Spider-Man General Discussion

Spider-Man tried to be X-Men and it went over like a lead balloon

So many problems in the 90s were people trying to copy X-books and doing it badly

Teen Titans got Team Titans, their own ripoff of X-Force with their own ripoff of Cable

West Coast Avengers became Force Works and Fantastic Four spun off Fantastic Force.

Spider-Man doubled down on clones, vague villains with vague schemes and vague powersets and stupid world domination schemes. At least partially due to Bob Harras, former X-Men editor getting editorship over Spider-Man

X-Things blight the land around them

Star Wars is more science fantasy.

It's the issue of being the big boy of the park. Everyone tries to copy you, even if what worked for you is completely incompatible with everyone else, or copy the wrong things.

July solicitations

ASM#25 is a rip-roaring adventure pitting Peter and MJ against Electro, with Mysterio cooking up something at the behest of the Centidemon!

Life Story in the meantime tackles the superhero civil war of the 2000s.

I was there at ground zero for the Clone Saga with Judas Traveler, the Scriers, and so on. Longtime Spidey fan, subscriptions, the works.

I felt that none of that was as bad as bringing back Norman Osbourne and killing Spider-Baby.

I also felt Aunt May dying was one of the best Spidey issues ever.

Whats funniest is that the Spider-Baby isn't technically dead because none of the writers wanted to be the one who goes down in history as the person who killed Spider-Man's baby so baby May was kidnapped and sent off to be raised in secret as a ninja to one day come back for revenge on Peter who will have no idea who she is because continuity would have shifted since then. Meanwhile, Norman will have forgotten his own stupid Damien Wayne esque masterplan because the idiot got made insane in a magic ritual

So the Spider-Baby is either a toddler ninja or non-existent due to the devil. Or a schroedinger's ninja, both existent and non-existent and entirely pissed off.

I do like how they had the baby kidnapped and thought, "Glad that's over."

And then fans kept asking when Peter was going to rescue her.

It is kind of an obvious plot, besides, since Marvel doesn't do reboots mean it still happened and it feels like the whole "losing Mayday" would have stopped Peter from being so lighthearted.

So did Miles get aged up in his book? He's beefier than I'm used to.

I think he's about 16 now and Spider-Gwen's age.

Just as a reference, Ig-88's robot rebellion story was supposed to be a parody and intentionally silly and out of place in Star Wars, I would assume the part where he became the Death Star 2 would have made that clear. It's like how the Clone Saga 1 made it clear the clones and The Jackal were bad one note ideas that don't belong in Spider-Man but later Writers insist those two elements should be Spidey icons.

Frankly CT, maybe it's because I'm a Millienial Spider-Fan, but I always thought the one good part of the Clone Saga 2 was bringing back Norman Osborn, I mean he is Spider-Man' arch enemy even if you prefer Kingpin and I prefer Venom. I feel like it's kind of a waste to keep him dead. Plus it paved the way to great storylines like Revenge of the green goblin, Goblins at the gate, and Death in the family(even if it does rip off the killing joke hard) and while I'm not defending Mayday Gate, I am more appalled at Marvel's handling of it than angry at Goblin honestly.

Edited by RedHunter543 on Apr 18th 2019 at 5:40:35 AM

Bringing Norman Osborn back was the only important lasting contribution made by the second clone saga. It led to those great stories - Identity Crisis, Revenge of the Green Goblin, A Death in the Family, Marvel Knights Spider-Man and also to stuff like The Pulse which I like a lot. And it led to Norman's elevation in stories like Dark Reign, Siege, Thunderbolts and as over-the-top some of it was it did lead to good stuff, like Fraction's run on Invincible Iron Man during the Worldwide man Hunt arc where he beats the bejezus out of Iron Man and in a convincing manner too. At the very least, Norman's revival made sense. He had a Healing Factor and healed and crawled out of the grave...his own version of Peter's survival from Kraven's Last Hunt. It's an idea that works well conceptually and if it had been done outside the context of the Clone Saga, it could have made for an awesome story. His return allowed for Character Rerailment back into the Ditko version of Norman and Goblin, the creepy embezzler and cold sociopath and not "lame Dad" Romita who is amnesiac. And of course Dafoe's iconic performance as Goblin in Spider Man meant that there were a lot of readers who became fans of this villain, so eventually even had the Clone Saga not happened, they would have brought back Goblin eventually anyway.

All I can say is I am glad that I didn't discover Spider-Man during the clone saga. I got in during the JMS era, where practically none of the clone saga stuff was referred to (no Ben Reilly, no Jackal, and not once to "baby May"). I can sympathize and empathize with readers who came in during the second saga and felt royally cheated at the end. And yeah, if you followed that story through, the end is nothing less than a cop-out and a disgusting slap in the gut. So I sympathize with Charles Phipps completely. I read about the clone saga online and stuff because when I got into JMS I of course looked online (this was a pre-wikipedia era with fansites and those fansites kept mentioning the clone saga, I think it was still in the air) and just reading about stuff like that (Scriers, judas traveller) made my head hurt. There's stuff in the Clone Saga that is good, I won't deny but to me, it's a major blot and dark chapter, and I have never been impressed with attempts to salvage it.

I mean I was thinking about many people talking of bringing Ben Reilly back, and I'm like why...we now have Miles Morales, Peter's perfect legacy character, what need is there for some blonde clone?

Edited by Revolutionary_Jack on Apr 18th 2019 at 5:49:28 AM

I liked Kaine as the Scarlet Spider in Texas

But Kaine at least had the distinguishing feature of being grumpy foster dad Spider-Man. They couldn’t think of anything that made Ben that unique so they just made him evil.

It'd say a lot if his special thing was "not a complete mess Spider".

Well I'm guessing since Miles is still a teen, people want Peter and MJ back, but still long for 20s single Peter so Ben Reilly fills that niche I suppose? Also technically Ben Reilly is not blond he just dyes his hair, but I think Kaine is a better character overall.

I too discovered Spider-Man during JMS, it was the unintended consequences trade. The real meat is Peter as a teacher dealing with a student who's brother he ended up arresting. You know, for some reason, people argue Peter becoming a teacher made him unrelatable, and those same people usually insist Peter should be a super advanced scientist who works at Baxter building esque places. I never really understood making science like a core part of Peter Parker's character, like Marvel Spider man cartoon levels, like yeah Peter Parker is a science major, but I never felt he was supposed to Reed Richards levels of intelligence. I think Stan Lee once said, Peter is smart but not intellectually gifted or something like that, and I'm fine with that, i feel like Spider-Man as a teacher really worked well, he felt grounded, and there was a lot of great plot there.

As I said, my feeling is that Peter Parker should be the Nikola Tesla or Preston Tucker, i.e. underappreciated genius whose work will be valued more after his death than when he is alive. Peter should be an underappreciated genius and that contrasts heavily with Reed Richards who is the academically respected one, and Tony Stark (the Thomas Edison of the Marvel U).

Speaking of geniuses in Marvel, I'd like to discuss the science conflict in life story 2, whilePeter mentioning Reed's martial issues is a low blow, I do feel Peter was right that the FF is stagnant.

I dunno. I think Reed did have a better reason than others:

Peter Parker: "Why do you always act like you're from some other planet? Like you can't — can't interfere with "humans"? There are our people, Reed. We're human!"

Reed Richards: "But Pete...I'm not. And neither is Giant-Man or Iron Man or any other "super hero" with "man" in their name. Like they're trying to convince the world they're still just like them. Things have changed. The wellspring of powers, the growth of mutants. We need to be careful or we'll end up ruling the world, creating a massive level of inequality."

I love that implication "any other 'super hero' with 'man' in their name" which is such a random tidbit to drop in. It's basically a hint that Reed knows Peter is Spider-Man. But anyway, Reed's point that superheroes could end up ruling the world if they unleash their bleeding edge stuff is valid, we saw that in Alan Moore's Miracleman.

In the real world we see this anxiety about automation and other stuff, where the political and social systems aren't keeping at pace with these challenges. Like obviously with more automation, and the rise of a more creative economy you might need stuff like an UBI, or health care and so on. But there's fierce resistance to doing that, and in a capitalist system, all that stuff is IP and patents owned by a few top tech firms who consolidate, merge, and earn an hoard more and more money. The Reed Richards Is Useless is by itself a kind of dated trope. It's grounded in a certain utopian view of science and tech, based in the Golden Age of Science Fiction, which is still where most of today's Silicon Valley tech magnates are still at and also where Tony Stark is at. Hence him calling himself a "futurist" which is a sil. valley thing. The actual word Futurism was this arts movement among Italian Fascists in the '20s...and yeah someone should mention that soon to marvel and have the Eisenfuhrer stop calling himself that.

Edited by Revolutionary_Jack on Apr 18th 2019 at 7:21:15 AM

The Norman Osbourne ship has sailed but it's interesting to note the "ages" of a particular incarnation of a character. I was a fan of Spider-Man pretty much since I was six years old (1986) but this was a different time than what would come later to the character. By the time I was a fan of Spider-Man, Norman Osbourne was a relic of a different time and had been dead for almost twenty years. He wasn't Spider-Man's archenemy any more than Jay Garrick was the Flash. Venom and Doctor Octopus were Spiderman's archenemies.

It's interesting how now the Hobgoblin is treated as a kind of lame imposter but for a lot of people, he was a deadly serious foe of Spiderman and one you wouldn't dream of replacing.

It was 1997 when Norman Osbourne made his reapparance and he was a character who had been dead longer than I had been alive. It was also a note that the first Spider-Man I had been acquainted with was a happily married Peter Parker (I was seven years old when the wedding happened) so it was interesting how so much of what later came in Spider-Man's universe was something that was harkening back to the era of the new content maker's growing up.

Rolling back the marriage, returning dead villains, and throwing uncommon villains to the Eighties and Nineties fans struck people as very strange.

It's interesting how what happened to Spiderman reflected the later treatment of the Flash and Green Lantern legacies.

Read the latest life story.

Guess this is technically a reality with both Peter/MJ and Peter/Gwen.

Also like that Ock reformed and married May.

Well now it's 2019, and Norman has been resurrected for 22 real-time years, longer than he had been "Dead" (20 years). I expect that Marvel are eagerly awaiting 2028, because then it would be 21 years Post-OMD and the marriage would have been gone longer than it was around. I got in the JMS era and for me "married Spider-Man" is my Spider-Man and it irritates me that the marriage was removed in the period when it was written best.

Okay, so on April 8, Zdarsky did this podcast here ([url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uls741tvOag):[/url]

Some summary of interesting points for both Life Story and his run on Spectacular:

— Zdarsky said that his initial pitch was a maxi-series about the entire Marvel Universe. But Tom Brevoort told him it was too ambitious and Brevoort (*) suggested just to focus on Spider-Man. Zdarsky said that the wider arc with Captain America and other heroes stuff is based on ideas he had planned.

— Zdarsky said that Spider-Man Life Story #3 is the most nostalgic and his personal favorite to work on since it was the decade (The '80s) he read Spider-Man and he tried to cram and refer to as many events and happenings in that decade. He mentions removing Hobgoblin and dithering on wheter to include him or not.

— Issue #4 set in the 90s will touch on the clones. Funnily enough, Brevoort (an editor during the Second Clone Saga) on hearing Zdarsky's plans told him, no, "I lived through the Clone Saga, I don't want to relive it" but Zdarsky convinced him otherwise with his summary which Brevoort liked.

(*) Something Zdarsky might not know. But in 2008, Roger Stern in a podcast with Spider-Man Crawlspace mentioned that Tom Brevoort once suggested to him to do a comic that followed Spider-Man if he aged real-time. Stern thought about it but didn't think it was interesting or see where it was going. So maybe Brevoort had this idea in the back of his mind for some time and Zdarsky was the first guy who saw the full potential.

Oh yes, Norman is alive and he's a A-list villain now. I think he should have been left in the dustbin of history but I don't dislike stories like Dark Reign and other stories that have been done with him.

He's just not my favorite.

Norman would never have been in the dustbin of history. Even had he never been revived he still cast a huge shadow.

In Lee-Ditko Spider-Man (generally the most critically acclaimed Spider-Man run), Goblin mad 6 appearances, Norman as a villain made 2 appearances (ASM#37-38), and as a supporting character made 4. Purely as a villain, Green Goblin was the most recurring villain in the L-D era. Combine that and you have more than 10 issues worth of appearances. Dr. Octopus appeared 5 times for those who are curious. He also appeared in classic stories like ASM #39-40 (Green Goblin Unmasked), ASM #96-98 (The Drug Trilogy), and of course ASM #121-122. The mere fact you have so many Goblin pretenders and so on, is indicative of the shadow he cast. Norman's death didn't make Dr. Octopus a bigger deal than before. It didn't lead to any elevation for any Spider-Man rogues. The mere fact that Hobgoblin was allowed for a while to be Arch-Enemy with a straight face over senior rogues was basically, "He who claims Norman's crown rules the rogues" more-or-less. Roger Stern admitted as such.

...but anyway, to each their own. I will admit that when I first came across Spider-Man, in the newspaper strip which I read before I saw the Raimi movies (and which led me in turn to JMS and Ultimate Spider-Man and also Chapter One strangely enough), I didn't know who Green Goblin was. The movie, with Willem Dafoe's performance made me a big fan of him, and he's easily the best and most influential villain of the Trilogy, and one of the best movie super-villains. Whenever I read Norman, I imagine him in Dafoe's voice.

Plus as much as I like Doctor Octopus and Venom as Jack can attest, I will admit Norman Osborn holds the crown, sure Doc Ock and Venom had their turn as the Arch enemy, Doc Ock for like most of the Lee Ditko era, the entirety of the Lee Romita era, he had his accomplishments, first to defeat Spider Man, first to break his spirit, assembling the Sinister Six, unmasking Spider Man, brainwashing him, ETC, he was ultimately outclassed once Goblin killed Gwen and came back from the dead. Venom needs no introduction. To me what makes an arch enemy, is how personal things are between our hero and villain, while before The night Gwen Stacy died, we could argue Goblin and Doc Ock were the big bad ensemble, after that story and the clusterfuck that is the clone saga, Norman cemented himself as THE villain. I could like Venom, CT could like Kingpin, but it's clear who Peter himself considers the most hated villain ever.

Plus, Norman's character as this great evil was sold a lot after he died. Even when he was officially dead, he still had influence over the mythos that you might as well bring him back.