Comics Get ready people, JMS and Joe Q are planning ANOTHER Spider-Man event

[roach]

It all comes down to this:

Either Spider-Man is infinite or finite.


If he is infinite, then the initial conception of the character should last forever. He should remain eternally frozen in time (only topical reference will change), with nothing but that glorious core concept carrying him along, and only the illusion of change spicing things up from time to time. Readers go along with him for a few years, then grow up and move on to more "adult" entertainment (unless they can still enjoy the material without forgetting the conceits of the character and the genre). New readers then come aboard and experience the character just as the older readers left him. Spider-Man thus remains an immortal, eternal symbol of youth and vitality, one which generation after generation can enjoy.


If he is finite, on the other hand, then he will age and change and grow. He will learn life lessons. He will have major changes in his life. He will develop, and get married, and have kids, and eventually die. For, if he is indeed finite, if he is indeed truly "one of us", if he is someone who "must grow and change", then we must acknowledge the fact that there will be an end to his adventures in the future, as he ages and changes and dies.


In my opinion, those who insist, nay, demand that he (and other characters) be finite, those who demand he age and change, those who think writing for kids means "dumbing down" (juvenile fiction need not be childish or dumbed down, y'know), those who demand that fictional SUPERHEROES age and change and swear and have sex and kill, are living vicariously through comic books. They are trying to turn a product written in layers for all ages to enjoy into a product that will appeal to them, and only them, perhaps so that they will seem "sophisticated" to their peers, who would ordinarily laugh at them for reading "kiddie books". So they worship "professionals" who exhibit such "sophistication ("sophistication", which is, in fact, very immature and grotesque).

is everything so black and white with you????

 

[stillanerd]

It all comes down to this:

Either Spider-Man is infinite or finite.


If he is infinite, then the initial conception of the character should last forever. He should remain eternally frozen in time (only topical reference will change), with nothing but that glorious core concept carrying him along, and only the illusion of change spicing things up from time to time. Readers go along with him for a few years, then grow up and move on to more "adult" entertainment (unless they can still enjoy the material without forgetting the conceits of the character and the genre). New readers then come aboard and experience the character just as the older readers left him. Spider-Man thus remains an immortal, eternal symbol of youth and vitality, one which generation after generation can enjoy.


If he is finite, on the other hand, then he will age and change and grow. He will learn life lessons. He will have major changes in his life. He will develop, and get married, and have kids, and eventually die. For, if he is indeed finite, if he is indeed truly "one of us", if he is someone who "must grow and change", then we must acknowledge the fact that there will be an end to his adventures in the future, as he ages and changes and dies.


In my opinion, those who insist, nay, demand that he (and other characters) be finite, those who demand he age and change, those who think writing for kids means "dumbing down" (juvenile fiction need not be childish or dumbed down, y'know), those who demand that fictional SUPERHEROES age and change and swear and have sex and kill, are living vicariously through comic books. They are trying to turn a product written in layers for all ages to enjoy into a product that will appeal to them, and only them, perhaps so that they will seem "sophisticated" to their peers, who would ordinarily laugh at them for reading "kiddie books". So they worship "professionals" who exhibit such "sophistication ("sophistication", which is, in fact, very immature and grotesque).

I believe it IS possible to have character development in comics, Gregatron, and would argue that Spider-Man was all about a teenage boy learning how to grow up into a man. And yes, marriage (and having kids) is a part of that process. However, that does not mean that Spider-Man has to be made into the equivalent of some HBO series. It is possible to have character development and deal with relevancy and still appeal to all ages, especially kids who the character is marketed to, considering all the merchandise is usually geared towards them.

But I definately agree with your stance regarding the attidute the some of the current crop of writers have towards comic books. Fact is, because they want to be seen as more than just a creator of "funny books" and instead be treated as "artists" that we end up with comics attempting to be "relevant" and as a result end up alienating the target audience. Sure grim n gritty attracted readers initially since it seemed different than the usual comic book superhero fare, but then the writers and editors went so overboard on it that, in the end, the only ones who seemed to stick around were the die-hard collectors and speculators while most readers walked away in disgust over the "earth shattering events" and "multi-part crossovers" as the prices for what essentially is nothing more than 32 pages of newsprint climbed. Sounds familair, don't you think?

Basically, as I've said before, Joe Q let success in terms of SALES regarding Marvel Knights, the Ultimate line, and the movies, as well as his restructing the Marvel Universe that he's become obessed with sales gimmicks and crossovers, not unlike Jim Shooter when he was EIC. And as a result, Joe Q is pulling the same stunts Marvel did back in the early 90s that help contribute to them almost becoming bankrupt. Hell, if there is any single proof that Joe Q and Tom Breevot are obessed with this decade, they've commissioned Rob Leifeld (along with Jeph Loeb) to revisit Heroes Reborn and Onslaught for it's tenth anniversary.

And yet we're supposed to believe that Quesada and JMS--the very guys who put Spidey in the current mess he's in--to somehow fix him to go back to the "Stan Lee days?" The same bunch that claimed the Other was going to be Spidey's new status quo, and now they've sort of said "Oops. Guess we spoke too soon on that one." So you can understand why I and most other posters here are a little skeptical.

 

[MaxCarnage]

It all comes down to this:

Either Spider-Man is infinite or finite.


If he is infinite, then the initial conception of the character should last forever. He should remain eternally frozen in time (only topical reference will change), with nothing but that glorious core concept carrying him along, and only the illusion of change spicing things up from time to time. Readers go along with him for a few years, then grow up and move on to more "adult" entertainment (unless they can still enjoy the material without forgetting the conceits of the character and the genre). New readers then come aboard and experience the character just as the older readers left him. Spider-Man thus remains an immortal, eternal symbol of youth and vitality, one which generation after generation can enjoy.


If he is finite, on the other hand, then he will age and change and grow. He will learn life lessons. He will have major changes in his life. He will develop, and get married, and have kids, and eventually die. For, if he is indeed finite, if he is indeed truly "one of us", if he is someone who "must grow and change", then we must acknowledge the fact that there will be an end to his adventures in the future, as he ages and changes and dies.


In my opinion, those who insist, nay, demand that he (and other characters) be finite, those who demand he age and change, those who think writing for kids means "dumbing down" (juvenile fiction need not be childish or dumbed down, y'know), those who demand that fictional SUPERHEROES age and change and swear and have sex and kill, are living vicariously through comic books. They are trying to turn a product written in layers for all ages to enjoy into a product that will appeal to them, and only them, perhaps so that they will seem "sophisticated" to their peers, who would ordinarily laugh at them for reading "kiddie books". So they worship "professionals" who exhibit such "sophistication ("sophistication", which is, in fact, very immature and grotesque).

The fact that the Ultimate universe exists proves that you're wrong. Spider-Man can grow up and evolve into a fully-realized, three dimensional character while existing in other forms as the teen many remember him to be. I am 24; I got into Spider-Man after he was grown-up and really after he was married (before the Clone Saga). I still enjoyed him and I believe that I still understood his core concepts.

And people who use 'nay' in everyday conversations should be banned.

 

[Gregatron]

I believe it IS possible to have character development in comics, Gregatron, and would argue that Spider-Man was all about a teenage boy learning how to grow up into a man. And yes, marriage (and having kids) is a part of that process. However, that does not mean that Spider-Man has to be made into the equivalent of some HBO series. It is possible to have character development and deal with relevancy and still appeal to all ages, especially kids who the character is marketed to, considering all the merchandise is usually geared towards them.

But I definately agree with your stance regarding the attidute the some of the current crop of writers have towards comic books. Fact is, because they want to be seen as more than just a creator of "funny books" and instead be treated as "artists" that we end up with comics attempting to be "relevant" and as a result end up alienating the target audience. Sure grim n gritty attracted readers initially since it seemed different than the usual comic book superhero fare, but then the writers and editors went so overboard on it that, in the end, the only ones who seemed to stick around were the die-hard collectors and speculators while most readers walked away in disgust over the "earth shattering events" and "multi-part crossovers" as the prices for what essentially is nothing more than 32 pages of newsprint climbed. Sounds familair, don't you think?

Basically, as I've said before, Joe Q let success in terms of SALES regarding Marvel Knights, the Ultimate line, and the movies, as well as his restructing the Marvel Universe that he's become obessed with sales gimmicks and crossovers, not unlike Jim Shooter when he was EIC. And as a result, Joe Q is pulling the same stunts Marvel did back in the early 90s that help contribute to them almost becoming bankrupt. Hell, if there is any single proof that Joe Q and Tom Breevot are obessed with this decade, they've commissioned Rob Leifeld (along with Jeph Loeb) to revisit Heroes Reborn and Onslaught for it's tenth anniversary.

And yet we're supposed to believe that Quesada and JMS--the very guys who put Spidey in the current mess he's in--to somehow fix him to go back to the "Stan Lee days?" The same bunch that claimed the Other was going to be Spidey's new status quo, and now they've sort of said "Oops. Guess we spoke too soon on that one." So you can understand why I and most other posters here are a little skeptical.

"Those who forget history..."


Anyway, change can be dangerous. Bad changes can stick forever. Spider-Man should alway be about the journey to adulthood/responsibility.

The nature of the comic medium sorta demands that, if longevity is to be maintained, then things go back to the status quo all the time, with only the ILLUSION that the hero learned a big, important lesson in his latest story.

 

[Gregatron]

The fact that the Ultimate universe exists proves that you're wrong. Spider-Man can grow up and evolve into a fully-realized, three dimensional character while existing in other forms as the teen many remember him to be. I am 24; I got into Spider-Man after he was grown-up and really after he was married (before the Clone Saga). I still enjoyed him and I believe that I still understood his core concepts.

And people who use 'nay' in everyday conversations should be banned.

Thor will smite thee for thine insolence.


And I think one who feels that Spider-Man being married is great does not understand the core concepts of the character. But then, that character seems to be dead, so I guess it's fine for the Guy Posing As Spider-Man today.

And anyone who thinks that Spider-Man wasn't a fully-realized, three-dimensional character before he got married is a fool.

 

[roach]

Thor will smite thee for thine insolence.


And I think one who feels that Spider-Man being married is great does not understand the core concepts of the character. But then, that character seems to be dead, so I guess it's fine for the Guy Posing As Spider-Man today.

And anyone who thinks that Spider-Man wasn't a fully-realized, three-dimensional character before he got married is a fool.

actually I am beginning to think you dont understand the core concepts of the character. It seems to me that the only way you'll be happy is if Marvel just reprinted the old back issues and claim them to be new.

 

[Gregatron]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Why change a winning formula?

But, then, I've been proven right by recent events. "New Coke" hasn't exactly been a stellar success, eh?


Oh, wait. If I don't like it, I can alway read Ultimate, or read Marvel Adventures, or watch the movies, or play the video games, or read the novels.


Except, none of those are Spider-Man.





This is not Spider-Man:

http://comicsmedia.ign.com/comics/image/article/680/680863/spider-man-20060111050340080-000.jpg


This is not Spider-Man:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rman_2.jpg/200px-Movie_poster_spiderman_2.jpg


This is not Spider-Man:

http://www.fumettopoli.net/gadgets/images/poster/ultimate spiderman.jpg


This is not Spider-Man:

http://loloracaud.free.fr/vo/marvelagespiderman/1.jpg





THIS IS Spider-Man:

http://g.courtial.free.fr/spiderman_af15.jpg


THIS is Spider-Man:

http://www5c.biglobe.ne.jp/~spa-girl/63148548/5cspa-girl3f95755e28da6.jpg



THIS is Spider-Man:

http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/covers/marvel/asm038.jpg



THIS is Spider-Man:

http://www.splashcomics.de/images/specials/40jahre_spider-man/amazing_spider-man_vol1_050.jpg



THIS is Spider-Man:

http://images.heritagecoin.com/images/HNAI/75/818/818032027r.jpg

 

[Gregatron]

actually I am beginning to think you dont understand the core concepts of the character. It seems to me that the only way you'll be happy is if Marvel just reprinted the old back issues and claim them to be new.

That might actually be a start.

 

[MaxCarnage]

Thor will smite thee for thine insolence.


And I think one who feels that Spider-Man being married is great does not understand the core concepts of the character. But then, that character seems to be dead, so I guess it's fine for the Guy Posing As Spider-Man today.

And anyone who thinks that Spider-Man wasn't a fully-realized, three-dimensional character before he got married is a fool.

Getting married didn't do that by itself; it was a part of the evolution of Peter Parker's character. Everything that's occured since Amazing #15 has contributed to it, but his aging and becoming a man have continued to add to his depth.

There's nothing wrong with a character growing. The comics industry has proven that a character can grow old and then be "rebooted" for the next generation.

 

[roach]

That might actually be a start.

then there would never be new spiderman comics...by your logic only Lee and Ditko could write the character

 

[Gregatron]

Getting married didn't do that by itself; it was a part of the evolution of Peter Parker's character. Everything that's occured since Amazing #15 has contributed to it, but his aging and becoming a man have continued to add to his depth.

There's nothing wrong with a character growing. The comics industry has proven that a character can grow old and then be "rebooted" for the next generation.

Yet it seems that everytime they're rebooted, readers drop away.


What can't a character be evergreen?

Why does the formula have to be mucked up?

Why does a character NEED to be "rebooted"?


As the old saying goes, Marvel doesn't (or make that "didn't) need to reboot their characters. They got their characters right the first time.

 

[Gregatron]

then there would never be new spiderman comics...by your logic only Lee and Ditko could write the character

Everyone who would prefer even reprints to what's currently going on today, raise their hands.

 

[roach]

when something stays the same and doesnt change it's called being stagnant
name a character that has been sucessful that has remain as is

 

[gildea]

I kinda agree with gregatron.

Change generally only works in comics if it is over a short term basis.

Sometimes however changes do happen that stick, the spider wedding rightly or wrongly is one of them.

I do agree though that aging characters can damage them significantly and that the problem as greg cites is that comics characters of spidey's ilk have an infinite time horizon which means significant changes have to be limited.

 

[Gregatron]

when something stays the same and doesnt change it's called being stagnant
name a character that has been sucessful that has remain as is

Batman, for one, particularly from 1941 or so (after the bugs had been worked out) to around 1965.

You know, back when readers knew when to quit, didn't demand growth and change, didn't ask why Robin didn't age, and when sales topped 1 million copies per issue.


Something only becomes stagnant when you stay with it too long. To anyone just coming in, it's called "new" and "fun".

 

[Gregatron]

I kinda agree with gregatron.

Change generally only works in comics if it is over a short term basis.

Sometimes however changes do happen that stick, the spider wedding rightly or wrongly is one of them.

I do agree though that aging characters can damage them significantly and that the problem as greg cites is that comics characters of spidey's ilk have an infinite time horizon which means significant changes have to be limited.

To survive, these characters must be perpetual and, by their very nature, self-renewing.

That does not mean locking them onto a single track of instability and "growth" until they whither and die.

 

[gildea]

To survive, these characters must be perpetual and, by their very nature, self-renewing.

That does not mean locking them onto a single track of instability and "growth" until they whither and die.

whilst I agree in principal with you would you conceed in practice it is extremely hard to avoid 'growth' by accident or design?
Also given the current climate of the comic book market sales may demand growth to satisfy the small audience.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

You know, I love it...people hate things that become forumlaic 'cause everything's th' same...but now, in this here thread, we got people demandin' a formulaic approach.

Wise-up...formulas are DULL. You read th' same **** forever yer gonna get BORED. Change is not bad, people. Not at all. Change fer th' sake of change, however, is.

 

[gildea]

i think it's more change to the concept of the character that is debated rather than change itself.

 

[Herr Logan]

Yeah, Herr, I liked th' Clone Saga. I even started a thread. That was more sarcasm mixed with a serious answer.

And you need to get a life 'cause only a complete and utter pig-****er would go look up a dictionary definition then write a novel about why THEY'RE right, instead of maybe pointin' out how people may be MISTAKEN. I left it at that 'cause you said it; people know yer a moronic *******, so was no reason to go back into it. But if a novel-sized response is all yer receptive too, then fine...I'll elaborate. Yer views have no merit 'cause yer a self-serving egomaniac and frankly, people rather laugh at you than consider takin' you seriously. Drop th' holier than thou attitude and MAYBE people will give a **** what you think. And th' best part is, you probably don't even REALIZE it!

Lose th' arrogance, pal. Yer **** stinks like everyone else's.

Feel better? Done stamping your feet and shaking your fist?

Look back at the statement in bold and then look back at my "novel" (see the noun definition for "novel" and notice how you, yet again, use words you don't understand). Did you somehow fail to understand that I know I'm arrogant? I guess I wasn't clear enough earlier. Hopefully reading this will get the point across: I REALIZE IT!

So basically all you have to say for yourself-- in your "novel" length post-- is that I'm a bunch of words that the filter bleeps out (very creative and mature of you, by the way) and that I'm arrogant (which I already indicated the last time I chose to speak to you). Very nice.

Did it ever occur to you that I don't need or even want everyone here to "take [me] seriously?" As long as the decent, intelligent posters can make a connection with me, that's all I need. It makes me uncomfortable when ignorant and petty people respect me. If people are lauging at me, then my presence is a boon in itself, since laughter is the best medicine. Speaking of which, thank you, sir, for the laughs you've given me today.
That said, you go right ahead hating this arrogant *******. God knows it's easier than actually learning definitions of the words you use or saying something that engenders critical thinking.

Love,

~Your Friendly Neighborhood Pig-****er

 

[Gregatron]

i think it's more change to the concept of the character that is debated rather than change itself.

Changing window dressing= Good.

Blowing core concepts to atoms= Bad.


Examples of good "window dressing changes that don't actually change anything":


Reed Richards and Sue Storm getting married (their relationship and the group dynamic of the FF didn't change a whit).

Thor growing a beard.

Spider-Man gaining/losing supporting cast members.

New characters being introduced.

The FF going from blue-and-black to black-and-white costumes.

Iron Man tinkering with the look of his armor.

The Avengers moving into new headquarters for a time.

Jonah Jameson stepping down as editor-in-chief of the Bugle.

 

[Gregatron]

Y'know I think the anger, irrationality, and bitterness that has spread throughout this thread is the result of everyone contracting the madness afflicting Marvel. It seems their admission that they need to "fix" things has infected the thread with a particularly virulent strain of madness.

 

[The Infernal]

Someone here said that Spider-man lacks a supporting cast, which to an extent they have attempted to remedy with other superheroes but that doesn't work. For one thing they are all stars of their own comics and not appropriate to play second fiddle all the time and secondly having all superheroes is one sided as Peter needs more than MJ and Aunt May in his life.

Though many would disagree I would argue bringing back Harry. I don't know exactly the circumstances surrounding his death but from what I've read about it, I think it wouldn't be too unbelievable considering Norman came back. Though since it's been so ingrained in everyone they may treat it similar to Uncle Ben being brought back. To me Uncle Ben and Gwen shouldn't ever come back.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Well, Pig-****er, if you were REALLY as intelligent as you CLAIM to be, you'd've noticed I acknowledged you said yer an *******, and noticed that last jab was towards th' fact yer clueless to how yer viewed. Which only shows how dumb a **** you really are.

A flashy vocabulary don't make you "intelligent", bunky. Methinks you need to reconsult yer dictionaries and learn what does.

 

[Gregatron]

Someone here said that Spider-man lacks a supporting cast, which to an extent they have attempted to remedy with other superheroes but that doesn't work. For one thing they are all stars of their own comics and not appropriate to play second fiddle all the time and secondly having all superheroes is one sided as Peter needs more than MJ and Aunt May in his life.

Though many would disagree I would argue bringing back Harry. I don't know exactly the circumstances surrounding his death but from what I've read about it, I think it wouldn't be too unbelievable considering Norman came back. Though since it's been so ingrained in everyone they may treat it similar to Uncle Ben being brought back. To me Uncle Ben and Gwen shouldn't ever come back.

Peter Parker's supporting cast consists of the people in his life: friends, family, co-workers.

Spider-Man has no supporting cast. He is a loner, and prefers it that way.