Comics Mentoring and Aging

[MaxCarnage]

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.

This doesn't make sense to me. So Peter can stay eternally a completely static character, or he can mature until he dies, but he can't mature slowly, pausing at certain points in his life, or even mature to a state of adulthood and then remain static there?

That doesn't make sense. By your own logic, this is a fictional character who exists outside the bounds of our own physical limitations. He can age and stop aging on a whim. Frankly, it makes more sense for him to have become a man before they stopped aging him to me.

I know, I know: "It's the ultimate teenage escapism...". So is Hulk, Captain America, Superman, Batman, and more, and they're all adults. I understand that teens felt like they could relate to Peter better in the 60's, but those days are gone. As a child of the eighties and nineties, I related to Pete just fine, and he was always my favorite superhero.

 

[ragdus]

You can have it both ways. You can have Peter age, mature, and maybe even eventually hang it up. You can also have Peter remain forever young and never age.

That's why they have multiple titles.

You don't seem to like that though. That doesn't mean it can't be an effective way to juggle the wishes of all Spidey fans. Seems like a good compromise to me.

 

[Gregatron]

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...

But Stan realized that it was a mistake (when he saw that Marvel wasn't a flash in the pan), and quickly put the chronological brakes on when Peter went to college, as I've said many times.

 

[Gregatron]

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

I read some Iron Man fans discussing that the "Tony is in his late 20s" notion is what the creators are going with in Iron Man right now. I don't have an exact source.

If it's incorrect, please let us know!

 

[Gregatron]

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.

1. A solution has been difficult for anyone to figure out over the years.

2. If you feel that there can't be "all middle", then you miss the point. Can't wait for the end of the series!

3. If anyone can actually explain why characters "must evolve" (without the standard "because it's realistic" nonsense), then they get a No-Prize.

4. There used to be one good, all-ages Spider-Man, and sales were great. Now there are 27 different versions, and they all sell horridly in comparison(although, in today's anemic market, they sell "well"). Better, or worse?

5. Spider-Man is an iconic fictional character who is lives in "the world outside your window", but is still much larger-than-life. He is not "human" or "realistic".

6. As I've said before, even though I'm done with Marvel, I still care, just as one cares about what happens to an ex-spouse when they fall on hard times. I also care about future generations, and the fact that they're being deprived of Spider-Man.

7. The Ultimate Universe is a sandbox for creators who are too lazy to use the characters that Stan and Kack and Steve created, and where they can "title the mirror" on these characters to their hearts' content.

 

[Gregatron]

This doesn't make sense to me. So Peter can stay eternally a completely static character, or he can mature until he dies, but he can't mature slowly, pausing at certain points in his life, or even mature to a state of adulthood and then remain static there?

That doesn't make sense. By your own logic, this is a fictional character who exists outside the bounds of our own physical limitations. He can age and stop aging on a whim. Frankly, it makes more sense for him to have become a man before they stopped aging him to me.

I know, I know: "It's the ultimate teenage escapism...". So is Hulk, Captain America, Superman, Batman, and more, and they're all adults. I understand that teens felt like they could relate to Peter better in the 60's, but those days are gone. As a child of the eighties and nineties, I related to Pete just fine, and he was always my favorite superhero.

When introduced, the Hulk, Cap, etc. were all adults.

By "teenage escapism", I mean escapism about a teenage character made for teenagers.

 

[Gregatron]

You can have it both ways. You can have Peter age, mature, and maybe even eventually hang it up. You can also have Peter remain forever young and never age.

That's why they have multiple titles.

You don't seem to like that though. That doesn't mean it can't be an effective way to juggle the wishes of all Spidey fans. Seems like a good compromise to me.

Divide and conquer.

 

[Gregatron]

Words of wisdom from different boards:



There are three time periods in comics. The past, the present, and the future. Most comics take place "now". (They're almost all written in present tense, aren't they?) When references are made to the past, they are usually vague -- "months ago" -- or to specific periods such as WW2. If we look in on Captain America during WW2, we can logically expect him to age about 4.5 years. If we look to the future, we can naturally expect to find the characters to be older. But a reference to something happening a specified time in the future does not mean that, when that time has elapsed for us, we should expect the characters to have "caught up" to the referenced time.

Comics, especially superhero comics, are always "written in the middle". The beginning is always the same approximate time in the past, the future never really comes.






Superman has always been 29, and always should be. (E. Nelson Bridwell got particularly anal about this, by insisting that even the Superman of Earth 2 was 29 -- in Kryptonian years!)

Batman needs to be a few years older, but not a day over 35.

Some characters -- and I keep coming back to Captain America -- are tied to specific epochs, and therefore must have a certain amount of time having lapsed in their lives. Cap lived thru WW2, and so aged accordingly. Assume him to have been 18 when he became Captain America, that makes him about 23 when he went into the ice. How much time has elapsed since he came out of the ice is anyone's guess. With the 7 Year Rule, he returned for Clinton's last year in office. (What a horror show that must have seemed to a man like Steve Rogers!)

Other characters have ties to WW2 that can be simply ignored -- Reed and Ben -- while others need explanations -- Nick Fury.


There was a time, in comics, when it was possible to unring the bell. Bruce Wayne's insane older brother appeared and disappeared. Jor-El and Lara survived the destruction of Krypton, and were promptly forgotten again. Kid Flash was created by a mischevious imp, not random chance.
But that was a time when the industry was not in the clutches of the Anal-Retentives, fans and pros alike, who cannot, will not, won't ever, ever, ever simply allow a dumb story to be forgotten.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Words of wisdom to one who couldn't write his way out of a paper bag. You know nothing about writing, you've proven this. Pick a new angle. Preferably one you actually have ammunition with.

 

[ragdus]

If you stick to pete always being a teen, the character WILL die. Nobody wants to read about acne and bullies for 20 years.

The Peter Parker/Spider-man you long for hasn't existed in DECADES. This was a relevant argument back in 1980. Nowadays? Not so much.

 

[MaxCarnage]

When introduced, the Hulk, Cap, etc. were all adults.

And were enjoyed by kids and teens. My point is that it doesn't have to be about a teenager to be enjoyed by teenagers.

By "teenage escapism", I mean escapism about a teenage character made for teenagers.

What's your point? The stories, as evidenced above, do not have to be about a high school Peter Parker. And Pete was in high school for what, 29 or 30 issues before he graduated? You're clinging to an era that was here and gone in just over two years.

The uniqueness of Peter is that he was introduced as a teen and we all got to watch him grow up, not necessarily that he would be a teen forever. Whether that was the original intent, it is what it is and I cannot subscribe to your theory that this is what caused the downfall of the character. He was at his peak when he was an adult in college.

 

[LarryLegend]

He was at his peak when he was an adult in college.

 

[Gregatron]

Words of wisdom to one who couldn't write his way out of a paper bag. You know nothing about writing, you've proven this. Pick a new angle. Preferably one you actually have ammunition with.

Sigh.


Let's see you write something. Preferably something that isn't inflammatory, spiteful, or monosyllabic.


We're waiting.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

My confused and insignificant little speck, if you can't see what's clearly in front of yer face, I can't help you.

 

[Gregatron]

If you stick to pete always being a teen, the character WILL die. Nobody wants to read about acne and bullies for 20 years.

The Peter Parker/Spider-man you long for hasn't existed in DECADES. This was a relevant argument back in 1980. Nowadays? Not so much.

My point is proven.


At their apex, comics were not written for people who would read for 20-plus years. Kids (and adults who understood the conceits of the genre) read for a few years, then moved on.

Somewhere along the way, one or two generations of fans decided not to move on, and began feeling that the characters "owed" them, because "long-time readers are what kept the industry afloat".

And so, we have today's dilemma: a fringe minority (which is now the majority, because most of the mature fans who love and understand the characters have long since left) that demands that the characters grow and change along with them.

Just because a mistake (such as the marriage) has been around for 20 years or more doesn't mean it isn't a mistake.


Superman remained Superman for many, many years. Then, "geniuses" (a.k.a. aging fanboys-turned-professionals) came along with ideas like Lois and Clark getting married, or (come June 30) Superman leaving earth for years (and Lois having a child out of wedlock).

There are the people who demand that we see Dr. Doom's real face, who demand that Dick Grayson become an adult at odds with Batman, who demand that Iron Man become a drunk and a jerky control freak, who demand that Hal Jordan age and change (and go mad and become a villain), who demand that everything in a juvenile medium become realistic so it can be "cool".


I care about the characters. If the guy running around in The Amazing Spider-Man is not the character that Lee and Ditko created (and was expanded upon by Romita, Conway, etc.), then it's worthless.

And I'm not even saying that "If Spider-Man isn't in high school and he isn't excactly like Lee and Ditko's version, then it's bad". I'm saying that if the creators ignore or change everything that made Spider-Man SPIDER-MAN (his place in life, his personality, his dynamics with his family/friends, his powers, his costume, etc.), then they are wrong.


And a slavish devotion to every little detail from 40 years doesn't work either. Stan and the gang contradicted themselves quite often in the old stories (with factual errors, incorrect flashbacks, etc.). But they didn't do so at the expense of the characters.


If Stan retold Spider-Man's origin and suddenly added in a few guys who accosted Peter right after he gained his powers, fine. That's an addition. But Peter still acted like Peter in that retelling.

 

[Gregatron]

My confused and insignificant little speck, if you can't see what's clearly in front of yer face, I can't help you.

I was once like you (minus the insults and the sarcasm). But then, I had my moment of clarity.

And when I did, I began to study the past and present of the industry. I began to see how things became the way they are today.

And I realized that the fanbase is so deluded and/or brainwashed that trying to snap them out of it would be like fighting a forest fire with a Dixie cup-full of water.

But I still try.

Because it's the right thing to do.

Because it's what Peter Parker would do.

 

[Gregatron]

And were enjoyed by kids and teens. My point is that it doesn't have to be about a teenager to be enjoyed by teenagers.



What's your point? The stories, as evidenced above, do not have to be about a high school Peter Parker. And Pete was in high school for what, 29 or 30 issues before he graduated? You're clinging to an era that was here and gone in just over two years.

The uniqueness of Peter is that he was introduced as a teen and we all got to watch him grow up, not necessarily that he would be a teen forever. Whether that was the original intent, it is what it is and I cannot subscribe to your theory that this is what caused the downfall of the character. He was at his peak when he was an adult in college.

As I have said, the ideal and strongest version of Spider-Man is the high school version. But the college years (1965-1986 or so) are only a minor step down. Writers did fantastic things with the character during that period, and it still worked. But things went way, way too far after that.

 

[Gregatron]

Selected quotes from other boards:

For Tony Stark to perpetrate a scheme that only has been used by stupid people and villains in comics history is not consistent with his character. We're not talking about issue numbers here, or how much can Iron Man lift, or other fanboy minutiae. What is going on here is the core of Tony Stark's character.

And putting others in jeopardy to advance his agenda is not something Tony Stark would do.

Using your examples: It is in Reed's character to search for a cure. It is inthe makeup of the team for The Avengers to change their roster.

To turn Tony Stark into basically a super-villain -- and a stupid one with an unoriginal plan (and I know it's not the first time, BTW) -- is what is known is some circles as Bad Writing.








To want to only repeat what has come before will not
do comics any favours at all. All forms of
entertainment evolve over time.

*****

Superhero comics being, traditionally, the notable
exception. For something on the order of a quarter
century or so no "evolution" happened in superhero
comics. They were timeless, the characters eternal.
A reader time taveling from 1948 would have had no
trouble recognizing Batman or Superman in 1958.

Then there was a sea change, and suddenly the
stories had to matter and have
consequences. And sales began to plummet.

Just a coincidence?



What I feel has had the most detrimental thing to happen though is that when all the energy was put into the adult buyer market the younger kids were left behind. That to me is where all my anti Marvel DC anger lies. Everything else is just arguing over what chair to sit on in the Titanic.




The "things evolve" BS also riles me up. Yes. And things devolve too.

Painting, quality painting, classical or realistic, hasn't changed in thousands of years. Yes sure, if you revisit the Dark Ages, you'll find drawings that borderline go back to the Aegipcian profileitis. But that's devolving. That was art and science of art methods forgoten in a horrible time of famine and poverty. People today paint in a computer with Corel Painter with the exact same techniques the Ancient Greeks did Frescos. The medium changes, the techniques evolve, the final product, if it's of quality, doesn't.

A beautiful classical building is still a beautiful classical building. And the sky scrapers which plaster our cities like cubes with breeding holes for eight to five human mice, are a devolution, a necessity of urbanite, post-industrial revolution needs. A loss in quality of life. Someone with the cash to do it, and the class, will still do it the exact same way it got done either thousands of years - Classical Greco Roman - or hundreds - following the discovery of other archs, the Gothic. And so on. Excuse me if i laugh everytime i see the "things most evolve" guy that comes up with a building that looks like a decomposing turd, wrinkled paper, or the newest cylinder with breeding holes. Again, sometimes, things devolve too.

Last but not least. The wheel. Yes, found thousands of years ago. Does not need reinvention. Or "evolving". Lest you want to be the weirdo in the next new-age TV show presenting the discovery of the Wheel v2, a wheel with multiple sides; or as some may have it, a pentagon. Or as i'd label it: a devolution.

Comics had archetypes, golden rules, knowledge, art, science behind it. And they sold left and right. Filled imaginations of millions across the world.

Comics bereft of any characterization, continuity, or golden rules are selling shockingly less, and are no longer staples of Western society, impotent of contagium into the new generations. Yet, some insist, on calling a descendance into anarchy an "evolution".

My ass, it is ;o)



It is difficult to imagine just how paralyzed the Marvel Universe would be, if the kind of Everything-Must-Count mentality had prevailed back when MTU was in its heyday. Remember the story where Spider-Man traveled back in time and was there for the Salem witch trials and subsequent executions? No way anybody bounces back from that with a quip and a squirt of web fluid. Yet Spider-Man, to my knowledge, never referenced it again.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Cut th' sanctimonious ****. Nobody wants what yer sellin'. Get a clue.

 

[Gregatron]

Cut th' sanctimonious ****. Nobody wants what yer sellin'. Get a clue.

As a wise man once said, "Then just call me nobody, Crusher!"


I don't think the right to free speech includes the right to shout down others for having an opinion. We are free to disagree, yes, but you border on the vile with your vitriolic outbursts.


You are perfectly free to ignore everything I say. But don't you dare tell me I can't say it.

 

[ragdus]

The thing is, your opinion is quite clear. You want Spidey to be 17 forever. It doesn't take 27 posts to hammer that home.

And Marvel has spoken. Peter Parker is a kid in Ultimate. Elsewhere, he is not. Want what you're looking for? They make a comic for you.

There's no reason every single Spidey title has to be held to one theme.

 

[Feature]

Gregatron:
Of course a series can't be all middle. I would love to watch you try to pen forty years worth of stories about Peter getting picked on by Flash but still having to stop the Vulture so he can get home in time for dinner so Aunt May isn't pissed that she baked him a special apple pie and he missed out. That would be BORING. It doesn't mean we want to see the end, as fans, why would we want that? We just want to be entertained and not all of us can be so easily amused by the same thing over and over.

You ask if anyone can explain why characters must evolve without saying because its realistic. This can be easily rephrased as 'Can anyone explain why characters must evolve besides this perfectly acceptable reason that I have chosen to ignore'. Characters should evolve, and those of us who still read Spider-Man believe this, so those who don't, like you, really don't need to believe anything.

You say that there used to be this one great all ages Spider-Man that was so wonderful, then you state that comics were so magical because they were intended only for children. This is embarrassingly contradictory on your part and makes your argument laughable. According to your point of view, your time as a comic reader is over, so move along.

Then you talk about how Spider-Man is fictional and not human. What insight! Thank you for sharing your boundless wisdom! Spider-Man is a fictional character OF a human, that is why we love him. We love Spider-Man because he goes out and saves the day and they still struggles to pay the rent. You yourself loved him because he would spend so much time battling the Green Goblin that he forgot to study for geometry and now Aunt May is upset. We wouldn't love him the same if he rocketed here from a dying planet, suddenly had unlimited powers and at the end of the day went to sleep in a fortress of solitude next to a miniature world. That is not Spider-Man. What you fail to see is that Stan rooted his character in realism.

Furture generations are not being deprived of Spider-Man. Because we no longer live in your rose-tinted 1960s paradise, children and adults can both enjoy Spider-Man in a variety of ways. Read a comic, read a novel, play a game, find him on the 'net... this is how it should be. You can't complain about fanboys trying to keep the characters to themselves while you selfishly try to cram Spider-Man into the rigid mold you created for him as a child.

The Ultimate Universe is for lazy writers. What a ridiculous comment. Explain how lazy it is to write a complete origin for a character in a seven-part arc versus the old format of Scorpion is out of jail, Scorpion want money, Scorpion kill Spidey Man, Scorpion back in jail. Wow, that was a surprising turn of events and an exhausting writing excercise.

In short, we, the true Spider-Man fans of this board, are finding new ways to enjoy the character via the different titles offered and the various forms of media he is now present in. Yes we complain and yes we sometimes think we know better, but we stick with it. What you're doing is pointless and I think that's why no one respects where you're coming from. You think you're above everyone, but based on your flawed arguments, you clearly are not. Please don't clog this thread with "wisdom from other boards". If you're such the level headed vulgarity-opposed genius you claim to be, create the wisdom yourself, because I've seen no evidence of it thus far.

And Wolverine25th didn't say you could not voice your opinion, he simply said you tried, failed, and might as well move along.

 

[Gregatron]

The thing is, your opinion is quite clear. You want Spidey to be 17 forever. It doesn't take 27 posts to hammer that home.

And Marvel has spoken. Peter Parker is a kid in Ultimate. Elsewhere, he is not. Want what you're looking for? They make a comic for you.

There's no reason every single Spidey title has to be held to one theme.

I'm aghast.


Okay. 196 versions of Spider-Man are great, none of them will sell well.

I just love stunts and changes. I want to see Peter rape a toddler, and then not deal with the consequences. The public will then hail him as a hero. And then Mary Jane will find comfort in the bed of Jonah Jameson. And then the Abomination will become Peter's mentor, and they'll go on a killing spree for a while, until Peter realizes that with great power comes great responsibility, and so he'll turn around and kill the Abomination. And then Spider-Man will make a new costume out of the Abomination's skin, and reveal his identity to the world, and join the Brotherhood of Misunderstood-But-Evil Mutants. And then he'll celebrate his 40th birthday with hookers, and have grey temples and arthritis. And then Gwen Stacy's corpse will come back to life and have a corpse-baby with Betty Brant Leeds thanks to the gene-splicing technology of the Jackal. And then the corpse baby will develop a Tertiary Mutation, and will have four heads, laser beams that come out of its toes, and living hair growing out of its ears on Head # 3. And then Aunt May will be revealed to have been a North Korean spy all these years, whose name is Jing-Diong Dae. Jing will try to kill Peter, only to fall in love with him and marry him in a civil union (cuz he's a hermaphrodite). Mary Jane will be understandably upset, and will kill herself after giving birth to Richard Parker's son. It will be revealed that Richard Parker has been alive all along, and that he's from another planet. It turns out that Peter is an alien who was sent to conquer the earth as a baby. And then, with the aid of giant Spider-Robot-Mechs, Spider-Man will attack the countries that do not believe that with great power comes great responsibility. But then, Norman Osborn will ally himself with Jing Diong Dae in order to stop Spidey, but instead, they will fall in love. Spider-Man will then impale Jing in the chest with his Spider-Glider. Norman will cry, and tell Peter that he's like the son he never had. It will then be revealed that Peter is Norman's father, and that his mother is the Black Cat. Spider-Man will jerk-off to the Cat's amateur porno movie before going out to buy a new costume. He will then rename himself "The Iron Spiderine", and stab the costume store owner with his adamantium stingers. He will then go back in time to high school and kill his younger self and rape Liz Allan. He'll then relive his entire life, plastering "I love getting gang-raped by Marvel staffers and fans" posters in the background of every panel of every comic he's ever appeared in.


And the fans will eat it up. Sales will never have been better, and all that old crap can be forgotten.

 

[Gregatron]

Gregatron:
Of course a series can't be all middle. I would love to watch you try to pen forty years worth of stories about Peter getting picked on by Flash but still having to stop the Vulture so he can get home in time for dinner so Aunt May isn't pissed that she baked him a special apple pie and he missed out. That would be BORING. It doesn't mean we want to see the end, as fans, why would we want that? We just want to be entertained and not all of us can be so easily amused by the same thing over and over.

You ask if anyone can explain why characters must evolve without saying because its realistic. This can be easily rephrased as 'Can anyone explain why characters must evolve besides this perfectly acceptable reason that I have chosen to ignore'. Characters should evolve, and those of us who still read Spider-Man believe this, so those who don't, like you, really don't need to believe anything.

You say that there used to be this one great all ages Spider-Man that was so wonderful, then you state that comics were so magical because they were intended only for children. This is embarrassingly contradictory on your part and makes your argument laughable. According to your point of view, your time as a comic reader is over, so move along.

Then you talk about how Spider-Man is fictional and not human. What insight! Thank you for sharing your boundless wisdom! Spider-Man is a fictional character OF a human, that is why we love him. We love Spider-Man because he goes out and saves the day and they still struggles to pay the rent. You yourself loved him because he would spend so much time battling the Green Goblin that he forgot to study for geometry and now Aunt May is upset. We wouldn't love him the same if he rocketed here from a dying planet, suddenly had unlimited powers and at the end of the day went to sleep in a fortress of solitude next to a miniature world. That is not Spider-Man. What you fail to see is that Stan rooted his character in realism.

Furture generations are not being deprived of Spider-Man. Because we no longer live in your rose-tinted 1960s paradise, children and adults can both enjoy Spider-Man in a variety of ways. Read a comic, read a novel, play a game, find him on the 'net... this is how it should be. You can't complain about fanboys trying to keep the characters to themselves while you selfishly try to cram Spider-Man into the rigid mold you created for him as a child.

The Ultimate Universe is for lazy writers. What a ridiculous comment. Explain how lazy it is to write a complete origin for a character in a seven-part arc versus the old format of Scorpion is out of jail, Scorpion want money, Scorpion kill Spidey Man, Scorpion back in jail. Wow, that was a surprising turn of events and an exhausting writing excercise.

In short, we, the true Spider-Man fans of this board, are finding new ways to enjoy the character via the different titles offered and the various forms of media he is now present in. Yes we complain and yes we sometimes think we know better, but we stick with it. What you're doing is pointless and I think that's why no one respects where you're coming from. You think you're above everyone, but based on your flawed arguments, you clearly are not. Please don't clog this thread with "wisdom from other boards". If you're such the level headed vulgarity-opposed genius you claim to be, create the wisdom yourself, because I've seen no evidence of it thus far.

And Wolverine25th didn't say you could not voice your opinion, he simply said you tried, failed, and might as well move along.

1. A writer shouldn't stay on for more than 10 years.

2. Who says characters should "evolve"? They didn't evolve in the Golden Age, and sales skyrocketed. If you think the industry or the art form is better today than ever, in terms of sales or content, you're mistaken.

3. Stan made his characters "realistic" (to a point), but they were still heroes who were far better than ordinary people.

4. A character broken into 268 different versions is not a character. It's a Generic Company Mascot.

5. "You're not a true fan", "they can always change things back", "comics have evolved", blah, blah blah. Same old excuses.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

See, you went from voicing yer opinion to some holy crusade only YOU are fighting. You cemented that with yer comments up above.

You also ask fer INTELLIGENT debate, and when you get it, you brush it off as EXCUSES. That's yer answer to everyone, it's just an excuse.

And there you go, comparing appels to oranges again. Comics sold in th' Golden Age 'cause, hey! They were NEW! They were EXCITING! They've never been done before! Fastforward 60 years later, th' thrill is kinda gone, bunky. It's so funny, you claim to have done all this research and yet you can't even SEE th' flaws in yer own goddam arguments.

I suggest you STEP BACK, REEVALUATE what yer tryin' to say, and form a more cohesive argument. 'Cause right now, you have NOTHING. NOTH-ING.