment and the note checking out as legitimate due to the handwriting and signature, MJ had no reason to be suspicious. Peter absolutely intended to go with MJ but earlier that day had been doused with a chemical by the Sinister Six, the effects of which he was uncertain about. He got a call regarding the Six’s activities and the chemical so logically that would take priority over Mj merely meeting a co-star. MJ chose not to delay the meeting until Peter was available and go herself. Again neither she nor Peter had any reason to suspect foul play. So Peter’s absence was never due to neglect. It wasn’t even due to putting the duties of Spider-man before the needs of his wife. As far as either of them knew there was no danger. So again, distorting the facts. Classy. “so when she rejects him Officer Bowl Cut decides to do the old "if I can't have you, nobody will!" Routine. However, she sprayed him in the eyes with hairspray and clobbered him with a purse. You know just as you'd expect a strong female character to do.” Yes. That is exactly what I expect a female, or indeed any character, to do in that situation. Mary Jane had no real weapons. The story even specified that MJ tried  to get a handgun but was still waiting on it. So she improvised and used whatever resources she had to hand. This is routine for Mary Jane both during and before the marriage. Using hairspray and a handbag, which are not obvious weapons but can nevertheless be repurposed for offence, was a perfectly legitimate technique for both the character and writer to employ. It’s almost like it makes her look smart, tough and resourceful for being able to think on her feet like that or something. Oh, and again. MJ is bad because she conforms to a cliché but is also bad because didn’t conform to the cliché of Spidey rescuing her which would’ve also been bad because the marriage is used to easily generate damsel-in-distress situations. This isn’t even a double standard it’s a TRIPLE standard. This jackoff has constructed his argument in such a way that Mary Jane/the marriage can NEVER win. “Jason Jerome This happened in 1990, consent hadn't been invented yet.”

Jason wasn’t a stalker strictly speaking

This storyline, bad as it was, was nevertheless handled very differently from the Jonathan Caesar arc because MJ at least was tempted to reciprocate feelings for Jason whilst she was repulsed by Caesar

YES. the concept of consent WASN’T very well taught back in the 1990s! What the hell is he point here? “Jason Jerome was an actor who thought he could seduce Mary Jane into having an affair with him. This came at a time when there were three monthly Spider-Man titles. This made for one busy wall-crawler. On top of fighting villains, he was also promoting a book and traveling the globe as a reporter. Needless to say, MJ was feeling more than a little neglected. This made Mary Jane susceptible to Jerome's advances. However, despite his best efforts, Mary Jane ended things before they had gone too far. To do so, she invited Jason to her apartment under the pretence of sex. Instead of getting balls deep, Jason Jerome found himself in a room plastered with photos of Peter and Mary Jane together, like inviting an obsessed man into your home without telling anyone is a smart idea.” Jason was not obsessed. He viewed MJ as a ‘conquest’ and from her POV was not dangerous like Caesar or Hal. Also IIRC this occurred after  the incident with Hal, which meant MJ would likely have owned a handgun by this point. Even if she didn’t, she defeated Hal and Caesar and his guards when she was unprepared and improvising on the fly. Here she has had hours to prep and it’s literally in her home. If she suspected Jason to be dangerous (which he was not and had given her no reason to believe so) she was in a great position to handle him. “All the lamps and hairspray in the world cannot possibly stop this potentially becoming a bad situation.” A rich and powerful lunatic with a knife and armed guards outside got their ass beaten by MJ whilst she was improvising…on their home turf. A less rich, less powerful, unarmed man with no displays of mental instability or violence comes to MJ’s home turf on his own. So yes, if she was so inclined MJ could 100% rig up a trap with hairspray and a lamp or a fucking gun if she had one. “If this backfires, let's just hope he's into this sort of thing.” A necrophilia joke? How tasteful. “The Stalker "I said, I'm bored with sort of scenario. Can you try and change this up a bit?"”

Jason Jerome wasn’t stalking MJ

Yes the stalker was lame. Also this occurred around 9-10 years later

You know there is more to this relationship than the occasions when MJ was stalked FFS “The most unoriginal character created by Howard Mackie during his run.” His run when he was possibly dealing with serious health issues. Classy. “The Stalker follows a long tradition of Marvel characters whose names are obvious: The Prowler prowls,” Except he doesn’t do much prowling. He flits between retirement and active costumed work. And he’s not exactly a stalker of the night like Batman when he’s out of retirement. “the Watcher watches, and the Shocker finger blasts people.” Does this guy know what ‘shocking’ means? Blasting people isn’t shocking them. Electrocuting people = shocking people. Vibrating them doesn’t = shocking them. “So obviously, the Stalker was a stalker. Specifically, he stalked Mary Jane. The guy went to some insane lengths. He set off bombs and killed people. The whole time this was happening Peter was busy going out as Spider-Man.” YES. THAT’S HIS FUCKING JOB! Also, for the majority of the time Mj was being stalked she had kept Peter in the dark about the guy. Shortly after he finally did learn the truth he seemingly died. For sure he was kept away from her whilst she was being made a target, but

The 1970s Clone Saga

Spec Annual 1988

Smoke and Mirrors

Web #125

Maximum Clonage

Clone Conspiracy

“Each time he seems to forget the fact that a lunatic had cloned his dead girlfriend every time.”

Horseshit.

He KNEW the truth in every encounter following the first one. He didn’t fall for it on the third-sixth occasions but shockingly  seeing your dead loved one (who died right in front of you) walking around alive is going to emotionally hurt you and dreadge up old wounds and old feelings.

Gerry Conway in Spec Annual 1988 directly addresses this by having Peter acknowledge that intellectually  he knows Gwen to merely be a clone but emotionally  he still feels towards her the same way as though she were the real Gwen.

It’s almost like Conway was a good writer not a HACK like the OP and so knows that in matters of the heart a realistic human being might let their sense of logic fly out the window.

If ONLY there had been a global sensation of a movie released months prior to ASM v5 #1 which demonstrated this aptly.

“Every time it made Peter confused and dug up old feelings. Which, naturally, made Mary Jane doubt the strength of their relationship.”

That literally happened twice. And she briefly  doubted before thinking otherwise or been shown otherwise.

“With this many clones of the dead girlfriend, you'd figure he would have gotten used to it.”

Yes if he was an emotionless automaton. Or written by someone who knows jack about human emotions...like the OP…

“Instead of going to a shrink to process these feelings,”

Thus risking the anonymity that protects himself and his loved ones.

“Peter usually fell for the various manipulations that typically came from these convoluted cloning schemes and hit whoever was responsible.”

OBVIOUSLY he hit whoever was responsible. They were super villains, he was going to bring them to justice no matter what

Again, he fell for it the first time. But ONLY the first time. He was aware Gwen was a clone in every other encounter and never played along. Many of those instances weren’t even villains pulling a scheme but a situation Peter happened to mix himself up in. Spec Annual #8 had nothing to do with him as the High Evolutionary wanted to apprehend Gwen for his own purposes. Web #125 involved him discovering Gwen’s clone in the suburbs but no villain had planned on him doing that

“That Time Illegitimate Kids Showed Up

Gwen Stacy was always portrayed as a saintly woman cut down in the prime of her life.”

Except for all those times she absolutely wasn’t prior to her death; that’s not even counting AUs.

Saint Gwendolyn I, Holy Virgin Martyr Princess was a revisionist invention fabricated after her death to make her death more tragic in hindsight. It’s a pack of lies that doesn’t deserve to be paid attention to.

“That was until JMS wrote a Gwen Stacy story that was entirely fucked up.”

No. It was only partially fucked up because

Gwen was obviously not pregnant

MJ and Gwen didn’t care about Gwen’s kids

“In it, Peter learns that Gwen had an affair with Norman Osborn (the Green Goblin, AKA the guy who later murdered her) and got knocked up.”

They didn’t have an affair.

People seem to be misinformed on the definition of what the word ‘affair’ means. They use it as though it means ‘being unfaithful to your partner’. That is not the meaning of the term. An EXTRAMARITAL affair can mean that but a regular romantic/sexual affair doesn’t inherently mean there is any unfaithfulness occurring.

But it DOES have to be ongoing to some extent.

Gwen and Norman weren’t in any kind of on-going relationship. They had sex exactly once.

And during that time no unfaithfulness was occurring as Gwen was not with Peter at the time.

“Everyone apparently knew and kept it a secret.”

…er….no…I don’t know how you could even misread Sins Past to come to that conclusion.

The story is extremely explicit that Gwen and Norman kept their encounter and Gwen’s pregnancy a secret. MJ knew about it and told Peter years later. But there is nothing in the story even hinting that anyone else knew besides the three of them.

“During a point where Gwen and Peter were on the outs, she found out she was pregnant, left the country, and gave birth to the kids. These kids were then secreted away by Norman for years.

When Peter found about these kids (but not their origins) he assumed they were his kids, even though he later remembers that he and Gwen never had sex!!”

He never presumes they are his children. Again, great analytical skills there.

“What's worse, is after all was said and done, Peter later went to France to help out Gwen's daughter, who was her spitting image and the same biological age that Gwen was when Peter dated her (they aged fast, look it up) This was all an attempt to seduce Peter and he had to constantly remind himself that his feelings for her were wrong.”

It was absolutely not an attempt to seduce Peter. Sarah’s agenda only later evolved to entail that too but that wasn’t her original motive

In one of the all time best episodes of the Simpsons Homer was tempted by his co-worker Mindy. This occurred in spite of countless episodes demonstrating how much he loved Marge. Ultimately nothing more than a kiss was shared between them and he didn’t succumb to his temptations. In this scenario Peter is being confronted by someone who looks and to an extent acts identically to someone he loved and cruelly lost, someone who for a time he believed he might have a future with. This occurs not very long after he learns that his relationship with that person was at least partially a big lie as she was pregnant for most of their relationship and slept with his ultimate enemy. So he’s going to be incredibly emotionally vulnerable at this point. Sarah kissed him and he didn’t reciprocate at all. Peter if anything can be more forgiven his temptations than Homer was. And Homer was still forgivable as your actions  are what ultimately matter. Peter not only acknowledged  his feelings were wrong and coming from an emotionally confusing place but he never acted upon them either and reaffirmed his love for MJ when all was said and done. Much like Homer did to Marge after rejecting Mindy.

“Mary Jane had such a bad feeling about it, she travelled to France to check in on her hubby, and walked in on him while Gwen Jr. Was kissing Peter.”

Yeah. Because OOC writing exists dipshit. You don’t just take ANY given story as gospel FFS. What kind of pre-schooler level literary analysis is this?

“The fact that Peter was attracted to a 7 year old girl who only looked like she was in her early 20s because of a genetic disorder is super creepy.”

It is because see above about OOC writing. But by this logic the clones of Gwen were even younger. Sarah was mentally 7 but she looked just like an adult Gwen Stacy so obviously  Peter’s emotions and attractions being confused is forgivable under the circumstances.

“So you can totally understand when Mary Jane was upset about that one.”

I’m genuinely shocked this clown was able to be so sympathetic towards MJ here.

“Somewhere, a divorce lawyer just got a huge erection.”

I’m sure he would have if only the story hadn’t ended by reaffirming Peter and MJ’s love for one another.

“It Wasn't Just the Dead Girlfriend, but her Extended Family

Before we get into more of the Stacy family, let's talk about the Watson family for a minute. Mary Jane came from a broken home. An alcoholic and abusive father led to her mother taking the kids and leaving. Although he mom died her sister had two kids and was abandoned by the father. Also, she has a cousin who has an eating disorder. In a lot of these cases, Peter Parker left his wife to deal with the family drama on her own.”

No.

Peter actively helped MJ when she asked him to in ASM #291-292.

He actively helped MJ’s friend who had a drug problem when MJ asked him to.

In the recent one shot Going Big Peter seeks out Kristy when she disappears…because MJ asked him to.

Peter respected MJ and her family and would’ve helped in any way he was able if MJ aske him to.

But between supporting their family, Aunt May and protecting the city because he’s a fucking super hero  his time and abilities to help were limited. Oh and MJ didn’t ask him to.

She felt, not unjustifiably, that she  could handle it. Often MJ wishes to leave Peter as unburdened as possible if she  can handle a situation because his life is dangerous and stressful enough as is. But she knows he’s there to help if she needs it. And he would be there if she needed him.

It’ almost like they were MARRIED or something and divided up their duties appropriately or something.

This clown seems to treat ‘being Spider-Man’ as code for ‘have fun goofing off lulz’. It’s not. It’s a massive duty and higher purpose Peter takes incredibly seriously.

“Which is quite the slap in the face when he spent more time helping the Stacy family. Namely Gwen's cousins Paul and Jill and their dad.”

Because they were his friends, MJ’s friends and at times MJ asked  him to help them. Peter didn’t even like spending time with them initially because they opened up old wounds for him. He had to put the work in to hang around them.

“When they appeared in Spider-Man stories in the late 90s, Mary Jane took a back seat to whatever problems the Stacy's were having.”

No she didn’t.

SOMETIMES the problems regarding the Stacy’s happened to be the A plot. Other times they happened to be the B plot. This happened more often than not in peter Parker: Spider-Man by Mackie. But there were FOUR Spider-titles at the time so that’s more than acceptable.

But Peter never helped the Stacy’s at the expense  of Mary Jane, not unless there was a clear physical danger posed to their lives.

In Mackie/Byrne’s run MJ and Jill were endangered by the same incident and Peter prioritized saving MJ over Jill.

“You're still dealing with your miscarriage Mary Jane? Sorry, I got to talk Paul Stacy out of a hate group right now.”

Get fucked.

I’ve read PPSM #82-83 as well. In fact they were among my earliest ever comic books I re-read them several years ago.

This is yet another MASSIVE distortion of events.

Peter didn’t talk Paul out of a hate group (specifically the anti-mutant hate group the Friends of Humanity) at the expense of helping MJ deal with their miscarriage.

Peter and MJ were due to meet for a counselling session to talk about the miscarriage. However, Paul was being targeted  by a mutant who literally told Peter she was going to murder him. Peter went to prevent that from happening but a bad bout of vertigo (brought on presumably by an encounter with Morbius the Living Vampire) caused Peter to cling to a wall, his life hanging in the balance.

That’s  why he missed the therapy session that one  time.

He wasn’t goofing off. He wasn’t lecturing Paul about why racism is bad m’kay. He was trying to save his life and then save his own life.

So a quintessential example of distorting the facts and removing things from context.

“Peter Shut Her Out of Every Existential Crisis”

No he didn’t. There were multiple times he questioned if he was doing the right thing, if he was making a difference, etc and talked to her about it

Even if he did shut her out that would be conflict  which is what you fucking want in your dramatic  story

WOW! Moments of intense mental/emotional strife involve people not acting in a healthy manner, including in regards to their romantic relationships?????? Who’d have THOUGHT!

“Not only were Mary Jane's problems put on a back burner, whenever Peter had a problem, he shut MJ out.”

MJ herself understood some of her problems had to be put on a back burner for the greater good  that Spider-Man performed for the world at large.

And the times he shut her out amounted to…I don’t even know…maybe once  just prior to the Clone Saga when he was grappling with intense grief and pain and was on the verge of a mental breakdown. Then just went ahead and had  the mental breakdown.

“During their marriage, Peter had huge life-changing moments. The first was when his parents came back from the dead only to be revealed as impostors then his Aunt May suffered a life-threatening stroke.”

Yes. These were definitely the first life-changing moments that occurred after he married Mary Jane.

Being buried alive, encountering Venom, going back to school, his best friend turning to villainy and becoming a reserve Avenger certainly wouldn’t have been life changing at all.

“Spider-Man's answer? Give up on being Peter Parker and embracing the spider.”

I’ll take ‘What if grief and emotional trauma’ for 500 Alex!!!!!!!

Honest to Christ. The story makes everything clear as crystal. This is an entirely believable response to trauma, it’s just literalized because the person experiencing it lives a double life already and has super powers.

“The writers were probably going for dark and moody, but looking back at it, it was a lot of whining.”

He lived his whole life in the wake of losing his parents, then had those wounds reopened when he learned they were not dead, then gradually grew to love and trust them, was stabbed in the back by them, found out they were imposters and his parents had been dead after all, then saw them violently die right in front of him, then learned this was perpetuated by his best friend, then the woman who raised him had a stroke and fell into a coma.

That’s not WHINING, that’s an insane amount of grief and pain you fucking idiot.

No human being could cope with that amount of trauma and NOT express their pain in some form. This isn’t him complaining he missed a date or can’t get his studies done. This is his heart being ripped out and stomped on in front of him repeatedly!

“Also, he totally abandoned his wife. Which is a dick move. Hey Pete, she might be someone to support you through your recent loss.”

HE WAS HAVING A MENTAL BREAKDOWN YOU DUMBASS!

NO ONE thinks clearly or logically when they are in that kind of emotional/mental distress. He was grieving the loss of THREE parents for fuck’s sake!

“Somewhere, a grief councilor just got a huge erection.”

This shithead clearly doesn’t know the meaning of the word grief.

“Then came the Clone Saga where Peter was convinced he was actually a clone of the real Spider-Man. He was too wrapped up on the fact that his past was potentially a lie that he couldn't see the good things in his life. He was married. Had a child on the way. None of this registered with him because of all the clones around putting his past into question.”

Peter Parker’s belief system was that a clone is NOT a real human being, it is a creature that is less  than human and that in being a clone you have no real identity or right to life, you are just a freak. MJ echoes these sentiments in ASM #400.

Ben Reilly, who had all of Peter’s memories became distraught upon learning he was a clone. That occurred circa 1975 when Peter was approximately 22 years old and hadn’t finished college yet. Ben literally grieved for himself and that the memories in his head were a pretense, a life that was not his. He contemplated killing Peter and taking his life. He became borderline suicidal and anti-social. This went on for years during which he pushed himself to the very edge self-destructively.

Putting aside how the original intent was for Ben to be the REAL Peter Parker, Ben’s behaviours display what a dark and dangerous place Peter could’ve gone to had he been in Ben’s position.

The intent of the Jackal and Norman Osborn in orchestrating the Clone Saga was to shatter Peter’s sense of identity. The Jackal wanted to do that in 1975 with a 22 year old Peter. Norman however knew the blow would hurt Peter much more when he had more to lose and so delayed it until 1995 when Peter would’ve been about 27 years old, had more of a career, longer and deeper connections to his loved ones, a wife and a baby on the way.

When he finally pulled the trigger Peter had also only recently recovered from a terrible mental breakdown, lost Aunt May, been falsely accused of murder, had his sense of identity further damaged by yet more clones of himself appearing and learned that he and MJ’s baby might have serious health problems if he was a clone.

In fact MJ’s first reaction upon learning Peter was a clone was to grip her tummy and express concern for her baby. And remember she directly told him a clone isn’t a real person.

When put in context  this caused Peter to have a SECOND mental breakdown. Entirely UNDERSTANDABLY!

This wasn’t a case of appreciating all he had because from his point of view being a clone meant he’d LOST all that. That he COULDN’T have that because he was less than human and not the real person that life belonged to.

If BEN reacted that way when he believed he was a clone then logically OF COURSE Peter was going to take it much, much, much worse.

“It should also be pointed out that during this period, Mary Jane's life was at risk and she was being stalked, again. This time by a clone. However, Peter was once again nowhere to be seen.”

Oh my fucking…HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED!

He wasn’t around because he was literally incarcerated in prison. Breaking out risked exposing his identity and thus endangering MJ and the baby. He also didn’t KNOW she was being stalked. When he found out in ASM #401 he broke out of jail and sought to find her. Later when Ben offered to take his place in jail Peter went on the hunt for MJ’s stalker, his clone Kaine whom he ALSO suspected as the guy who framed him.

Gee, proactively seeking out the guy threatening your wife and who might’ve framed you?

What a shitty husband, it’s not like that’s an entirely practical consideration to take or anything.

“In Heindsight...”

Oh this outta be good

“I could go over every other moment where Peter treated his wife like crap,”

Except he rarely did and the examples you’ve brought up do not hold up to scrutiny in the slightest because you are a clown show of an analyst.

“but those are the huge ones.”

No they aren’t, see above.

“Looking back at the upset of 2007, it's clear that anyone who got mad didn't actually read any of the stories written while Peter and Mary Jane were married.”

That’s so very rich coming from this dipshit, see above.

“Even then, over the past decade there has been a plethora of great Spider-Man stories.”

That’s true.

Agent Venom by Rick Remender

Carnage Family Feud

Carnage USA

Half of Scarlet Spider by Chris Yost

Bits of Ben Reilly: Scarlet Spider by Peter David

AXIS Hobgoblin

AXIS Carnage

Carnage by Gerry Conway

Silk by Robbie Thompson

Superior Foes of Spider-Man

ASM: Renew Your Vows

The issue where Flash Thompson lost his legs

The story regarding the Rhino and his girlfriend

Spider-Man 2099 by Peter David

Notice how none of that stuff focuses upon 616 Peter Parker.

Because between 2008-2018 there were no good stories focussing upon 616 Peter Parker.

At best there were mediocre stories focussing upon the pathetic man-child that was Spider-Man in name only.

“In fact, I'd even argue that Dan Slott's run on Spider-Man has contained some of the best Spider-Man stories of the past two decades.”

And you’d just further confirm yourself to be a moron who doesn’t have the first warm shit of a clue about how to analyse stories if you did.

“I can't think or a stellar Spider-Man run past 198 until Slott's run.”

ASM by JMS+Romita Junior

Sensational by Sacasa

Spec by DeMatteis+Buscema

Spec by DeMatteis+Ross

Marvel Knights by Mark Millar

Bits of Peter Parker: Spider-Man by Paul Jenkins

Hypothetically though let’s say they weren’t stellar.

They would still be OBJECTIVELY better than Dan Slott. Like who’s mothers did Michelinie, DeFalco or any of the above guys murder for you to claim Slott was better than them.

None of those guys:

Had Peter become a paparazzi photographer

Had Aunt May claim she was disappointed in Peter for not supporting her the night Uncle Ben died

Had Doc Ock try to rape Mary Jane

Created a clear cut Mary Sue to upstage Spidey in his own book

Turned Spider-Man into Diet Iron Man

Killed off a Ditko-era character for no other reason beyond a shock death. Except Mark Millar but the character was extremely minor

“Next to JMS' run, Slott has been the best Spider-Man writer in decades.”

Again, notice how he CONVENIENTLY neglected to bring up stuff from the JMS run when MJ and the marriage was written the best.

His criteria for judging MJ literally JUST included:

ASM by Michelinie run from 1989-1994

ASM by DeMatteis in 1994

Conway’s Spec/Web runs from 1988-1989

Spec #226 by DeFalco in 1995

Mackie’s PPSM run from 1997

The Mackie/Byrne run from 1999-2001

That was it.

He stated the marriage lasted between 1987-2007 but his analysis halted at 2001. He’s leaving out 6 goddam years worth of material in addition to ALL the other material he conveniently ignored before then.

“Where to Go From Here?

That raises some interesting questions. Will Peter and Mary Jane tie the knot again? It seems like Marvel is marrying characters off again (Colossus and Kitty Pryde as well as Gambit and Rogue) so that's promising.

Another is the promising thing is that the alternate reality series Renew Your Vows has been doing very well.

The last point is the main reason why they nixed the marriage to begin with: Needing a Spider-Man younger readers can relate with.”

The main reason they nixed it was because Quesada was butthurt Gwen died in 1973 and that MJ got to marry him instead.

“For the past number of years they have been promoting the hell out of Miles Morales, the "Ultimate" Spider-Man. They have been grooming him to be the young Spidey that they want for younger fans.”

Maybe don’t use the term ‘grooming’ in the context of a teenage character there buddy.

“While that doesn't mean Peter and MJ are destined to get married again, hopefully they will allow Peter to at least grow up a little.”

I see.

Marriage = bad because it makes him unrelatable to the kids. But also this dipshit wants Peter to ‘grow up a little’…which is what he had done by marrying MJ in the first place.

“However, let me say this: Doing what's expected doesn't necessarily make for a good story, it's the unexpected.”

Why don’t you ask Star Wars and Game of Thrones fans what they think about that buddy?

“That's what made Slott's run on Spider-Man so great.”

That’s true. Nobody expected Slott would have Doc Ock masturbate in Peter’s body. Nobody expected him to drag out our suffering for as long as he did. Nobody expected he’d invoke such a juvenile idea as Norman Osborn becoming carnage.

“Let's hope Nick Spencer continues that tradition.’

Fuck the unexpected. Just give me competency.

[smokeybrand]

Welcome Back

I am a card carrying geek. I was that nerd in grade school, reading comics, watching anime, and larping with his friends during recess. I’ve always loved things like books and film, mostly because my ma had a penchant for the sci-fi and we would share in her hobbies. I’ve been a fan of Doctor Who since i was a wee lil’ Smokey and had a particular fondness for Max Headroom’s shenanigans. My chosen proclivities lend themselves to alternate universes, divergent timeless, and the interdenominational doppelganger or two. What i am trying to convey, here, is that i am not stranger to the revisit of a franchise. For me, rebooting an established work or expanding a loved lore is not a transgression. I am a fan of narrative. If you can tell a unique story, it really doesn’t even have to be that good, but something creativity and compelling, i am totally on board. This isn't as difficult a feat as you'd think considering how well Hollywood can adapt international films. The Ring and The Departed are effectively remakes of their original Asian fare and those films are spectacular. Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy is the best example of this i can give. His deconstruction of the Batman mythos was one of the best cinematic and storytelling experiences I ever had. If you can take an established narrative, an established universe, and inject your own flavor into it, i am down for that, too. The Kelvin Star Trek timeline immediately comes to mind. Again, comic book guy, specifically a Spider-Man shill.

While i have years worth of alternate Spider-Men in the books to pull from, i think the most concise example i can give for a layman is to think Into the Spider-Verse, only with thousands more Spider-Men and Spider-Women. That’s the world I'm broaching this subject from, where there are decades worth of stories and reboots and remakes and reimagings, basically revisits, of a character that i absolutely love. Some are great like the Ultimate Spider-Man or the world of Renew Your Vows, and some are not so great, like that version Abrams’ kid came up with. That whole story was the worst. We have actually seen a little bit of this narrative reincarnation in the Spider-Man film franchise, itself, both good and bad. If we take the very first Spider-Man films, those campy, Raimi classics, as a starting point, then we had a terrible reboot in the Amazing franchise and a rather brilliant reimagining in the MCU outings. I really like the MCU retool. Tom Holland is THE onscreen Peter Parker and you can fight me about it all day.

Jurassic World and The Force Awakens are an interesting situation in the whole Revisit discourse. Both of these films are effectively reboots of the entire franchise and a whole ass remake of their initial entries. Beat for beat, theme for theme, these two films are basically the same as Jurassic Park and Episode IV, just less than they are in every conceivable fashion. Now, on paper, i should hate this but i don’t. There is a reason both of the imitations made billions for their respective franchise and that is simply nostalgia. We. as a culture, were starved for a Jurassic sequel and new Star War. When we got these movies in earnest, no one cared they were rehashes of the films that made them so important to the cultural zeitgeist. It was like seeing A New Hope and that initial outing to Isla Nublar for the first time, for a second time, but with much better effects. It had been decades since either of these movies had a proper release so we all just accepted that these were refresher courses in the lore. It was with the sequels that these things sh*t the bed so hard.

Fallen Kingdom and The Last Jedi skewed so far from what these franchises were, from the rules that had been established in the preceding films, including the first in their new trilogies, that they were offensive. Legitimately offensive. Jurassic World and The Force Awakens, as flawed as they were, left their worlds in respectable places. The narratives that could be built from those starting point were incredible. That potential was palpable. Lucas, himself, said that the stories should rhyme and you see that in his six films. Familiar yet different. Nostalgic yet original. Respectful yet original. None of that was recognized in the follow-ups and that is why these two franchises are on life support. It’s sad because there was potential there. Characters introduced were compelling and narrative threads left unties, could have become something great. Instead, expectations were subverted and the world completely sh*t on in an effort to be edgy, to distance itself from the established lore. That sh*t is whack. It’s not about being a fan of the franchise or a zealous istaphobe or whatever else the Twatter mob wants to accuse people of being. It’s about bad story telling. it’s abut a complete betrayal of a decades old franchise. It’s a bout being disingenuous with the property for personal gain.

I said at the beginning of this essay that i love a revisit. That’s why i went to see these sh*tty films. I also made very clear that i love storytelling. Fallen Kingdom and The Last Jedi lack in that fundamental aspect, that’s why they suck. They’ve done irreparable damage to the entire franchise and canon of these worlds that were so meticulously crafted by proper visionaries. Michael Crichton is rolling in his grave at what became of his Dinosaur Westworld and Lucas effectively bogarded his way into running Lucasfilm again after they sh*t on his legacy and that’s the thing; Legacy. These two franchises are part of American culture. They’re as revered as Apple Pie and Institutional Racism here. They’re not cash grabs or vehicles to push your politics. They’re modern fairy tales, myths, and should be respected as such. The thing is, though, i don’t believe there are actual creatives out there that have the vision to create like Crichton or Lucas anymore. Or, at least, Creatives that are willing to work within the constraints of this ridiculous studio system.

Modern film studios are disgustingly risk averse. That is a problem with anything making entertainment media nowadays but it’s most egregious in Hollywood. Films like Star Wars and Alien were made in a time when budgets didn’t swell to hundreds of millions of dollars so directors had to do what he could, with what they had, and that level of imagination birthed classics. It’s rare that creators get a blank check to deliver their vision nowadays, and even rarer that what they get to make if they receive that loot, is actually good. Zack Snyder and the train wreck that is Sucker Punch demonstrates my point perfectly. the new Lucases and Camerons are rare but there are a handful of directors who carry that torch. Denis Villeneuve is an incredible visual storyteller. He has a distinct vision for the grand and manages to craft proper worlds. Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best films i have ever seen in my life but it didn’t make money because people have been conditioned to ignore great storytelling for great effects. That sh*t is why people can say to me, with a straight face, that they think Batman v. Superman is better than The Dark Knight rises. That sh*t is stupid, shut the f*ck up. Deni was given the reigns to the Dune reboot and i think this might be the film that breaks him through to the mainstream.

Dune is a reboot. It looks like a revisit to the old David Lynch flick but with Deni’s penchant for the epic. This movie feels like what Jurassic World and The Force Awakens wanted to do; A respectful acknowledgment of what came before but an original take going forward. Dune is one of the greatest sci-fi novels ever written and Deni is one of the most profound visionaries in the game right now.  I have no doubt the new film is going to be fantastic. This combination is a match made in heaven, similar to Alex Garland with Annihilation or, more accurately i think, Luca Guadagnino and Suspiria. Those two films are f*cking incredible and they adapt the source material in a very, specific, manner. Annihilation is a reimagining of the book and carries its own themes and tones while the new Suspiria is a complete reinterpretation of what came before, that i believe eclipses the original. Dune looks excellent but i don’t know that it will be well received. Deni has his work cut out for him because the world of revisits is riddle with the corpses of films that couldn’t care the weight of what came before or what could have been. Still, i don’t want Hollywood to stop. As unoriginal as remaking things is, i adore a fresh set of eyes on familiar fare. There are infinite ways to tell the same story and that’s the fun of revisiting an old tale.

[twobitmulder]

On Spider-Man, Reboots, and the Future of the X-Men

A while ago I made a post called “Thoughts on MCU Peter Parker and Reboots” which ended up being mostly an examination (or rant) on why MCU Peter doesn’t work for me and was kind of soft on the analysis of reboots. Now, with the announcement that Sony and Marvel’s Spidey deal has fallen through, I thought I’d take another crack as examining why reboots lead to less than stellar versions of characters, and why it’s got me scarred for the X-Men to join the MCU.

Now, right off the bat I feel I should say that I’m not against reboots and re-imaginings. I think The Incredible Hulk is broadly better than the Ang Lee Hulk. I think the 1999 Mummy is better than the 1932 classic. Reboots can be a radical re-imagining, a second draft, or even an examination of different facets of the character (like how Lettier’s Hulk focused more on the lonely wanderer in search of a cure, while Lee’s focused on the father issues). This works especially for long running characters who have a lot of material to work with.

I think my problem with MCU Spidey starts with the way that Sony and Marvel approached the idea of the reboot. The Amazing Spider-Man with Andrew Garfield felt the need to be radically different from the Rami films. The Rami films played all the silver age comic book tropes gleefully straight. An old fashioned news room, his start in wrestling, and the campy villains. It exists in a sort of anachronism stew to borrow the TVTropes term, much like Burton’s Batman.

Webb’s films tried to find their own voice by pushing Peter back into high school and making them a little more deliberately modern. They used a more modern incarnation of Peter as opposed to the good natured Silver Age doofus that Tobey Maguire played. Garfield’s Peter is probably my favorite, and the one who feels closest to my ideal comics Peter, but that’s not really the point here. The point is, he HAD to be different otherwise people would accuse it of being the same thing over again.

So there we were with (in my opinion) someone who acted a little more like the Peter I knew growing up, who occupied a more familiar world, but we also had to gloss over his rivalry with Osborne because it had already been done. This was a criminal waste of Chris Cooper and Dane Dehaan, who were fantastic choices for those characters, but more to the point, it shows how this could not just be a second draft. It had to be different, which meant that even if it fixed some things that Raimi might not have hit the mark on, it also got rid of things that he had done right. The Osborne’s, the Bugle, and Mary Jane (well, he didn’t quite to MJ right, but the fact that she had already been used probably spurred the switch to Gwen).

Then when those flopped Peter joined the MCU. I remember reading that in my dorm room my first year of undergrad and whooping with joy. I thought about his relationship with Daredevil, who we knew was coming, and Captain America. Having Osborne be an Avengers level threat who battles Peter on the lawn of the White House while the Sinister SIx hold the Avengers at bay (Bendis’ Ultimate Spider-Man was the saving grace of the Ultimate Universe). Feige promised Peter would have a “non-stop wit.” It was all coming together.

Civil War came out and he seemed a little tacked on but it didn’t matter because he was there. Sure Stark gave him his suit, but he had designed the prototype and there was no way they’d make Peter the science genius dependent on Tony Stark.

“Weary sigh.”

I want to like the MCU Spider-Man so bad, Everyone else likes him. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. I already went over why I don’t care for him, so I’ll skip that*. Once again, the point is, this one HAD to be different. Because he was back with Marvel we had been given the implicit promise of a fully realized comic accurate Spider-Man, fixing everything Webb and Raimi (read Sony) had gotten wrong.

The problem was that Webb and Raimi had gotten a lot right. So MCU Spidey glossed over Uncle Ben “because it had been done before.” He never clashed with Oscorpe or the Goblins “because it had already been done before.” There was no selling pictures to the Bugle “because it had already been done before”*. 

He didn’t make quips because everyone else was funny and he had to be the wide eyed kid, played younger and less mature than Garfield or Maguire. And (okay a little bit of whining from me) he had to rely on Tony Stark because we had to be reminded that now he was part of the MCU. 

The MCU Spidey got a lot right and some of their updates worked for the better. I love that Peter and May live in a small apartment instead of a house because they’re poor and New York is expensive. I like that his school feels like a real high school, with kids who basically act like kids. I like that he has a confidant (Ned Leeds was a weird choice, I’d have gone with Hobie Brown, Deb Whitman, or Kenny Kong, but I like the character anyway). I love love love their takes on Vulture and my favorite Spidey Rogue Mysterio. But, in their drive to be different from the past iterations they changed the character a little too drastically. It wasn’t a third draft to get Spider-Man right, it was a bottom up reimagining that (my opinion only) jettisoned a lot of what makes the character compelling.

Now he’s apparently gone from the future of the MCU and honestly, personally, I’m kind of relieved. I’m glad he’s indelibly a full fledged part of the MCU narrative, and he got to see the Infinity Saga through to the end, but I don’t think I could have taken another movie of Peter becoming Stark’s Robin just to be different from what came before.

This all brings us to the X-Men. I love the X-Men. I love Gambit, Nightcrawler, Rogue, Kitty Pryde, Iceman, Cyclops and all the rest (but them first and foremost). I love the place Mutants have in the Marvel Universe and the potential for clashes with other heroes and compelling stories to be told about the nature of marginalization and identity. The problem is, the previous X-Men movies covered those bases from a lot of different angles and my fear is that when they join the MCU they’ll be so concerned with being different that they’ll forget what makes them the X-Men*.

In the end, we still have years of comics and alternate universes, cartoons and canon that we can pick and choose from. It’s just so frustrating because we were so close to a perfect unified cinematic universe like we’d only ever dreamed of. We all have different bits of it that we wish had been done better, but I suppose the mere fact that it exists in any form is pretty damn cool.

*Except to say that, as Gail Simone so eloquently put it in an otherwise positive review of Far From Home, Holland’s Spider-Man isn’t the everyman who mocks the rich and powerful, he worships them and wants to be their friend.

*While I was happy to see the Jameson, Simmons, and the Daily Bugle return, and while I can’t deny that turning him into a lunatic pundit makes sense for the character as he’s portrayed in Spider-Man, I think that modern superhero stories have a problem with the old school journalist characters. Yes in real life print journalism isn’t what it used to be, but if we can accept superpowers, alien warlords, and good hearted billionaires surely we can accept the fantasy of a newspaper that still functions like they used to.

*I don’t have this worry for Fantastic Four (my first favorite superheroes) because while the Tim Story movies were close (and Trank’s reboot is emblematic of this whole issue on a massive scale) they haven’t been in the public consciousness and had a continued presence like Spidey and the X-Men so there’s less need to “be different” and more opportunity to actually get to the core of the FF the way they did with Captain America and Thor.

[angel-gidget]

Assorted Symbiote Suit Sagas

I might be developing a thing for comparing and contrasting rehashed Spider-man storylines.

I got Spider-man: The Complete Alien Costume Saga from the library this past week and read through it. Then my bud @dayenurose was sweet enough to lend me her Gwenom tpb. Now my current stopping point in Spider-girl has Mayday dealing with the backlash of switching to a black costume.

I saw a tumblr post sometime ago--around the time the Venom movie came out--that talked about what the original alien costume saga looks like from the symbiote’s point of view. It noted that that symbiote wasn’t evil, but easily influenced, and that Peter had inadvertently set a bad example for it by treating it like an inanimate object. Then, of course, Peter made it feel unjustly betrayed by panicking and trying to off it upon realizing it was alive.

Gotta say, that definitely influenced my reading. It shifts the Costume Saga from a mystery to a really prolonged tale of dramatic irony. 

And also, drama in general bc oooohhh boy. I had seen people talk about Peter and Felicia Hardy’s original 616 dating life, but I thought they were exaggerating. They were not. Black Cat is a basket case. A really entertaining basket case of identity issues. I had expected to be impatient about that, as I knew little about her and tend to find myself rather squarely in the Peter/Mary Jane camp, but I was fascinated enough by the train wreck to actually enjoy it quite a bit.

She really brings out the procrastinator in Peter, I think. She blows off his civilian problems, and while this doesn’t nix Peter’s awareness that they are still problems, it does encourage him to put them on the back-burner in favor of cavorting in costume with her. This includes the problem of not knowing jack sh*t about an alien costume that seems to change shape by reading his mind. Cheeze whiz, Pete.

In some ways, his prolonging seemed to go on forever because the trade alternated between Spider-man’s solo title and Marvel Team-up. The Marvel team-up stuff could be fun, but not always the most relevant thing regarding the Costume Saga stuff, but at least I got to see a bit of Monica Rambeau, Cloak, and Dagger, characters I was rather curious about.

Then we’ve got the Spider-Gwen version of things. I expected Gwen’s take on events to be wildly fast-paced by comparison, because her title’s been good like that. I did NOT expect her symbiote relationship to be so... sybiotic. So positive.

I think my expectations might have been thrown off by the old Avengers Academy mobile game, of all things. Because it DID feature a Gwenom outfit+sidestory that had Gwen going a teensy bit dark-side from the suit’s influence.

But in the actual comic, Gwen might be very paranoid about getting in bed with such a mysterious critter, but she seems to catch on quick that SHE is in the lead. And then she seems to embrace and adapt to it fluidly. It felt a teensy bit abrupt to me, but ultimately, I think I dig it.

Then there’s Spider-girl. Mayday’s situation isn’t really a symbiote costume at this point, per se. When her usual suit gets trashed, she’s in a hurry to replace it. The quickest thing she can get her mits on just happens to be a black venom-style suit.

When her parents see her in it the next morning, she nearly gives Mary Jane a heart attack. Her dad gives a rather vague explanation of the venom costume history, but as sorry as May is about upsetting her mom, she still doesn’t HAVE another suit at the moment.

Later, when she DOES have options, she’s torn. In her case, it really is JUST a suit. But by being that, it’s a fresh look when May wants the feeling of a clean slate from her mistakes.

She’s also accepting resources from a shady yet helpful character named Tarantula, and while she’s on the fence about his intentions, she likes the people he hooks her up with. (Some helpful gals-in-the-chair, and Elektra as her personal combat coach.) The black suit reinforces her association with them which feels like another incentive to hang onto it.

I suppose to put the cherry on top of this trifecta, I would also enjoy reading the Ultimate Spider-man Venom storyline, but sadly, the library’s volume is all checked out.

Anyways, I find myself in the mood to do something similar with the clone saga. I did read the Ultimate version of those events waaaayyyy back when, and enjoyed it, but if I understand correctly, the original is more complicated.

But I feel like I’m constantly running into references to it, and I did enjoy Ben Reiley’s arc the giant Spiderverse compendium. (Though I largely read it for love of Ultimate Peter Parker’s clone, Jessica.)  I also read the Clone fake-out storyline of Renew Your Vows which was fun.

And apparently one of the 616 reboots of clone saga was drawn by Todd Nauck? I suppose I’ll have to save that one till the end as a final treat.

[smokeybrandreviews]

Welcome Back

I am a card carrying geek. I was that nerd in grade school, reading comics, watching anime, and larping with his friends during recess. I’ve always loved things like books and film, mostly because my ma had a penchant for the sci-fi and we would share in her hobbies. I’ve been a fan of Doctor Who since i was a wee lil’ Smokey and had a particular fondness for Max Headroom’s shenanigans. My chosen proclivities lend themselves to alternate universes, divergent timeless, and the interdenominational doppelganger or two. What i am trying to convey, here, is that i am not stranger to the revisit of a franchise. For me, rebooting an established work or expanding a loved lore is not a transgression. I am a fan of narrative. If you can tell a unique story, it really doesn’t even have to be that good, but something creativity and compelling, i am totally on board. This isn't as difficult a feat as you'd think considering how well Hollywood can adapt international films. The Ring and The Departed are effectively remakes of their original Asian fare and those films are spectacular. Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy is the best example of this i can give. His deconstruction of the Batman mythos was one of the best cinematic and storytelling experiences I ever had. If you can take an established narrative, an established universe, and inject your own flavor into it, i am down for that, too. The Kelvin Star Trek timeline immediately comes to mind. Again, comic book guy, specifically a Spider-Man shill.

While i have years worth of alternate Spider-Men in the books to pull from, i think the most concise example i can give for a layman is to think Into the Spider-Verse, only with thousands more Spider-Men and Spider-Women. That’s the world I'm broaching this subject from, where there are decades worth of stories and reboots and remakes and reimagings, basically revisits, of a character that i absolutely love. Some are great like the Ultimate Spider-Man or the world of Renew Your Vows, and some are not so great, like that version Abrams’ kid came up with. That whole story was the worst. We have actually seen a little bit of this narrative reincarnation in the Spider-Man film franchise, itself, both good and bad. If we take the very first Spider-Man films, those campy, Raimi classics, as a starting point, then we had a terrible reboot in the Amazing franchise and a rather brilliant reimagining in the MCU outings. I really like the MCU retool. Tom Holland is THE onscreen Peter Parker and you can fight me about it all day.

Jurassic World and The Force Awakens are an interesting situation in the whole Revisit discourse. Both of these films are effectively reboots of the entire franchise and a whole ass remake of their initial entries. Beat for beat, theme for theme, these two films are basically the same as Jurassic Park and Episode IV, just less than they are in every conceivable fashion. Now, on paper, i should hate this but i don’t. There is a reason both of the imitations made billions for their respective franchise and that is simply nostalgia. We. as a culture, were starved for a Jurassic sequel and new Star War. When we got these movies in earnest, no one cared they were rehashes of the films that made them so important to the cultural zeitgeist. It was like seeing A New Hope and that initial outing to Isla Nublar for the first time, for a second time, but with much better effects. It had been decades since either of these movies had a proper release so we all just accepted that these were refresher courses in the lore. It was with the sequels that these things sh*t the bed so hard.

Fallen Kingdom and The Last Jedi skewed so far from what these franchises were, from the rules that had been established in the preceding films, including the first in their new trilogies, that they were offensive. Legitimately offensive. Jurassic World and The Force Awakens, as flawed as they were, left their worlds in respectable places. The narratives that could be built from those starting point were incredible. That potential was palpable. Lucas, himself, said that the stories should rhyme and you see that in his six films. Familiar yet different. Nostalgic yet original. Respectful yet original. None of that was recognized in the follow-ups and that is why these two franchises are on life support. It’s sad because there was potential there. Characters introduced were compelling and narrative threads left unties, could have become something great. Instead, expectations were subverted and the world completely sh*t on in an effort to be edgy, to distance itself from the established lore. That sh*t is whack. It’s not about being a fan of the franchise or a zealous istaphobe or whatever else the Twatter mob wants to accuse people of being. It’s about bad story telling. it’s abut a complete betrayal of a decades old franchise. It’s a bout being disingenuous with the property for personal gain.

I said at the beginning of this essay that i love a revisit. That’s why i went to see these sh*tty films. I also made very clear that i love storytelling. Fallen Kingdom and The Last Jedi lack in that fundamental aspect, that’s why they suck. They’ve done irreparable damage to the entire franchise and canon of these worlds that were so meticulously crafted by proper visionaries. Michael Crichton is rolling in his grave at what became of his Dinosaur Westworld and Lucas effectively bogarded his way into running Lucasfilm again after they sh*t on his legacy and that’s the thing; Legacy. These two franchises are part of American culture. They’re as revered as Apple Pie and Institutional Racism here. They’re not cash grabs or vehicles to push your politics. They’re modern fairy tales, myths, and should be respected as such. The thing is, though, i don’t believe there are actual creatives out there that have the vision to create like Crichton or Lucas anymore. Or, at least, Creatives that are willing to work within the constraints of this ridiculous studio system.

Modern film studios are disgustingly risk averse. That is a problem with anything making entertainment media nowadays but it’s most egregious in Hollywood. Films like Star Wars and Alien were made in a time when budgets didn’t swell to hundreds of millions of dollars so directors had to do what he could, with what they had, and that level of imagination birthed classics. It’s rare that creators get a blank check to deliver their vision nowadays, and even rarer that what they get to make if they receive that loot, is actually good. Zack Snyder and the train wreck that is Sucker Punch demonstrates my point perfectly. the new Lucases and Camerons are rare but there are a handful of directors who carry that torch. Denis Villeneuve is an incredible visual storyteller. He has a distinct vision for the grand and manages to craft proper worlds. Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best films i have ever seen in my life but it didn’t make money because people have been conditioned to ignore great storytelling for great effects. That sh*t is why people can say to me, with a straight face, that they think Batman v. Superman is better than The Dark Knight rises. That sh*t is stupid, shut the f*ck up. Deni was given the reigns to the Dune reboot and i think this might be the film that breaks him through to the mainstream.

Dune is a reboot. It looks like a revisit to the old David Lynch flick but with Deni’s penchant for the epic. This movie feels like what Jurassic World and The Force Awakens wanted to do; A respectful acknowledgment of what came before but an original take going forward. Dune is one of the greatest sci-fi novels ever written and Deni is one of the most profound visionaries in the game right now.  I have no doubt the new film is going to be fantastic. This combination is a match made in heaven, similar to Alex Garland with Annihilation or, more accurately i think, Luca Guadagnino and Suspiria. Those two films are f*cking incredible and they adapt the source material in a very, specific, manner. Annihilation is a reimagining of the book and carries its own themes and tones while the new Suspiria is a complete reinterpretation of what came before, that i believe eclipses the original. Dune looks excellent but i don’t know that it will be well received. Deni has his work cut out for him because the world of revisits is riddle with the corpses of films that couldn’t care the weight of what came before or what could have been. Still, i don’t want Hollywood to stop. As unoriginal as remaking things is, i adore a fresh set of eyes on familiar fare. There are infinite ways to tell the same story and that’s the fun of revisiting an old tale.

[videobreakdown-blog]

Spiderman: Into the Spider-Verse Review

Spider-Man crosses parallel dimensions and teams up with the Spider-Men of those dimensions to stop a threat to all reality.

With having six films under his belt as well as two other appearances in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you might be forgiven in thinking Spider-Man on film had explored all it could, especially when those films have already seen two fresh reboots of the wall-crawler’s origin. Spidey’s first foray into animated features, however, gives both mainstream audiences and Spidey fans something incredibly fresh with Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. The film embraces everything great about Spider-Man, acting as a love-letter to the character and what he represents with the inclusion of fan-favourite Miles Morales and several other Spider-men and women. Its a vastly entertaining and heartfelt film with an outstanding visual quality that looks like a comic book brought to life.

Rather than focus entirely on Peter Parker, Into the Spider-Verse wisely chooses to place the spotlight on Miles, a relatively new character to the franchise who became a new Spider-Man in an alternate universe. Miles helps give the film that refreshing feeling as the story focuses on him, his family and origin into Spider-Man. He’s a very relatable and easy character to root for as the story follows his search for identity and what makes him so special in the Spider-Man mythos. This success is due in part to Shameik Moore’s portrayal of Miles. Moore does a great job of giving Miles a youthful vulnerability and shares great chemistry with Jake Johnson’s alternate Parker and Hailee Steinfeld’s Spider-Gwen. For any fans who have only known the Parker version of Spidey, the film makes it very easy for audiences to invest in Miles as a character and his development throughout the story.

When it comes to Spider-Man proper, the film takes some very risky choices with Peter Parker. Unlike the Spider-Man of Miles’ world, the alternate Spider-Man that gets zapped across dimensions is an older, disheveled and disillusioned man who has lost nearly everything, including his will to fight. It’s a very new take on Spidey, but one that ultimately pays off as it puts the character in an entirely new state of mind. Johnson conveys the weariness and regret of this Spidey well, yet still retains his wit and charm even if it is mostly for show. It also allows for a bit of a deconstruction on Spider-Man and why he has remained such a popular superhero for nearly 60 years, examining his tendency to bounce back and refuse surrender despite the curves life throws at him.

The rest of the cast do very well in their roles. Steinfeld is great as Spider-Gwen and relishes every moment of the hero’s big screen debut while Nicolas Cage and John Mulaney deliver some of the film’s funniest moments as Spider-Noir and Spider-Ham respectively. Kimiko Glenn’s anime-inspired Peni Parker wasn’t quite as memorable as the other alternate Spideys and could have been a bit more fleshed out, but she still delivered some funny moments and cool sequences in the fights. On the villainous front, Kathryn Hahn made for a very fun new take on Doctor Octopus while Liev Schreiber gave a worthy performance as Wilson Fisk, aka Kingpin. As the main antagonist of the story, Into the Spider-Verse gives Kingpin a motivation that doesn’t revolve around ruling the world or dimensions and instead goes for something much more human and emotional. However, the emotion for Kingpin’s motivation does lack some depth as its presented on a very superficial level. A little more exploration into Kingpin would have been welcome.

The story moves along at a nice pace, taking the time to let the audience sit with Miles’ emotions during some of the quiet scenes as he’s thrown for loop after loop. Events in the film feel pretty organic and aren’t rushed, giving a nice balance of the film’s emotional and serious tones with its comedy. Into the Spider-Verse is absolutely hilarious with so many of the jokes or slapstick moments sticking the landing. None of it feels like its too much, but comes naturally and at the right places where the film calls for the characters and audiences to breathe a little. It also boasts some of the best action in a Spider-Man film that is very easy to follow and incredibly fluid. With so many Spidey characters, it could have been difficult to portray all their abilities, but they all move so well in some very well-choreographed and animated action sequences. The combination of the film’s fun atmosphere and tension is mixed well-together, especially during its memorable climax.

Into the Spider-Verse is also unique among the animated genre for how it presents its animation. The film’s visuals are gorgeous, from the how the action is depicted to the mix of colours, the visual palette is full of vivid imagery. It even goes the extra mile to include thought boxes, words splashed across the screen or written sound effects to separate itself from other animated fare by embracing its comic heritage. The details of the characters themselves draw a lot of individual attention, such as the way Spider-Nior appears grainy or Peni’s cell-shaded look to emphasize her anime roots. The film really does look like a comic book brought to life.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a celebration of all things Spidey throughout his publication history. Directors Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey and Rodney Rothman know exactly what to focus on by making Miles the star, yet still examining why Spidey has remained so prevalent in pop culture. Its visuals are stunning and action quite entertaining and memorable, but the full emphasis is placed on the story and characters instead of just simply moving the plot from A to B to keep it going. Whether you’re a casual fan or really into Spidey, Into the Spider-Verse is highly entertaining and enjoyable.

[placetobenation]

Steve’s Box Office Report: May 2009

Top 10 Films for the Month of May:

1. Up – $293,004,164

2. Star Trek – $257,730,019

3. X-Men Origins: Wolverine – $179,883,157

4. Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian – $177,243,721

5. Angels and Demons – $133,375,846

6. Terminator Salvation – $125,322,469

7. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past – $55,250,026

8. Drag Me to Hell – $42,100,625

9. Dance Flick – $25,662,155

10. Next Day Air – $10,027,047

Honorable Mentions:

1. Battle for Terra – $1,647,083

May Winners: Up, Star Trek, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

So as we head into the month of May and the unofficial beginning of the summer, it was now time for the big guns to start coming out and make their mark in the box office. This month had plenty of big titles coming out that would look to kick off the summer on a high note, and for the most part they did just that as we have a solid amount of winners for this month. The first film from this month that makes it into this category is Pixar’s newest film Up, a film about a man who uses thousands of balloons to help fly his house to Paradise Falls unaware that he has a stowaway guest. After releasing their films the last three years in the month of June, Pixar decides to move back to May after 6 years and the end result was still the same as it would finish with close to $300 million while also being Pixar’s second highest grossing film for the time. The next film from this month that makes it into this category is the sci-fi film Star Trek, a reboot of the classic TV series and film series which sees a young James Kirk and Spock join Starfleet and team up to save Earth from the Romulan Nero. As the first Star Trek film in 7 years and being set in an alternate timeline, the film would end up receiving critical acclaim from critics and would go on to have a very successful run throughout the month which we will delve further into later in the recap. The next film from this month that makes it into this category is the superhero film X-Men Origins: Wolverine, a film about Wolverine’s upbringing and becoming infused with adamantium by William Stryker. Despite still having some goodwill from the previous X-Men films and the fact that it features the most popular of the X-Men, this film would receive mixed reviews from critics and while it had a solid debut, it would fall behind some of the other films from this month and barely finished in the top 3 for the month. The fourth and final film from this month that makes it into this category is the action fantasy film Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, the sequel to the first film where former night guard Larry Daley must retrieve the Tablet of Ahkmenrah from the Smithsonian Institute with the aide of Amelia Earhart. Much like its predecessor, the film would receive mixed reviews from critics but it still had some goodwill from how successful the last film was, and it would end up having a solid debut over Memorial Day weekend and finished in the top 5 while almost overtaking X-Men Origins to get in the top 3. Considering these four films were looked at to be the ones to drive the month, they did very well and helped lift the month of May up and kick the summer off to a strong start.

May Losers: Terminator: Salvation

Going into this month, there were several films that were being closely looked at as to how they would end up doing and if they would be successful. While most of the films from this month did very well or at least moderately well, there were a few that were not able to live up to the expectations that were set for them. Amazingly though, we only had one film that ended up being in this category and that is the sci-fi action film Terminator: Salvation, serving as a sequel to Terminator 3 where John Connor leads the Resistance against the Machines with some help from a half human/half cyborg. The film would receive mixed to negative reviews from critics who felt it didn’t live up to its predecessors and while it did have a decent debut, it would tail off pretty quickly and couldn’t even surpass the previous two films. It was a major disappointment for the franchise that was looking to regain momentum after the failure of the third film and the TV series, and it would be quite a while before another Terminator film would be released and try to reignite the spark of the franchise.

The Surprise/Story of May 2009: Up rises its way to the top of loaded May 2009

Going into the month of May, there were several films that were being released this month that were seen as potential money makers and it would be interesting to see which film would end up finishing at the top of the month. One of the more intriguing decisions was Pixar’s decision to release Up this month instead of in June which had saw their last three films released during that month, and it would be interesting to see if the film would have the same success in a different month. Sure enough, Up would indeed debut at number one in the box office which made it 10 out of 10 for Pixar in terms of debuting at number one, and coming out at the end of the month ensured it would have a healthy run throughout June which would feature a lack of family films. There was no doubt by this point that Pixar was on possibly its best run to date and that any film they make was going to be a success, and it will be interesting to see how long the run would last or if it would even slow down.

Overachiever of May 2009: Star Trek

As the 2000s continued on, it seemed like the Star Trek franchise was in a major state of flux given the commercial and critical failure of Star Trek: Genesis, and then the TV series Star Trek: Enterprise had been cancelled in 2005. It was then decided that the series would be rebooted with the next film and that it would feature younger versions of the characters, but eventually it was determined that this film would also be set in an alternate timeline from the original series while still being tied in with the original series. There was plenty of hype going into this film and a lot of questions as to whether it would be able to succeed, especially given that it was being released on the second weekend of May which is typically a dead weekend where big films aren’t released. Ultimately, the film would receive critical acclaim as many felt it was a breath of fresh air and exactly the jolt that the franchise needed, and it would end up crushing all the other Star Trek films in terms of money made while also finishing second for the month. It was a major win for the franchise and you knew that there was still plenty of juice left, and it would only be a matter of time before a sequel would be greenlit and would come out within the next few years. As a result, there is no question that Star Trek would end up being one of the bigger films to come out in 2009 and deserves its title as the overachiever for the month of May.

Underachiever of May 2009: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

For the entirety of the 2000s, the Marvel franchise on the big screen has mostly consisted of 3 X-Men films and three Spider-Man films, and there have been a handful of one-offs and now the Marvel Cinematic Universe officially launched last year. When it was announced that a spinoff film featuring Wolverine was going to happen, there was plenty of buzz as Wolverine has always been considered the most popular of the X-Men. Even though the 3 X-Men films had touched on Wolverine’s origins, this film was going to delve even further while also potentially begin a string of origin films for the X-Men. Unfortunately, the end results was not what most had hoped for and while the film did have a fairly strong debut, it would fall behind other major releases from this month like Star Trek and Up. Despite the film receiving some positive reviews for certain aspects, there was considerable disappointment amongst the fanbase and it would end up marking a change in shift for the X-Men franchise when the new decade started. It would also be several years before another Wolverine standalone film would come out and as a result, this film would end up being given the distinction of being named the underachiever for the month of May 2009.

May 2009 Awards Watch: Up and Star Trek

As we continue on into the spring, we have had a pretty limited amount of films come out that have been nominated for one of the big three awards. Since March, we have only seen two films a month be nominated for one of the big awards and that holds serve here as only two films from this month manage to make it into this category. The first film from this month that makes it into this category is Up which was considered one of the finest animated films released this year, and it would win two Academy Awards (Best Animated Film and Best Original Score) while being nominated for three more (Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Sound Editing). This was a pretty historic moment as Up became only the second animated film to be nominated for Best Picture which is quite a feat since it had been almost 20 years since the last time an animated film was nominated for that award. Up would also win two Golden Globe Awards (Best Animated Film and Best Original Song) which would solidify its status as one of the most successful films of the year. The other film from this month that makes it into this category is Star Trek as it would win one Academy Award (Best Makeup) while being nominated for three more (Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, and Best Visual Effects). So even though only two films from this month were included in this category, the fact that they were nominated multiple times proves that they were among the elite of the films released this year.

Overall Thoughts of May 2009:

So overall, the month of May 2009 ended up being a pretty successful month and easily the best of the year thus far. After the last two years where May had only a couple of films come out and carry the month, this year had quite a number of films able to carry the month with 6 films reaching over $100 million. While the rest of the films from this month ended up being a pretty mixed bag of results, the major films that were released this month mostly met their expectations and a few even exceeded expectations. 2009 has been a very interesting year in that every month from this year has had at least one film do very well, but the rest of the films in each month ranged from solid to below average. However, it was pretty obvious that this month had too much going for it to fail and sure enough, it didn’t fail and we will see if the box office can keep the momentum going as the summer officially begins. As for the month of May 2009, it was a very successful month and has currently set the bar for the rest of the year to try and match or even surpass.

Final Grade: A+

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Spider-Man 2099 v4 #1 and 2099 Omega Thoughts

This is literally the third time I’ve purchased a comic book called Spider-Man 2099 #1 in 5 years. Technically more if we include reprints. Isn’t that kind of ridiculous?

Fun fact, I wasn’t buying any comics (sans some pre-OMD Spidey and Deadpool Classic trades) between 2009 and 2014. It was the 2014 Spidey 2099 run that got me back into the game, for good or ill.

This issue wasn’t nearly as good at series. And Omega was…lol…it was so bad and essentially an extension of Spidey 2099 I’m covering them together.

I remember fondly my hype when I saw Miguel in ASM v5 #25 and my hype for this one shot, back when I didn’t realize it was just part of a larger event.

Oh boy did this let me down.

Let me start with some superficial praise.

The art for Spidey 2099 and Sandoval on Omega were decent. And there was some interesting ideas pertaining to the world of the future, such as the removal of money and instead having everyone’s value depend upon what they can contribute. A society built upon meritocrisy, albeit with harsh reprisals if you can contribute little. Also the idea of corporations fixing things so only insiders can gain employment speaks to the corporatocracy  of the 2099 universe (one severely undermined when we consider Doom is ultimately in charge anyway…). People intentionally using drugs to keep up their work productivity is another great idea, and a genuinely interesting twist upon the original depiction of the rapture drug from Spidey 2099 v1 #1.  Finally people essentially enabling identity theft in exchange for drugs was an interesting sci-fi concept.

But beyond that…this was bad.

When I began covering this event proper with 2099 Alpha my dominant critique was ‘who is this for’.

A reboot of the 2099 line over 20 years since the original line ended and less than 3 years since the revival of it ended? A reboot intended to modernize the 1990s’ take on the future, a take that frankly proved 99% accurate anyway. And finally a reboot that alternated between doing spotty world building, killing off new characters, tie-ins to modern canon events and most of the time communicated its ideas in confusing and baffling ways.

I put forward that it was doomed to displease the old 2099 fans like me because it was erasing what we knew and loved. But it was also so poorly communicating its rebooted vision that new people were going to be alienated.

I’m only slightly going to backtrack on what I said. Because the Punisher 2099 issue was if you like the greatest argument in favour of the reboot. It wasn’t just the best issue in this mess, it was a bona fide awesome story just in general. It actually dived into an aspect of futuristic sci-fi that the 1990s 2099 series (to my knowledge) would’ve struggled to cover as it pertained so much to 2010s life and technology.

More poignantly though, the problem with this event is that there was no over arching vision between the titles. Not every one shot had the same problems but they all in different ways displayed problems that smacked into the very premise of this event.

F4 2099 was literally pointless as it spent a whole issue introducing a new F4 then killed them.

Conan 2099 could’ve been virtually the same if Conan was like 20 years in the future not this new future we rebooted.

Arguably Punisher 2099 relied upon familiarity with the Jake Galloway Punisher 2099 before it subverted your expectations.

Ghost Rider 2099 was fun but the writer clearly LIKED the original take on the character to the point where he essentially minimized changes to the rebooted version making the act of rebooting the character pointless in the first place and failing the mission statement of the event.

Venom 2099 was a weird tie-in for Cates current Venom mega arc involving Knull that was nonsensical as it proposes that Knull is still en route to Earth and thus in theory there is no tension in Cates’ run. Moreover it wasn’t much of a futuristic take on Venom himself and fundamentally hurt as there was no Spider-Man for Venom to act as a dark reflection of.

Doom 2099 in fairness had a cool twist, but a cool twist that didn’t make sense in and of itself and was also reliant upon familiarity with the original 1990s character.

And then we come to these issues.

These issues I’m sad to say just absolutely fundamentally fail conceptually.

He’s incredibly passive and very bland as a character so newer fans coming in with no knowledge or attachment to the Miguel O’Hara of old are unlikely to warm to him. His defining trait is being someone who cares enough about the suffering of others that he will not actively take part in it, but will also not actively do anything to help like his brother Gabe. This is then set up for his brother to die, cue a less good retread of Peter Parker’s origin story but minus much action of Miggy in costume. On paper the idea of a guy experiencing Peter’s ultimate failure and from this being motivated to OBTAIN super powers is interesting but it’s just not examined all that much in the story. What I’m saying is at a time when there is a sea of Spider-Heroes to read about on the stands this version of Miguel O’Hara is lame, derivative and the execution of his character half-hearted.

Then on the other hand you have the older fans’ perspectives. Obviously old Spidey 2099 fans are unlikely to take to this new version just on principle. But when you realize you lost the old character for THIS guy…oh boy does that sting.

Original recipe Miguel O’Hara was cool because he zigged where Peter zagged. He was kind of an asshole, but one with limits on how little he cared. And he became more heroic over time, but never the same type of hero as Peter. And above all he was a sarcastic, sardonic, cynic who you could tell was thinking ‘I can’t even with this Spider-Shit right now’. Case in point, he was okay with straight up killing opponents. He was more unique and much more compelling than this version, as were his cast. Lyla is basically the Aunt May of this story and not the source of humour that she was even in the first 3 issues of the 1990s run. She also lacks her iconic Monroe look, and isn’t even consistent with how she looked in ASM v5 #35.

Losing a cool character for a lame one would be bad enough but then the story straight up invalidates both itself and the entire goddam event.

It does this by having the rebooted Miggy start to see visions of the pre-rebooted (prebooted?) 2099 timeline, meet an aged version of his prebooted self and then have even more flashes of the prebooted timeline. *

Wow…Just….Wow…

Let’s pretend that the vision of 2099 in this event was a temporary thing, an Age of Apocalypse or a House of M just for 2099 and the plan was always to go back to how it was before when the story wrapped up.

That makes this entire event pointless. See the reason AoA worked (and HoM in theory could have worked) is because it was a temporary change of pace.

That doesn’t apply to the 2099 line, a nostalgic, discontinued line of comics and characters that are unlikely to get a full on revival and who’s last attempt at a revival wrapped up over 2 years ago.

THIS event should’ve been a nostalgia trip for the old fans and a chance to introduce that line to a new generation. Instead it discarded the old in favour of something new which was seemingly intended to go nowhere.

Good job Marvel, any new fans you MIGHT have gotten hooked just got fucked over and people like me who pre-ordered this event thinking we were going to get the characters we knew and loved also got fucked over.

And in fact the entire exercise was an example of intentional redundancy.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Oh and it doesn’t make a lick of sense.

So Miguel was thrown back in time when his timeline was starting to be erased and replaced with the rebooted timeline, then he was erased in ASM v5 #34, which began this new rebooted timeline…but he is alive in it, remembers it, can give his past self visions from the old timeline...

…I’m a Doctor Who fan and that’s not any kind of wibbly wobbley timey whimey nonsense. It’s just regular ass nonsense, just like the Man-Spider monster Miguel encounters who repeats ouroboros to him, the same word ReedDoom said in the Doom 2099 issue. How and why would the Man-Spider creature say that to Miguel. How would prebooted Miguel know it said that? How and why would rebooted Miguel see Spidey 2099 in costume spray painting that?

Shit what the fuck does ouroboros even mean?????????

*one google search later*

A snake eating its tail as a symbol of endless infinity…what the fuck does that mean?

That Miguel makes himself Spider-Man 2099 always?

There was a cool idea in the Omega issue wherein we learn Doom essentially erased everyone’s memories with magic so they’d forget the Age of Heroes altogether, but the rise of the characters in the one shots represented that spell breaking down. Too bad it doesn’t add up given how Venom was always going to exist and existed SINCE the Age of Heroes and people obviously remember Thor as there is an entire tribe dedicated to him!**

However the Omega issue’s biggest sin is showing us how truly pointless most of the issues of this event were. Honest to God you only need to read Doom scenes from Alpha and then Spidey 2099 and Omega. Those are the only plot relevant issues out of this whole event.

Over all, these issues and this event have been a humungous, insulting disappointment. Check out some of the art but literally nothing else sans the Punisher.

*I mean if you want to get technical the 2099 universe has technically been rebooted multiple times. The version of it presented from 2013-2017 actually differed from the original 1990s version in various ways, e.g. Miguel’s love life panned out very differently. When I refer to the pre-rebooted/prebooted timeline I’m referring to the version from 2013-2017, just to be clear.

**There are other contradictions in these 2 issues as well, like how poverty and bad health have been erased but…we see they haven’t as there are multiple examples of both in the one shots.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

There was so much wrong with this I was compelled to debunk it line by line.

“The biggest successes in the business, character-wise, tend to have more than one axis that they revolve around; take away one, and everything goes wildly off course. ”

This isn’t universally true. Spider-Man for example is defined by power and responsibility. Responsibility can be somewhat broad though and relate to work, family,self-respect, community as well as being a hero so if that’s what you meant then okay. Similarly power can mean more than just super powers. After all Spider-Man’s original sin with the burglar was something he didn’t need super powers to have prevented.

 “Yes, Batman’s very much about Justice, that’s what he teaches us about…but as a character, he’s defined by the idea of Family  from the start, with the deaths of his parents to the various Robins, Alfred and Gordon, and even up to his old, familiar relationship with Gotham itself.”

 This is somewhat debatable given that Batman’s family ties were not present in his first appearance and Alfred was not truly a father figure to him until post-crisis, nearly 5 years after his creation; arguably the same is true of Gordon. But because of his origin and Robin’s and his relationship with Robin okay it does make a lot of sense to say he’s about justice but justice in specific relation to family ties.

 “Superman wants to show us how to hope and work for a better world, but the kink that gives his relationship with humanity weight and definition is his alienation from those he loves so much.  Even if it’s subtle in its presence, stories from All-Star to Birthright have taken that principle to heart in their portrayals of Clark Kent: take that away, and you end up with something like the largely unconflicted, uber-patriotic Man-God of John Byrne’s Man Of Steel (which I know to be many people’s benchmark for the character, but that’s a discussion for another time). ”

This however was your first big misinterpretation.

 That particular interpretation of Superman was absolutely absent from his character until like the Silver Age when, to cash in on the science fiction craze of the time, they leaned harder on his alien origins.

 Post-crisis they went back to him not feeling all that alienated if at all, and outright rejecting said alien heritage, codifying that he is a human first and foremost.

 Some say that these are two equally valid interpretations but the truth is they really aren’t. The entire premise of Superman as originally envisioned by his creators was an immigration allegory combined with a power fantasy. But it wasn’t just any given immigration allegory, it wasn’t as broad as to be anything. It was specifically the allegory of the idealized ultimate American immigrant, the American dream played out in a superhero/science fiction outlet. He wasn’t merely an immigrant, but very much an integrated immigrant who adopted the ideals of his new home and brought with him helpful traits from his place of origin with which to enrichen and help out his new home.

 The idea that he felt alienated and not a part of humanity and that was a great tension between himself and those he loved like his parents or Lois...that was honestly an invention after the fact and a huge betrayal of the fundamental defining point of the character. Practically the opposite.

 It is in truth a MISinterpretation.

 Does that mean Birthright and All-Star Superman and Byrne’s Man of Steel are mutually exclusive?

 I don’t know.

  But it isn’t merely a case of Byrne being the benchmark for many people. Fact is...he got it objectively correct because he was doing what Siegel and Shuster were doing. If Birthright/All-Star are mutually exclusive then I guess yeah, sorry Waid and Morrisson did in fact get it wrong.

 Which shouldn’t be surprising. Waid and Morrisson wanted to effectively reboot Superman BACk to his pre-crisis self circa the 2000s and Morrisson and Waid used said ideas for those stories, with Morisson kinda of rebooting Superman in the Nu52. Cut to 2016 and nu52 Superman was unrebooted back to his post-crisis self (more or less) after the Nu52 (inspired very much by pre-crisis Superman and leaning even harder on the ‘I’m so alienated, let me date this Amazonian demi-godess from an isolated mythic nation’ than pre-crisis itself ever did) utterly failed.

  “Many, if you asked them what Parker’s second irreducible element is, would say that the big idea in play is the experience of being a teenager.”

No it isn’t.

 “And it’s hardly unfounded.”

 Yes it is.

 “Voices throughout the online comics community, from Chris Sims[1][2] to Sequart’s own Colin Smith[3] (R.I.P., TooBusyThinkingAboutMyComics) to David Brothers[4], among many others, put forward that idea to greater or lesser degrees.”

 And those voices are grossly mistaken.

  “And they’re not wrong, not really.”

 Again, yes they are.

 Let’s contextualize things properly.

 Circa the early 1960s the true concept of ‘the teen’ was at best incredibly new and at worst didn’t truly exist. Indeed as originally envisioned by Lee and Ditko Peter was a SENIOR not a 15 year old. He was going on trips out of town on his own within the first 10 issues. Aunt May was talking about him getting married within the first 20 and he considered proposing to Betty before he even hit college.

 In those high school years Peter actually DIDN’T spend most of his civilian time in a high school setting. It happened but he was mostly centred upont he Bugle, a place of work.

 He was working to support himself, Aunt May and generally financially support the household as the man of the house in lieu of Uncle Ben.

 THAT...is the exact opposite of being defined by youth. Even in the early 1960s a teenager wouldn’t have been defined so heavily by their employment, let alone an employment as the breadwinner for the family, the one upon who’s shoulders everything rested.

 That is very much an ADULT responsibility. Which makes sense. Realistically lsing your father and having to adopt that responsibility would cause you to grow up faster in many respects. Couple this with the fact that neither Lee or Ditko were even of the same generation as 1960s teens and from a time period where the teenager truly didn’t exist and you as a youngster had to step up earlier and basically go from child to young adult with little in between and it makes a lot of sense, whereas ‘he’s about youth and being a teenager’ absolutely doesn’t.

 That’s nothing more than a modern idea we project backwards onto those older stories.

 The experience of being a teen had little to do with defining Spider-Man’s character, it just happened to be something relatively different for the time period and indeed Stan Lee stated he called him Spider-MAN in the first place because he intended from the outset for Peter to age into adulthood eventually, and keep going at which point calling himself Spider-BOY made little sense. This is corroborated by the fact that Lee in the stories and in other interviews has repeatedly stated he always intended Peter to eventually marry (a decided adult experience) Gwen Stacy. He equally stated he was pleased in the comics and newspaper strips to see Peter’s character development from teen to married guy and looked forward to him eventually having children.

 If part of the core idea of Spider-Man was his youthfulness then these ideas should’ve been anethma to his co-creator. A character defined by youth and the experiences of being a teen can never age out of that period of his life or be intended to age out of that period without destroying the fundamental core of the character, or at least a huge part of the fundamental core.

 But that didn’t happen. Spider-Man left high school within the first 3-4 years of his existence and it is in fact the ROMITA era in college which until the early 2000s (when USM began being pushed as the definitve Spider-Man ever) was seen as the true blue golden age of Spider-Man.

 There is after all a reason why versions of Spider-man set in high school USE so much stuff from the college era. Few TV shows, movies, video games or alternate universe comics set in Spider-Man’s high school years DON’T feature college era characters like Harry Osborn, Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane, Joe Robertson, Norman Osborn, Black Cat or plot lines relevant from the college years, such as Harry’s drug addiction, Norman being unmasked as the Goblin, the debut of the Rhino, the Shcoker, the Kingpin, Silvermane/other gangsters. Few in fact ever depict Spidey in a relationship with Betty Brant or in a love triangle with her and Liz Allan. Liz herself hasn’t gotten as much play as the above listed college era characters and whenever she does it’s usually in a second fiddle position to said college era characters.

 Indeed in the majority of adaptations prior to 2008 (a mere 10 years ago) placed Spider-Man in college instead of high school or else transitioned him into college very quickly. Sam Raimi’s first movie, which is the single most reverential one to the Ditko run, has Peter transition into college by the halfway point of the film.* In the 1994 Spider-Man cartoon (which had a huge influence upon the Raimi trilogy and Venom over all) Spider-Man was only n high school for one flashback sequence and in college the rest of the time and that show had very direct involvement and consultation from Stan Lee. In the upcoming and highly anticipated Insomniac video game, Spider-Man’s story begins POST-College. In the 1970s Spider-Man newspaper strips by Stan Lee himself, the story begins in college and Spider-Man’s origin is even retold to take place in college. Again that’s by the CREATOR of Spider-Man.

  It’s very obvious that the teenage/high school experience is NOT key or relevant to the character at all.

 Indeed the Ditko issues depicting him in high school don’t place much focus upon his schoolwork, zits, or high school dating and the like. The most it is relevant is being bullied by Flash but that wasn’t in every issue or got half as much panel time as Jameson and the Bugle stuff. Which again, was affiliated with Peter’s work, work being an ADULT aspect of life, not a particularly youthful/high school experience.

 You are correct in your assessment that power/responsibility isn’t the sole axis for Spider-Man’s character.

 But wholly incorrect that ‘youth’ is the other axis. In truth it’s...being a normal guy.

 THAT was the actual point Lee and Ditko had in mind. The Hero who could be YOU! Spider-Man was the everyman hero, the hero with relatable problems. His other axis was that he was ORDINARY relatively speaking, not that he was young.

 This is corroborated by long term (as in began in the 1970s) fan and Spider-Man analyst J.R. Fettinger:

 Peter's appeal was not that he was a loser (although his hard times was a big factor in his popularity), but that he was ordinary. 

I remembered something that one of Hero Realm's co-creators, the "late" George Berryman, told me in the early days of the Realm was that Marvel President Bill Jemas "hates MJ, hates the baby, and wants Spidey to be a kid again."

Hmmm.

For some reason I became hung up on the phrase of wanting Spidey to be a kid again. And finally, I figured out why it was bothering me - and that's because it presumes that Spidey was a kid in the first place. And he wasn't. Not really. At least not the kind of kid the Marvel execs who have been desperate to de-age him think he was.

You doubt?

First of all, we do have to acknowledge that while many of us related to Peter Parker in one way or another (which is the root of his popularity), how many of us are really like him? The second part of that question is how many kids did you know in high school who were like Peter Parker? Let's establish that Peter was 15 at the time of the spider bite (supported by the recent Civil War where Peter tells the media he has been Spider-Man since he was 15 years old). He probably turns 16 before too long and is 17 by Amazing Spider-Man #16 when Matt Murdock, whose radar senses are pretty accurate, estimates his age. Let's look at what kind of "kid" Peter Parker really was in the Lee-Ditko, Lee-Romita, Sr. days:

After     the death of Uncle Ben, Peter becomes the head of the household because     Aunt May becomes too frail and senile to do much of anything (the way she     was written at that time). Although Aunt May cooks him wheatcakes and     worries about him being sick, Peter is the one with the primary source of     income, and he is also her primary caregiver, a very atypical situation     for a 15 or 16 year old.

Speaking     of Peter's employment, I probably really don't need to talk about the     inherent absurdity of a high schooler becoming one of the premier     photographers of that great metropolitan newspaper, the Daily Bugle.

Peter's     (and Spidey's) quick, razor-sharp witticisms tend to be the product of a     more mature, experienced, well-read individual given the topical     references, like maybe a middle-aged writer. Just a guess. There are too     many to mention, but one of my favorite of Peter's overwritten zingers     occurs in Amazing Spider-Man #26, when having had enough of     Flash Thompson's big mouth, he states "I'm in no mood for your     musclebound mirth today! And the same goes for your gang of grinning     hyenas." Hey, I love this stuff, but if Peter were doing this on TV     in one of those typical teen-age oriented shows where the kids have all     the brains and wisdom and the parents are largely ineffectual buffoons,     his character would be pilloried by the critics for being too highbrow,     clever, or simply obnoxious for a teenager. I did know someone in college     who was the quickest with a great comeback as anyone I have ever met     before or since, but he was an English and literature major, not a science     major (he's now an English professor and writer, so there seems to be a     logical connect).

Speaking     of the science major thing, I am probably in the minority opinion on this,     but the extent of Peter's genius leaves me a bit cold. I do like the idea     that he is this brainy guy whom everyone thinks is a nerd, but is really     this terrific superhero. But seriously, an expert in complex polymers by     age 15 (as Roger Stern once illustrated - in order to demonstrate that     Peter was already on the road to the web fluid thing)? And then there's     that anti-magnetic inverter he uses in Amazing #2 to take out the Vulture.     And don't forget how he whipped up an antidote to temporarily cure the     Lizard all in the space of a couple of panels in Amazing #6. I have a     feeling that any kid this smart would not be in the New York City public     school system, or any public school system.

So, ultimately, Peter Parker was never a real kid, not in the sense that real kids are, but he was really an adult in a teenager's body. He had the weight of the world on his shoulders like an adult, and he had true adult responsibilities. In a way, Peter Parker was very much like Charlie Brown of Peanuts fame. Charles Schulz's famous character was never really just a plain kid - he was a neurotic adult in the body of an eight year old (or however old he was). And talk about topical references, Peanuts was loaded with them. However, Schultz's clever writing, wit, and keen understanding of human foibles made this accessible to both young and old. It wouldn't have mattered whether Charlie was five or 15, Schultz's marvelous writing would have carried the message in an entertaining style.

Now, I am not implying that no teenager has ever become head of the household, or held a permanent job before graduation, or had a lightning fast wit, or been a super-genius and still at a public school (but was there ever anyone who was all of those). Nor am I trying to take anyway any of the fun of the early days of Spider-Man, nor ruin any of the fantasy conceits, because that's what it is - fantasy. We recognize that and enjoy it anyway. The point I am making is that for anyone, whether they be a Marvel suit, editor, writer, or someone from Wizard to get hung up on Peter's youth being the core of his popularity, and something that must be repeatedly revisited in order to make the titles popular again, is either blind, in denial, or simply not doing their homework on the character.

    And if you want to handwave his views because he is a fan and observer (like Sims et al listed above) then consider this...Tom DeFalco agrees with him. Tom DeFalco has stated more than once that Spider-Man is about responsibility and NOT youth.

 To get why that is a big deal, Tom DeFalco is also a long time fan. As in began reading in 1962 with Amazing Fantasy #15. He edited Spider-Man for years. He wrote THREE runs on Spider-Man and a 10+ year long run on a pseudo sequel called Spider-Girl. He was EIC of Marvel for a time and wrote a book literally called ‘Spider-Man: the Ultimate Guide’.

 He is infinitely more qualified to discuss Spider-Man than any of the other people listed in this article or in my response sans Stan Lee himself.**

 And he corroborates my and Fettinger’s point, that Spider-Man is definitely NOT about youth/the teenage high school experience.

  “Moreover The high school years, and everything that comes with them, are indisputably at the center of the earliest adventures.”

 Yes and no.

 Spider-Man was in high school for the first 28 issues so yes.

 But high school EXPERIENCES were 100% indisputably NOT the centre of the stories for that time period and again, Spider-Man became MORE popular and his true golden age was defined AFTER high school.

  “ It’s a well people have been going back to for years from the late, lamented Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon; to David Lapham and Tony Harris’s With Great Power; Marvel Adventures Spider-Man; Sean McKeever, Takeshi Miyazawa and David Hahn’s Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane; twice over with Ultimate Spider-Man by Brian Bendis and assorted artists (in my opinion, the most effective comic at recapturing the spirit of the Lee / Ditko years during the first run with Bagley…though again, that’s a topic for another time); and soon enough once more with Dan Slott and Ramon Perez’s “Learning To Crawl”. ”

  And again, notice how all of those within Spider-Man’s 55+ year history only relate to stuff from the last 18. Spider-Man hit 56 years old recently. 18/56 is merely less than 33 percent of all of Spider-Man’s history wherein the high school era is being revisted over and over and over again.

 It has even less weight when you consider the trend merely started because

 a)    USM was popular and USM’s success owed much more to Bagley’s art and the accessibility afforded it by being a singular self-contained narrative with a clear starting point. Read issue one or volume 1 of the trades and then keep going, no need to crossover into Ultimate Spectacular or Ultimate Web of Spider-Man

b)    USM got started up by the disastrous EIC Bill Jemas who ignorantly believed Spider-Man to be defined by youth

c)    The Spec cartoon was set in high school first and foremost to simply differentiate itself from almost every adaptation prior to it which DIDN’T centre things in high school and a desire to try something that had never been done before. The long term plan was for the show to run 5 seasons of high school before transitioning into DVD movies set in college

d)    Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane was aimed as a tweenage all ages audience thus centring things on high school experiences made more sense as that was more directly relating to the age of the audience

e)    Around the same time period Superman’s origins were revisted multiple times because people just LIKE going back to the early years inherently.

 This doesn’t spell out ‘high school is more inherently Spider-Man and better for the character’. It spells out ‘this is something different we’re milking for all it’s worth whilst getting stuck in a rut creatively.

 Hell THAT IS WHY Insomniac are NOT doing high school OR college for their game.

  Additionally USM DID NOT recapture the spirit of the original Ditko stories. People believe they did because they liked it or else because that narrative has been repeated. But a simple analysis of the Ditko High school years to USM reveals countless differences between he two, differences which very seriously alter the spirit of the original stories. Ditko Peter had no real friends and his first romance wasn’t serious at all. He was constantly anxious over May’s health and being a provider for the family. Jameson was a constant source of harassment in and out of costume and a major force impacting his life, with his whole job as a photographer meant to get one over on his harasser. Ditko Peter was over all lonely and on edge a lot emotionally.

 NONE of that applies to Ultimate Spider-Man under Bendis. Peter is more chilled out and whilst not a member of the in-crowd, clearly isn’t lonely having a friendship group. His first romance with MJ isn’t not serious, it’s a very deep committed love that involves her acting as a confidant which was absolutely NOT the case in the original Ditko stories. Jameson is barely there and his smear campaign against Spider-Man is not the most important aspect of their relationship or has a huge impact upon Peter’s life. Gwen Stacy lives with him. Nick Fury has an important presence upon his life and Aunt May is the bread winner, provider and is never a source of worry due to being pretty healthy for her age.

 It is truly NOT a spiritual successor to the Ditko run at all.

 “Those earliest of stories are at the center of everything good about the character…”

 Again, no they aren’t. Mary Jane, Gwen Stacy, Harry Osborn, the Green Goblin and everything awesome about the College era (which I will remind you was MORE popular than the High school era) proves that assessment incorrect.

  “The Parker Luck, in those earliest days? Largely amounted to costumes shrinking in the wash, or misunderstandings with his girlfriend(s… You unmitigated cad), or his aunt just not getting it, man”

 Aunt May not getting it was a college era thing, not prevalent in the high school era.

 “but from any objective standpoint the boy was leading a charmed life. So why the misery? Because he’s a teenager. ”

  No. The misery was because he didn’t lead a charmed life. This is patently obvious from the stories.

 He had no friends.

 His girlfriend Betty Brant was often unreasonable and became insanely jealous whenever Liz like...talked to him!

 His mother figure was often in poor health creating huge financial burdens.

 Jameson verbally abused him and shortchanged him at work.

 The public hated and feared him and believed him to be a criminal.

 He risked his life routinely.

 He was ostracized and bullied at school.

  Oh yeah...and his father figure was dead and he blamed himself for it.

 To dismiss all that and chalk up his misery via ‘he’s a teenager of course he’d be moody’ is a gross misinterpretation of the character and a highly unsympathetic attempt to analyze him.

 I’m not saying his woes weren’t over exaggerated due to his age, but serious and justifiable cause for sadness Peter absolutely had.

  “Because it’s always the end of the world at 16, when in truth the world isn’t set against him (something we’ll be getting back to), but his problems simply result from misunderstandings, from the basic realities of his situation, and from screw-ups entirely on his own part. ”

 Again this is objectively wrong. SOMETIMES yes there are screw ups of his own makings, but Flash’s bullying, Jameson’s smear campaign and May’s illnesses were the biggest sources of woe in his life and none of those were his fault. Those were instances where thw world really was unjustifiably against him. Jameson had no right cause to smear Spider-Man. Flash wasn’t in the right to bully Peter. And May and Peter didn’t deserve to go through May’s frail health.

  “His was a situation entirely relatable, a lonely boy hiding behind a false face and acting as the man he wants to be, getting the strength over time to become that man himself. ”

 No he WAS a man who’d had to grow up in a lot of ways fast just to cope with the burdens of life. See what Fettinger wrote above as well as Amazing Fantasy #16 and ASM #400’s backup story by DeMatteis, both of which have Peter in the past and in hindsight referring to himself as a growing up with the death of uncle Ben.

 You are channelling Sims misinterpretation here.

 Both his and your argument hinges upon Spider-Man being a facade Peter adopts when he becomes Spider-Man like he’s Superman or Batman in reverse.

 But that isn’t the case. Spider-Man isn’t an ACT Peter performs, it’s just him, freed from certain constraints.

 In or out of the costume he is who he is.

 “A kid who refuses to tell the people closest to him about himself, in theory for their own good, but deep down because he’s terrified of being rejected the same way so many do when you’re growing up and defining your identity. ”

 Or because you know nobody in the high school years were shown as trustworthy besides Aunt May who a doctor more or less told him ‘If you surprise her enough she WILL die!’

 The more people who know something the bigger the chance that it’ll slip out. If May found out then as far as Peter knew that WOULD kill her, end of story.

 So who was he SUPPOSED to trust with his big secret besides her?

 Betty Brant? The woman who worked directly with the millionaire news mogul who HATED him? The woman who’d proven herself to have some criminal ties and who was generally unreasonable far too often?

  Liz Allan who partook in the mocking and bullying of Peter until she abruptly started to like him?

 Flash, his bully and tormentor?

 Jameson his OTHER tormentor?

  There was NOBODY for Peter to safely tell his secret to without risking it coming out to Aunt May.

  And his fear of rejection wasn’t stemming from teenage angst (because AGAIN, the concept of the teenager as we know it today didn’t truly exist in the 1960s) but from Jameson painting him as a criminal.

 In fact Peter DID come clean in ASM #87 during the college era to people who HAD been close to him and whom he sincerely loved and cared for and had infinitely more reason to trust than anyone in the high school era.

 Know what happened?

 They DID reject him!

 “As the challenges increase, so too does he rise to meet them, maturing into the sort of person capable of realizing the responsibilities he’s taken on, and the storytelling engine I mentioned earlier purrs, as do sales figures.”

 Or you know he meets those responsibilities from the outset and as word of mouth and confidence in the series grows so too do sales  until Romita took over, aged Peter into adulthood and told fun less angsty (so...less teenaged) stories which resulted in stratospheric sales.

 “Lifting some big-ass machinery aside, that’s the comic where his puppy-dog relationship with Betty Brant comes to a conclusive end, not out of manufactured concern that revealing his secret will somehow lead to her demise (that worry wouldn’t come to the forefront of his concerns until…oh, let’s say about 88 issues later), but from the simple and adult acknowledgement that it would never work between the two no matter how they feel. ”

 No. Peter and Betty ENDED their relationship in ASM #30 not #33. ASM #33 just underscored the ending. It ended in ASM #30 because Peter realized Betty didn’t and couldn’t want to marry a man who risked his life as he did.

 He’d already ended it, ASM #33 just confirmed his decision as correct.

  “That’swhere he finally meets JJJ on his own terms and gets one up on the skinflint. That’s where he finally, at least in theory, manages to overcome the shame of his first and greatest failure by saving Aunt May. It had been getting built up to for a while, with Peter graduating high school and getting into college, but things were still on hold with his preoccupation with his aunt’s medical problems distracting from his rapidly-growing new cast. ”

 I don’t necessarily disagree that Peter completely corsses the threshold into adulthood with the Master Planner trilogy but this actually undermines your earlier argument that the character was built around and doesn’t work without being defined by youth.

 I’ve already laid out how that was never the case but for the sake of argument let’s say you are right and he had been about youth up until ASM #33 when he grows up.

 How comes the character dealt with mostly similar social and personal issues (exempting lonliness and bullying) after that point in addition to new more adult ones and sales and acclaim went UP?

 “In the last Ditko issues, you see Peter going out of his way to connect with his new classmates, an idea that would have been anathema to him not many issues earlier, and turning down the advances of a potential Betty Brant in the making in ASM #36 because he’s managed to figure out where that will go”

 Again no, your assessment is that Peter turned down that girl because he figured out it’d be a retread of Betty brant. In truth that was a mistaken presumption he made naively. He believed she valued his brains and therefore it’d turn out like Betty. He was wrong.

 “Suddenly the stakes are higher. Aunt May’s condition worsens. The fabled money problems start to come to the forefront, though at the moment they’re mostly limited to not being able to pay for dates or his snazzy new motorcycle, rather than the life-or-death issue it would become later. ”

 Again this is a poorly researched assessment. Aunt May had been having health problems throughout the Ditko run, with 3 near fatal health problems alone. Peter had money problems related to those and other things literally from ASM #1.

 Your assessment is that these things didn’t exist or didn’t exist as prominently until the Romita era but this is probably incorrect. They were there in big ways and merely continued into the Romita era.

 You could argue they were more prominent because there were more instances of those things, but the Romita (more accurately the post-Ditko Stan Lee run) lasted LONGER than the Ditko era over all so of course that was the case.

 “And even as the situation worsens, he doesn’t crumble under the pressure, because he’s changed enough as a hero and a man to rise to those challenges, even if he’ll never rise above them.”

 But he didn’t crumble before such challenges before during the High school years and in certain cases DID rise above such challenges.

  “But with exceptions like Mary Jane’s arrival, “Spider-Man No More” and the rightly famous Harry Osborn drug issues, Stan’s remaining time on Spider-Man would never reach the heights of his collaboration with Ditko. ”

 Yeah, remember how sales went down after Ditko left...except they didn’t.

 Remember how all those Ditko stories like Kraven crashing Flash’s leaving party, or the Petrified Tablet Saga, or the Brand of the Brainwasher, or Doc Ock boarding with Aunt May, or Captain Stacy’s death or the first Rhino stories, the first Colonel Jupiter story, the debut of Shocker, Kingpin or Norman Osborn remember he was the Goblin the first time, were so much better than everything after Ditko left and got acclaimed or revisted in adaptations, retellings and flashbacks over the course of decades?

 Oh wait a minute all of those were post-Ditko stories.

  “It started to congeal into familiarity, the never-ending soap opera that others would come to imitate—after all, it’s far easier to replicate the success of something when it can be reduced down to a formula, rather than a constant series of innovations—and would eventually be accepted itself as an essential element of the character.”

 Yes but this applies to the majority of comic book runs wherein a writer lingers for too long. Lee’s F4 work dipped in quality over time.

 Post-Gwen’s death the quality markedly improved.

  “And as a result of this, and the desire to reduce Spider-Man to an easily-repeatable equation being applied to the earlier stories causing the strip-mining of only the surface elements, the core character philosophies of the Spider-Man franchise would be twisted into Loss and the Soap Opera dynamics mentioned earlier.”

  No they weren’t. They were twisted into ‘he’s a loser’ and even that wasn’t a perennial thing. It applies to the Woflman run, the Mackie/Byrne reboot, Brand New Day and Slott’s run.

  “One good example of the problem is the relatively recent “Mysterioso” arc of Amazing Spider-Man #618-620, by Dan Slott and Marcos Martin. Good writing, ”

 There is no such thing as a Dan Slott Spider-Man story with good writing because Dan Slott is an objectively aweful Spider-Man writer.

  In this story alone you have him nonsensically ignore Mysterio’s death in Daredevil saying he faked it. How the Hell does Mysterio fake out DD’s hyper senses?

  “What, you don’t remember Carlie Cooper’s father, introduced in that arc as having been a cop who died years earlier but actually being alive and really being in the crooked pocket of Mysterio but is taken down by his daughter getting her to make an emotional breakthrough, none of this having anything to do with Spider-Man himself and actually completely distracting from the engaging main plot and it worked about as well as this overlong sentence?”

 See you just spelled out a huge reason why this arc cannot logically be said to have good writing.

  “It’s gone from Peter having trouble explaining himself to the person who can’t be trusted with even the simplest tasks—and in fact, he has become truly forgetful and neglectful a great deal of the time. He’s gone from a whiz-kid who has to take pictures of himself to pay the bills because of his aunt to the 250 I.Q. mega-genius who can barely scrape by, an empathetic naturally good-humored friend who can’t hold a relationship, a trouble-magnet whose luck once explainable by his own mistakes and misfortunes can at this point only be explained by witchcraft. He’s become the loser he was always afraid he was. What are we supposed to learn from this irresponsible schmuck, exactly?”

  This is the single most poignant and insightful comment in the article. But this only applies to Spider-Man from 2008 onwards. This WASN’T true of the JMS era Spider-Man.

 “So if he isn’t about loss (at least not, I’d argue, in a manner that can really work long-term at such a high level as what’s been going on for so long), but he’s not really about being a teenager either, what is he ‘about’?

 He’s about growing.”

  Jesus Christ no, he isn’t.

 He’s not about growing, about being a teen or about loss.

  He’s about power+responsibility within the context of being a relatively normal person.

  THAT’S WHY HE’S CALLED SO RELATABLE!

  THAT’S why he’s referred to by Stan Lee himself as the hero who could be you.

  “That scene above in ASM #8 (by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, which is as official as if Marvel the corporate entity gained sentience and started writing comics on its own), where Spidey’s hogtying the Human Torch? Johnny’s not secretly the Chameleon in disguise, nor is he being mind-controlled by Dr. Doom or the Ringmaster. Peter’s doing it because he’s angry at the guy getting all the breaks he doesn’t, and feels like publicly ruining his day. This was not, by the way, the slightest bit uncharacteristic of Peter Parker as we’d seen him up to this point.”

  Actually it absolutely was, especially when you consider the story actually happens after ASM #21 when Peter had already matured a bit.

  You need to understand that this story whilst being published IN ASM...in truth is actually more of a Strange Tales Human Torch story.

  There is no personal life stakes for Spider-Man and Spidey is himself the only character from his own comic to appear, everyone else from the Torch to the FF, Dorrie Evans and the other Torch supporting cast are from Strange Tales. And as if to confirm things, this was the ONLY Spider-Man story during the Ditko era published in ASM and it’s annuals NOT worked on by Ditko himself.

   We all know of the Marvel method which rendered the artists of each story vital contributors to the stories at hand. Well if Stan Lee was working with Ditko vs. Kirby on a particular project the end results, including the characterization, were not necessarily going to be the same. In fact they often were not.

   Kirby didn’t create or understand Spider-Man. Ditko did and Ditko DIDN’T characetrize Spidey like this during most of his run, including up until this point.

   Additionally to differentiate themselves from DC, the Marvel pantheon routinely had the heroes bicker and dislike one another whenever they met up. It was rare for that to NOT be the case in the Silver Age.

  And routinely in the Silver Age the guest stars were painted more unfavourably than the resident main character(s). This was the case for most of the F4’s appearences in ASM.

    ASM #8 is a reversal because like I said, it’s not actually a Spider-Man story. It’s a left over Strange Tales story. It’s a Torch story which means Torch is painted positively whilst Spider-Man is painted as a jerk, synergy and consistent characterization be damned.

   “In the earliest material, Peter Parker was a dick, and that went on long after the mugger got turned in. ”

  No he absolutely wasn’t. Moments where he was a dick perhaps but this is a toxically cynical and unsympathetic misinterpretation of the character in line with the bullshit of ‘he lived a charmed life’.

   I’ve seen it before and it never holds up.

  Worse is the notion of he was a dick even after the mugger was turned in. Like...his Dad just died dude FFS.

   “ His immediate response after Ben was killed? Keep on going with the show business until Jameson starts going after him.”

  Yeah in order to earn money to support Aunt May and allow them to keep their home because they were facing eminent eviction.

   He wasn’t resolving to continue with show business INSTEAD of fighting crime, that was evident from ASM #1 and #2 as well as from the untold stories from Amazing Fantasy #16-18.

  “His first couple saves are at least in part about His Good Name, whether saving Jameson’s son with the idea that it would get him on the old man’s good side, or going after the Chameleon for impersonating him, and even once he starts going after criminals on a consistent basis it’s initially only for photography money. ”

   Again you’ve not properly paid attention and your interpretation is rooted in cynicism.

  Yeah IN PART he was going after those things for the sake of his reputation. But that wasn’t the root of it at all.

  He saves John Jameson because he saw someone in need he doesn’t even mention the idea that saving him will help his reputation until after the fact and it’s an afterthought. He simply saw someone who needed help and so he acted as he hadn’t done before with the burglar.

   In the Chameleon story he spots the Chameleon getting away with government secrets (a HUGE deal in the Cold War 1960s) and sees his helicopter getting away so he leaps into action.

   Is he doing it to exonerate himself or would he have done that had he realized a spy was making away with stolen secrets right in front of him anyway?

   Given how in the same comic book he leapt into action to save a life immediately it’s very obviously the latter that doubles up as the former. And even it was to exonerate himself that’s hardly a selfish dick move.

  A criminal committed a crime and framed him for it. It isn’t selfish or a dick move to bring him to justice.

  Equally even if he was fighting crimes to rehabilitate his reputation, again his damaged rep was how he lost a reliable source of income that he needed to survive and support his aunt and household. It isn’t selfish and dickish to attempt to help your reputation under those circumstances.

   As for going after criminals for photography money this is again a misrepresentation of Spider-Man’s motives.

   In ASM #2 it’s implied the Vulture’s presence isn’t huge. Some people don’t even believe he exists. It’s ambiguous as to when exactly Peter himself learned of his existence and even if he did already know he had the more pressing problem of earning money to pay the rent for himself and aunt May, he might not have figured out or gotten a routine going for actively crime fighting yet.

   He seeks out the Vulture for profit initially yes but again earning money isn’t selfish or a dick move. He needed to do it to survive and support Aunt May. He GETS the pictures and therefore his source of income after being beaten by the Vulture but states that he’s already resolved to be a costumed adventurer before upgrading his belt. In other words he had already decided to fight crime and just saw a way to (pardon the pub) kill 2 birds with one stone. To this end he initiates a rematch with Vulture even though he didn’t HAVE to if he was in it just for the money. He already had the pictures he didn’t NEED to end the public menace of the Vulture and he wasn’t naive enough to believe that doing so would change Jonah’s tune.

    But he did it anyway because he WAS trying to be a hero.

    “He takes stupid chances. He’s desperate for cash. He insults and attacks undeserving people. ”

   Apart from being desperate for cash (which would mean his efforts for helping his rep or earning money WOULDN’T make him a dick) he literally never does this at any point in the Ditko run. He maybe insults ONE person who doesn’t deserve it once.

   “He fakes pictures of Sandman and Electro with the flimsiest of moral justifications.”

  No. He faked pictures of the Sandman out of youthful naivete and then did it with Electro to earn money to SAVE AUNT MAY’S LIFE!

   Journalistic ethics can go suck the big one if they need to be sacrificed for the sake of saving a human life for God’s sake.

   He felt bad about the latter showing how he wasn’t a dick and had grown and consequently accepted the reprimands that eventually came from faking such pictures.

   “He’s got a chip on his shoulder the size of Queens and can barely begin to control his temper.”

  Again bullshit. He controls his temper plenty hence he only once lashes out at Flash twice and obviously not fully since he never used his strength to seriously injure him.

  As for having a chip on your shoulder no shit. His Dad’s dead, his mother is sickly and he’s trying to hold it all together whilst some asshole on the news lies about him and he’s bullied at school.

  OF COURSE he has a chip on his shoulder.

   “He’ll lash out at people on suspicion or anger alone,”

   Again he literally never did this.

  “ and in some early stories he just plain gave up or ran away until he learned his lesson or circumstances changed. ”

   Yeah he did but that doesn’t make him a dick. It makes him human. He quit TWICE by the way. Once after Doc Ock owned his ass and broke his confidence (which can happen to anyone of any age) and once when everything went wrong and Aunt May was dying. She got better and gave him a pep talk.

  This again is something that can happen to anyone and isn’t an example of being qa dick.

   Does it maybe show him as being a kid.

  Sure.

   But that wasn’t the POINT. Stan Lee wanted him to be realistic and he happened to be a youngster. So he relatively speaking wrote him believably within that context, but as I said youth was never THE point.

    Nor was growth because EVERY Silver Age marvel character grew and developed, whether they were teens like Rick Jones, Spider-Man and the Torchor adults like Doctor Strange, Reed Richards and Ben Grimm.

    “He’s a bitter, arrogant know-it-all who looks down on virtually everyone around him, and even if we can’t blame him with all he goes through, he’s often far afield of anything resembling “likeable”.”

  Except for all those readers of the time and sine who called him likable and relatable you mean.

   Your just being utterly cynical.

   I mean who does he ACTUALLY look down on really? Flash and the people who bully him who display anti-intellectual tendencies. Jameson who is a blowhard slander hound. Oh and the super villains who waste their talents on hurting people so fuck them.

  Beyond those people he looks down sometimes on fellow heroes but every hero looked down upon basically every other hero in Silver Age Marvel and real talk, Spider-Man had it rougher than most of them anyway so he wasn’t wrong to think he WAS better than them.

  But he didn’t look down on Betty or Aunt May or Uncle Ben or other people. SO he isn’t that arrogant most of the time (a little bit early on when he hasn’t faced down major foes like Doc Ock yet but then that stops by issue #3) and his bitterness is well earned.

   So you are again misinterpreting.

   Moreover those things apply to many differnet Marvel Silver Age characters.

Reed, Ben, and Sue, all adults, had plenty of moments of aggression, immaturity and the like. Not because the point was they are those things but just because that’s how Stan happened to write most of his characters back then. Hank Pym could be an aggressive jerk. Captain America could be an aggressive immature jerk, e.g. when he tried to inspire Hank Pym by attacking him. 

 “But he changes, so completely many seem to forget he was ever anything other than the official co-saint of the Marvel Universe alongside Steve Rogers. Perhaps it’s in part because of this misunderstanding that Spider-Man 2—starring Peter Parker being Very Sad because he won’t trust the people around him with information that directly impacts their safety, and pushing himself so hard he can’t even effectively fight crime anymore, defeating the purpose altogether of him taking the pain of the entirety of New York unto himself like a bargain-basement Christ—is widely considered the high-water mark of the character’s modern history, while the Peter Parker of The Amazing Spider-Man—who actually acts like a teenager, keeps on making mistakes and operating under selfish motives even after the mugging and has to learn, and is willing to place hope in tomorrow and try and still make a happy life for himself alongside the obligations he must shoulder—is quite widely considered a “douchebag”.”

  Dear God this is so wrongheaded it hurts.

  In the Raimi movies Peter thinks that entrusting MJ with his secret will endanger her because she likes Spider-Man so she’d want to be with him more. Which HAPPENS. He was 100% correct, she literally ditches her wedding for him!

   But he WANTED to push her away because in her NOT being too close to him she would be safer. Which is also 100% correct but he evolved by the end of the second movie to be at peace with that risk and accepting that it was her choice.

  It didn’t defeat the purpose it was a lesson he needed to LEARN. But his logic can’t be questioned.

  As for Harry or Aunt May, he feared May would hate and reject him and that’s his goddam MOTHER so obviously he wasn’t going to tell her until he couldn’t stand it any more. And the other guy was his best friend and in his case he already wanted to kill him and then TRIED to do that in the third movie so again peter was right.

  In Spider-Man 2 Peter doesn’t push himself too hard, he merely tries to balance everyday life with being a hero and finds it a struggle as was the case in the comic it was originally based upon. His mind and body suspend his powers because subconsciously he wants to be free of the burden but it wasn’t like if he’d taken things easier it wouldn’t have happened. He wasn’t going too hard, he was going normally but normally is hard when you are a hero. In fact the whole ‘he loses his powers because he doesn’t want them’ thing IS from a Ditko issue so your point is moot.

  As for Garfield Spider-Man unless you grade him on the curve he was kind of a douchebag. Not so much in what he does but how he did it. He was overly cocky for the character, e.g. his dip and kiss of Gwen in the second movie. That movie that along with the first one you know...killed the franchise so hard Marvel Studios had to save them.

   So...why is Spider-Man 2 not a high water mark again?

  No to mention comparing the two by damning Spider-Man 2 is foolish because they are not the same ages or at the same points in their lives.

 “He grows, he shifts, he learns lessons and forgets them and falls and picks himself back up, and he never stops pushing forward. He takes on the responsibility of becoming the Man he claims to be, that others need him to be, even if he doesn’t consciously realize it at first. That’s how he was built, and how he was visibly meant to keep going at first. That’s the “in”, that’s what makes him an everyman we can all relate to, because no one ever stops growing up.”

   Yes and no.

  Yes he was designed to grow and develop, but everyone stops growing up when they hit adulthood, they just don’t stop growing as people.

   No though that wasn’t what made him relatable. The reltability WAS the point, not the growing up. He was relatable because he dealt with down to Earth normal life problems along with relatively realistic problems spiralling out of being a superhero and just having normal life experines anyway.

  Countless movies present everyman characters who are NOT teenagers or people in the midst of reaching adulthood but who are already there. The Ghostbusters for example. These are not characters who grow up but are relatable nevertheless.

   Peter remained relatable in the 80s and 90s and 2000s even though he HAD grown up and HAD hit adulthood a long time before.

   “It’s what differentiates him, makes him real, compared to Superman or Batman or the FF or Captain America. ”

  But THEY all grew and developed too! Less so with Superman and Batman but all the Silver Age Marvel characters grew and developed!

   “And while the steps needed to keep that wheel moving are still implemented, one aching step at a time, it’s still drowned out by a deluge of perfectly satisfactory but no longer cutting-edge superhero adventures (that is, when such steps aren’t rolled back altogether, Mr. Quesada). ”

  I don’t even understand this part.

  “*describes the Joe Casey Bounce comic* So again: is that the only future? Is that the sole way any trace of Spider-Man as originally envisioned and executed can survive?”

  First of all the Bounce sounds like it has a shallow misinformed grasp of Spider-Man.

  Second of all the vision and execution of Spider-Man doesn’t need weird Indie AU knock offs to survive.

   Spider-Man works at any age because he’s about being a normal guy defined by responsibility. He merely HAPPEND to start off as a teen for the sake of some novelty but it was never going to be the forever more status quo or inherently the appeal of the character.

   Consider how many Spider-Man fans were forged in consequent decades via media adaptations of the character where he was more or less at a static age. He might’ve developed and grown but he didn’t begin as a teen or a high schooler in those?

   How many people jumped into the comics in the 80s-2000s where Spider-Man was an adult and not aging much but was still written as a vibrant three dimensional character defined by being relatively down to Earth....and it worked.

    I’m not saying character development isn’t critically vital at all, just that the notion that it’s dependent upon going from youngster to adulthood is not the inherent necessity of the character outside of adaptations which seek to replicate the mythology. 616 Spider-Man is in his early 30s and can keep going forward from there and work just fine because character development can still happen regardless of his age.

Fundamentally your logic here is Spider-Man grew up therefore that is the point of his character. But as I’ve said or implied before this, that applies to every Marvel character.

The X-Men being teens wasn’t truly the point, the point was bigotry and they became MORE popular when they were replaced by adult characters in Giant-Sized X-Men. They even graduated very quickly. But growth wasn’t the point for them either. Nor the F4 who grew and changed nor Daredevil nor the Avengers.

Growth is just part of many examples of good storytelling and part of what definied the Marvel Universe as a whole .

It’s blind to remove Spider-Man from that context and codify that it’s what he specifically was about. 

“While limited, growth has happened for the character, and it tended to be in some of the better stories of the last decade plus. Whether starting to guide children like he himself once was in the solid early sections of J. Michael Straczynski and John Romita Jr.’s run on the main title; confronting the nature of his role as a superhero in relation to his villains and Peter Parker’s own role in society in Mark Millar, Terry Dodson and Frank Cho’s Marvel Knights: Spider-Man (a largely overlooked gem by the former, and the most traditional of his modern work besides perhaps his Fantastic Four run); having him take his mission to the next level in both technology and dedication in Dan Slott and Marcos Martin’s modern classic “No One Dies”; showing what would happen if Peter Parker finally started to pursue his dreams as well as his duties in Slott’s “Big Time”, or revealing what would happen to a Spider-Man who couldn’t grow in Superior Spider-Man under Slott again, Peter Parker can still keep moving forward one step at a time, still undergo the growth that informs his responsibilities which informs his growth and so and so on into forever, and still maintain what he is: the normal guy in the world of giants.”

 Okay...I actually agree with this but not the way you reached this conclusion via ‘He’s obviously ABOUT being a teen/growing up.’

  “At the time of writing, I’m soon to pick up the newly relaunched Amazing Spider-Man by Dan Slott and Humberto Ramos. Given that he wrote three of those examples I just listed, I have fairly high hopes.”

 Slot progessed Peter, then regressed him and even amidst all that he didn’t progress him in the right direction.

  You stated that he should be a normal guy. Slott turned him into a super scientist and then later a 1%er

  “This is going to be by the writer who had him come back from the dead in part by admitting that being Spider-Man is actually pretty fun.”

  It was also by the writer who turned Doc Ock into a rapist and proceeded to use him and variant versions of Spider-Man to show use how lame the original was before mutating the original into an Iron Man rip off.

 Hindsight sucks the big one I guess.

*Even if you say he came of age at the end of the movie the movie was one part of a three part story in which he spent most of his time NOT as a teen or someone growing up. He was just an adult.

**Also he more than anybody advocated and pushed for Peter to age forward into adult life experiences, such as parenthood even though his favourite era was Spider-Man as a high schooler (makes sense that was the era he began with). The fact that his fav era was Spider-Man as a teen and yet he maintains SPider-Man was never about youth and advocated for him to be MORE adult adds much to his credibility.