Comics Mentoring and Aging

[Gregatron]

Okay, so the current line at The Thing That Used To Be Marvel is that Peter Parker is around 30 years old, right?

And the current line about Iron Man is that Tony Stark (who was probably in his mid-to-late 30s in his very first appearance in Tales of Suspenses) is supposedly in his late 20s today, right?


HUH?



So, lemme get this straight...Iron Man is younger than Spider-Man...and a 30-year-old Spider-Man somehow needs "mentor"? And one who is younger than him?



(Y'see, this is where "growth and change and aging" in comics really falls apart. When a moronic creative team decides that Spider-Man should suddenly be 30 and get married, there's no thought as to how all the other characters must also age as a result.

So, in theory, Reed Richards should now be in his 50s, Captain America should be 40-ish, and the original X-Men should be in their mid-to-late 30s).

UGH.

This is exactly what happened at DC. For example, Robin (Dick Grayson, who was 8-10 years old for around 30 years, real time) suddenly aged to 18 in the 1960s, and yet Batman did not age a day (Dick is currently in his 20s--maybe even 30s--, and Batman has still not aged a day).

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

This happens in entertainment media all th' time. It's nothin' new. Ever see some shows where a family has a baby, then next season it's already 2 years old? It's a creative choice. Why? Who knows. But there it is.

 

[Doc_OCK_4MUGEN]

you want an answer... Franklin Richard's Realiy altering powers... there's Marvel's scapegoat... or teh scarlet witch is crazy and rebuilt the universe wrong...

 

[Gregatron]

This happens in entertainment media all th' time. It's nothin' new. Ever see some shows where a family has a baby, then next season it's already 2 years old? It's a creative choice. Why? Who knows. But there it is.

I had little doubt you would be the first to reply (and try to prove me "wrong").


Comics are not like other "entertainment media". They have their own rules.

It's just that fanboys and fanboys who have become "professionals" have consistently broken those rules.



What was once MARVEL COMICS is now "Marvel Entertainment". All that matters is the almightly dollar bill. There are no rules, no standards, no mercy.



Want to buy 10 different books about 12 different versions of the same character that pander to every age group ("616", Ultimate, MAX, "kids", etc.)? Great!

Wanna see what you, the fans, always wanted to see, and have some cathartic realism (like seeing Spidey finally punch JJJ in the face)? Great!

Wanna see a "fresh new take" on a character by a hot new writer who will "tilt the mirror" on those goofy old stories? Great!


Fact of the matter is, today's creators (and fans) don't care a whit about creative or thematic integrity, or about the characters created by Stan, Jack and the rest. They just want lots of money, and the freedom to do absolutely anything they want, so they can pat themselves on the back and get hailed by mindless droves of fanboys for being "revolutionary".

And the fans will bend over and take anything Marvel gives, because they don't know any better.


I am loyal to the characters, not the company. Not the bean-counters in charge.



I cannot fathom the fact that so many would sit back and eagerly digest today's dreck, and who would even claim that there's nothing wrong with it.

No longtime Spider-Man fan who is still sane could possibly think that the character running around today bears even the slightest resemblance to Lee and Ditko's creation (and I'm not just talking about physical resemblance).

It seems that all the delicate machinery of what made Spider-Man work has been scrapped. All that matters now is "good stories", and basic entertainment, with no thought as to what once made Spider-Man work and why, and what characters, themes, and components of his world are essential.

Today, he is a hollow character, being battered back and forth from one "event" to another, from one retcon to another, from one horror to another.

 

[spahn]

All i can say is that characters evolve. The Spider-Man of the 60's, while it has good characteristics, probably would not be relevant in today's world.

Are there problems with todays Spider-Man, yes of course, but if you had the Spider-Man of the 60's in todays world, i believe you would be posting here on how bad Spider-Man is and how they haven't evolved him.

It's a lose-lose situation. You can't please everyone. And if you are disappointed with the character/company etc, you have two choices....one you keep buying or two, you stop buying.

 

[Gregatron]

All i can say is that characters evolve. The Spider-Man of the 60's, while it has good characteristics, probably would not be relevant in today's world.

Are there problems with todays Spider-Man, yes of course, but if you had the Spider-Man of the 60's in todays world, i believe you would be posting here on how bad Spider-Man is and how they haven't evolved him.

It's a lose-lose situation. You can't please everyone. And if you are disappointed with the character/company etc, you have two choices....one you keep buying or two, you stop buying.

I stopped buying long ago.


But I still care.

If Spider-Man was truly a child of the 60s who couldn't survive in today's world (which isn't true), then he should have died in the 60s. He shouldn't have mutated into a character that merely has the same name and nothing else.


And if characters didn't "evolve" away from what made them successful, then the people who liked the character would like it, and the people who didn't like it would read something else, instead of trying to change the character so that they, and only they, could like it.

Back in the day, if a writer was offered a book with a character they didn't like or couldn't relate to, they would ask for a different assignment. They would not accept the assignment and then proceed to change the book and twist it to their own tastes so that they would enjoy writing it in their own "style".

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Yes, 'cause my mission in life is to prove you wrong.

LISTEN YOU DUMB ****, I WAS TRYING TO BE CIVIL BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO TO WAR THEN HAVE AT IT *******! I am entirely sick and tired of you marchin' around these boards sayin' the same stupid **** OVER, and OVER, and OVER again! And others are too. You contribute NOTHING new. We get it, you want Spidey to be the Archie of the Marvel universe. You want ALL comics to be like Archie. One big happy dappy 1960s corn fest with absolutely NO reason fer long term readership. You also have no concept of ANYTHING invovled in the creative process in comics; you proved that by the stupid poll you made. Low blood sugar my ass. Well, guess what, bunky? Long term readers are what KEEP comics around! If they get bored and move on, WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS? Huh?

So just shut up. You're not this almighty know-it-all like you flaming think you are!

 

[Gregatron]

Yes, 'cause my mission in life is to prove you wrong.

LISTEN YOU DUMB ****, I WAS TRYING TO BE CIVIL BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO TO WAR THEN HAVE AT IT *******! I am entirely sick and tired of you marchin' around these boards sayin' the same stupid **** OVER, and OVER, and OVER again! And others are too. You contribute NOTHING new. We get it, you want Spidey to be the Archie of the Marvel universe. You want ALL comics to be like Archie. One big happy dappy 1960s corn fest with absolutely NO reason fer long term readership. You also have no concept of ANYTHING invovled in the creative process in comics; you proved that by the stupid poll you made. Low blood sugar my ass. Well, guess what, bunky? Long term readers are what KEEP comics around! If they get bored and move on, WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS? Huh?

So just shut up. You're not this almighty know-it-all like you flaming think you are!

(Yawn)

Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Gregatron]

Yes, 'cause my mission in life is to prove you wrong.

LISTEN YOU DUMB ****, I WAS TRYING TO BE CIVIL BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO TO WAR THEN HAVE AT IT *******! I am entirely sick and tired of you marchin' around these boards sayin' the same stupid **** OVER, and OVER, and OVER again! And others are too. You contribute NOTHING new. We get it, you want Spidey to be the Archie of the Marvel universe. You want ALL comics to be like Archie. One big happy dappy 1960s corn fest with absolutely NO reason fer long term readership. You also have no concept of ANYTHING invovled in the creative process in comics; you proved that by the stupid poll you made. Low blood sugar my ass. Well, guess what, bunky? Long term readers are what KEEP comics around! If they get bored and move on, WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS? Huh?

So just shut up. You're not this almighty know-it-all like you flaming think you are!

"Civil".

"Civil war" is more like it.

"Flame waaaaarrrs, nothing but flame waaaarrrss...."


The only contribution I see from you, friend, is fierce arguing and name-calling, as opposed to any sort of intelligent discussion, or an intelligent defense of your opinions.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Tried that, bunky. Others as well. You still come along with the same song and dance with NO variation, and essentially said it's your way or no way.

 

[Gregatron]

Tried that, bunky. You still come along with the same song and dance with NO variation.

Consistency is victory.


So sorry that I haven't changed my opinions to make you happy.


Or perhaps you fear the truth in my words.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

There is no truth in yer words! I proved that with others in yer poll thread! Go re-read that in case you forgot. You don't have clue one about story telling or anything else which you've commented on. You cite all complaints against it as long-term fanboys growing bored with no regard that it's those long-term fanboys what kept this industry around long enough fer you to waltz in here with these insane views.

This thread actually had some valid merit, but it's marred by yer past bull.

 

[Gregatron]

There is no truth in yer words! I proved that with others in yer poll thread! Go re-read that in case you forgot. You don't have clue one about story telling or anything else which you've commented on. You cite all complaints against it as long-term fanboys growing bored with no regard that it's those long-term fanboys what kept this industry around long enough fer you to waltz in here with these insane views.

This thread actually had some valid merit, but it's marred by yer past bull.

My point is proven.

The long-term fanboys feel that they "own" the characters because they "kept the industry around".

In reality, they kept the characters to themselves, to the exclusion of all others. Because they simply can't learn to let go. They feel the characters "owe" the fans for "keeping them around", and that they must age and change along with them as payment. They feel that "kids don't read comics", and that comic fans are part of a club to which only they have they keys.

This is why sales are in the toilet.

This is why kids "don't read comics".

This is why there is no semblance of professionalism or creative integrity or consisntency of character or characters acting in-character anymore.



Have at thee, troll.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

No, sales are in the toilet 'cause there's been some creative mistakes as of late. Th' reboot, The Other, Iron Spidey...these do nothing to enhance th' character's journey. I can't tell you what current Marvel is thinking nor will I defend their decisions. Basically, current Marvel negates all th' reasons I wanted to work fer them in th' first place.

Th' one fatal flaw I can see attempting to come through is they share YOUR thinking about retconning Spidey back to his teen years. Making him younger, fighting the marriage, retconning Flash... Yet, at the same time, they try to keep up the illusion of progression. Through the 80s and 90s, there was a progression you could actually follow. They moved the story forward steadily.

Simple fact is, you can't have a character WITHOUT character development. That isn't the core of these characters yer so adamant at defending. And don't spout out Saturday paper strip names to me. They're a completely different animal. Peanuts isn't about the kids growing, it's about their adventures as kids. But Spidey has been about the life and times of Peter Parker, Spider-Man. Not Peter Parker, the teenage hero. Peter began to grow th' moment he realized he let his Uncle die. And he's CONTINUED to grow. Th' answer is NOT keeping a character stagnant like you want, it's progressing them along on the proper path of development. But once you deviate from that path, then you get the mess we're in now.

Not because of the marriage.
Not because Peter grew up.
Because they've run out of ideas and can't admit it's time for someone else to take over.

THAT is Spidey's ONLY current problem right now. THAT'S what needs to be fixed. No retcons. No stagnation. A changing of th' guard putting Spidey BACK on the path that befits him.

 

[Gregatron]

No, sales are in the toilet 'cause there's been some creative mistakes as of late. Th' reboot, The Other, Iron Spidey...these do nothing to enhance th' character's journey. I can't tell you what current Marvel is thinking nor will I defend their decisions. Basically, current Marvel negates all th' reasons I wanted to work fer them in th' first place.

Th' one fatal flaw I can see attempting to come through is they share YOUR thinking about retconning Spidey back to his teen years. Making him younger, fighting the marriage, retconning Flash... Yet, at the same time, they try to keep up the illusion of progression. Through the 80s and 90s, there was a progression you could actually follow. They moved the story forward steadily.

Simple fact is, you can't have a character WITHOUT character development. That isn't the core of these characters yer so adamant at defending. And don't spout out Saturday paper strip names to me. They're a completely different animal. Peanuts isn't about the kids growing, it's about their adventures as kids. But Spidey has been about the life and times of Peter Parker, Spider-Man. Not Peter Parker, the teenage hero. Peter began to grow th' moment he realized he let his Uncle die. And he's CONTINUED to grow. Th' answer is NOT keeping a character stagnant like you want, it's progressing them along on the proper path of development. But once you deviate from that path, then you get the mess we're in now.

Not because of the marriage.
Not because Peter grew up.
Because they've run out of ideas and can't admit it's time for someone else to take over.

THAT is Spidey's ONLY current problem right now. THAT'S what needs to be fixed. No retcons. No stagnation. A changing of th' guard putting Spidey BACK on the path that befits him.

Wow, that was halfway coherent, with nary an expletive. I guess I bring out the best in you.

"Creative mistakes as of late". HAH!

Gee, did anyone think the "progression of the story" in the 90s was a good thing? As I recall, people whined just as much as they do now.


And who said anything about newspaper characters?

But really, what is the difference?

Ben Parker died. That event established Peter's characterization. The rest should be all middle, instead of rushing headlong towards the end.

If Peter grows and develops and learns, then he should grow up, hang up the suit, and live a normal life as a happily married man. End of Series.

You can't have it both ways.


And the illusion of change is not "stagnation". If it is to you, then read something else.


And just what is the "proper path of development", wise one?

Utter realism?

Growth and change?



Words of wisdom from a different board:



Crap like CIVIL WAR and IDENTITY CRISIS are born out of a common misunderstanding of how superhero comics work. A misunderstanding that has grown more pervasive as the audience has shrunk, and more "fans" have become "pros".
Basically it breaks into two parts. There are those who think the whole concept of superheroes is ridiculous, and therefore the gloves are off. Superman vs. the potato men from Venus. Not a problem. It's all just stupid ***** anyway. The other side of the coin is the "grim and gritty" approach, trying to shoehorn "realism" into the characters and the stories, and missing the point entirely. "So, Wonder Woman is raped, and. . . "

What's missing here is the third part -- the part that all the writers of the so-called Golden and Silver Ages understood so perfectly. The part that Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko turned into an empire. That's where the world of superheroes is, indeed, "the world outside your window" -- so wars happen as they really happen, events are celebrated as they are really celebrated -- but there are superheroes. "Realistically", having superheroes (and villains) in the world would make vast, unimaginable changes. But the readers need to world to be the world they know, so the fact that Superman, or the Fantastic Four would change the mix to the point of being unrecognizable is conveniently forgotten. Superman could have won WW2 singlehanded -- but in the real world he didn't, so in the comics he didn't. The events of September 11th would have been very different in a world with superheroes, but there are no superheroes in the real world, so ---- ah! See the problem?

Stan and Jack saluted the great adventure of Apollo 11, involving the FF "behind the scenes" without ever once feeling the need to point out that the FF had already been hailed as heroes for being the first to reach the Moon. There was no need to distort the real world event, or the heroes.

But -- back we go! -- Stan, Jack, Steve and all the rest were all about serving the characters and the stories, not about shouting "Hey! Look at me! I'm so COOOOOL!!!"

 

[Herr Logan]

Good thing you didn't add "Maturing" in the title, because certain enraged, foul-mouthed troglodytes might not feel welcome if that were the case.

 

[Themanofbat]

Where's it stated that Tony is in his late 20's?

 

[TalesMN]

It's just that fanboys and fanboys who have become "professionals" have consistently broken those rules.

It never ceases to amuse me that you keep blaming the "fanboys" for Spidey's aging when it was Stan Lee himself who started that, Greg...

 

[Norman Osborn]

Where's it stated that Tony is in his late 20's?

The only recent reference to Stark's age I recall (that's not to say there weren't others ) was during the "Other" arc when Pete's talking to Tony about how when Pete was a kid he remembered seeing Tony's older armour....Stark jokingly told Pete to watch the "age" remarks......Pete returned with a "oh no..I mean I seen it yesterday...that's what I meant...."...then under his breath whispers "yeah I saw it on reel to reel"....

..clearly that dialogue places Tony as being significantly older than Pete....

Oh and that wasn't verbatim....I'd have to reread the "Other" for the exact quote....and there aint no way that's happening

 

[Norman Osborn]

Just remembered Donald Thomas sent me the "Other" on disc

 

[Feature]

Quite the discussion going on here...

Gregatron, I'm not sure what you're arguing. I think almost everyone on here can agree that the current 616 incarnation of Spider-Man is total crap, and as you stated, is nothing like the original. And I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the way in which characters age is equally as ridiculous, I'm just not sure what your solution to this is, or if you have proposed one.

You can't say that evolution is bad for a character; it isn't right for Uncle Ben to die and for things to just remain in the middle. Everything moves toward an end. The thing is that Spider-Man's evolution has had both good and bad periods. We couldn't have had Uncle Ben die and then have a comic where teenage Peter goes around fighting the same villains over and over. He needs to evolve and his evolution has brought both good and bad stories, Gwen dies (good) Gwen has kids (bad) Peter has a clone (good) Peter IS the clone (bad). I hardly think these opinions of these storylines are shared by all (sorry Citizen Kaine, Reilly just wasn't my favorite) but you get the idea. Evolution, especially over forty years or so has a tendency to go through ups and downs, what we have been dealing with for a long while is an extended downturn that we can only pray will one day be rectified.

Now apparently you also have a problem with the fact that you can now read about ten different versions of each character. Why is this bad? You also complain that writers are alienating readers by not offering them what they want to read. Huh? If you don't like Iron Spidey getting his eyes eaten and yearn for a Spidey who still resides in The Friendly Neighbourhood, pick up Marvel Adventures. If you don't like the Spidey who is thirty and married and working for twenty-something Tony Stark, pick up Ultimate Spider-Man. That book ought to solve your time continuum problem, one hundered issues equals a year, simple as that.

You also complain about long-term fanboys taking the character and doing with it what they please, people who 'can't learn to let go'. But at the same time you are refusing to let go of this idyllic 1960's version of Spider-Man who lives with his Aunt May and gets bullied by Flash. We don't need forty years of that, if that was such a utopian situation for you, then stick to the back issues and enjoy reliving it. Right now we have writers at Marvel who think what Spidey needs is for his entire history to be crapped on and to be reinvented as some kind of Power Ranger, and that is wrong. But what you want is for someone to come along and freeze Spidey in time, and that would be wrong too. I don't pretend to know what would be right, and that's why I don't start threads complaining about the current state of the books, I read what I like and talk about positive things. I especially would not complain so many times and so agressively if I couldn't care less about the company and did not buy any of the books.

And why can't Spider-Man grow old and still be Spider-Man? Because he was indirectly responsible for his uncle's murder he should never be allowed to marry or change his lifestyle? With great power comes great responsibility, not eternal slavery to your cause. Spider-Man is a Man. He is human, that is at the heart of his story, and as such he can only do so much and cannot be expected to devote his entire life to playing the role of protector. Why is it that if he were to marry he would be required to drop all his duties and just hang 'em up and live a normal life? His attempt at a dual life should be seen as both pitiable and courageous. It is a tragedy that he is denied a normal life because he became something he never chose to become, but it is commendable that he attempts to be both the everyman and the hero, that is why people are drawn to him.

I also don't understand the 'wisdom' of the quote you supplied us with. The second example of the way comics go bad is when people try to 'shoehorn realism' into them. And what is the solution? Stan's vision of 'the world outside your window' where things happen as they really happen... huh? OK...

Don't take this as a personal attack. I'm just not sure what you want or why you want it so badly if you're so above Marvel Comics. If the Spider-Man you love is truly gone, then at least he still lives on in your memory, and hopefully you've explored everything else Marvel is offering before calling it quits. I hate the 616 Universe. I think it's stupid. But I think the Ultimate Universe is great, as long as your open to... CHANGE. Change can be good, unfortunately, the 616 Universe is not.

 

[Themanofbat]

The only recent reference to Stark's age I recall (that's not to say there weren't others ) was during the "Other" arc when Pete's talking to Tony about how when Pete was a kid he remembered seeing Tony's older armour....Stark jokingly told Pete to watch the "age" remarks......Pete returned with a "oh no..I mean I seen it yesterday...that's what I meant...."...then under his breath whispers "yeah I saw it on reel to reel"....

..clearly that dialogue places Tony as being significantly older than Pete....

Oh and that wasn't verbatim....I'd have to reread the "Other" for the exact quote....and there aint no way that's happening

But I've ALWAYS thought Tony was older than Pete.

You're initial complaint was that Tony is being portrayed in his late 20's.

Again, where did you get this fact that Tony was in his late 20's?

 

[Norman Osborn]

But I've ALWAYS thought Tony was older than Pete.

You're initial complaint was that Tony is being portrayed in his late 20's.

Again, where did you get this fact that Tony was in his late 20's?

Dude you're talking to the wrong guy....Greg thought Peter was older than Tony....I was just showing that even recently Tony's been written as significantly older than Pete.....I'm with you...as far as I know Tony's always been older and has always been written as such

 

[Silverstein]

What the hell? Like 12 people have asked him where he got the crack to make him think that Spider-Man is older than Iron Man. He never answered them.

Peter's mentoring or whatever is really just an excuse to have him on Iron Man's side at some stage in the Civil War.



It's true that Spider-Man comics have been tainted for some time now and are nothing like how they should be. I wrote an essay on it in class today. Alright? But you have not proposed a solution at all. The closest you've gotten is suggesting that Spider-Man should either be the way it used to or end.

I'd rather have Marvel try out different ideas, realize their mistake and come back with great stories, than end it all and have no spider-man.

Ultimate Spider-Man has the same ideals and principles of 1960's spider-man. So I don't know why you mentioned it in your rant. In my opinion, I think it's the only REAL spider-man right now.

But Marvel does not need a Civil War, they need a Crisis on Infinite Earths. Start everything over from scratch. Or maybe start over from where everyone stopped agreeing.

About 1987(The year I was born), that's when comics were awesome, and I don't remember anyone complainging about comics in the 80's. All the **** hit the fan in the 1990's....That's when everyone got pissed.

So start Marvel universe over at Peter getting married. No clone saga, no other, nothing like that. But use some of the characters if you want. Have Ben Reily come back, but instead of being Peter's clone...he could simply have been bitten by Peter when he was the Man-spider. Or something...

 

[Donald Thomas]

Dude you're talking to the wrong guy....Greg thought Peter was older than Tony....I was just showing that even recently Tony's been written as significantly older than Pete.....I'm with you...as far as I know Tony's always been older and has always been written as such

Aloha,
That's what I thoght as well.Stark and Reed Richards are about the same age. Peter is a closer to Johnny Storm.As far as mentoring is concerned, I still go back to the point that Stark has done what Peter didn't do-he made money from his brains in a way that he was comfortable with. Peter sees Stark as a mentor.Uncle Ben was his moral fiber, but Stark is his first true mentor.I always thought that Peter should have gravitated towards Mr. Fantastic being as he and Torch were friends.For those who hate that peter calls Stark "boss" all the time, don't worry, before Civil War ends he'll be calling him mud.
Spidey rules
Spidey rules