New Spider-Man

[david_b]

Why not make him Gay and have an Asian Grandfather from Mothers side and an Indian Grandmother from Father side that will cover most of the groups and sell more books

But what about the Irish..?? Don't be predudiced against the Irish..!

[thunderbolt]

^^^ Just have him be a U2 fan, that will take care of the Irish slot.

[hedrap]

I really don't see what you are saying about trademarks? So they could have Spider-Girl and Spider-Man 2099 trademarked to keep some other company from the title? If DC did launch one of those titles, pretty sure Marvel would have a good case against them. I really don't see trademarks playing into any of the books or characters you mentioned, they are all tied to pre-established Marvel characters

You're right DC couldn't have attempted a "Spider-Girl" title, but any smaller publisher could have if they wanted to duke it out in court. Someone could have TM Spider-Girl, and as long the copyrighted material did not hold any resemblance - in appearance and story - to Marvel's Spider-Man, Marvel would have eventually lost.

If Pekar decided to do a "Spider-Girl" comic, in Pekar fashion, Marvel would have been cooked.

John Byrne's Next Men was a massive source of irritation to Marvel, but they could do nothing about it except to make sure it's always titled "John Byrne's Next Men" and not simply "Next Men".

Spidey 2099 was apart of the the larger 2099 Intellectual Property. Marvel had wanted a second universe of characters since the Eclipse days, but it never worked. They then opted to create their version of Earth 2 with 2099, and it didn't hold. Ultimates finally filled that void.

[thunderbolt]

The best part of Next Men is the fact that it spun out of Byrne's 2112 that was a rework of the material he started for the 2099 project. still don't see that Marvel would have let anyone get away with Spidergirl, and I doubt anyone would have tried it for the same reason, the trademark thing seems like pure conjecture.

[Dark Shadow]

Well, my main point from the start that I keep restating is about the disproportional outrage around one comic out of twenty. If you'd like to disagree, I'd like to hear why one comic on the stands bothers you so much when Peter Parker has twenty.

It could be 1 comic out of 1000 and the point would be the same. Spider-Man is Peter Parker, and Peter Parker is Spider-Man. Anything else is nothing more than a gimmick, or pure laziness.

How is that any kind of special treatment at all??

This comment had absolutely nothing to do with the ratio of Spider-Man comics. It had everything to with people who need to have their superficialities pandered to.

If you believe that skin color and cultural background is such a minor significance within the grander scheme of humanity and the ability to relate to Spider-man, then let's flip this. Why then are there so many people against this seemingly superficial change? What's the big deal???

The murder of a character and the subsequent event of having someone else step into his shoes as though the man before him was nothing more than a conceptual ideal, that's a superficial change to you?

If Spiderman embodies such a universal condition, then surely it doesn't matter who is under the mask as long as they continue to uphold the values of With Great Power comes Great Responsibility??

Spider-Man is not an ideal or an embodiment of anything. He's an individual human being (albeit a fictitious one).

But how does that apply to Miles Morales?

It doesn't. That statement was intended for real life human beings.

Why treat him differently than Peter Parker? Why not just accept him as Spider-man as well? Why reject him based on his ethnicity??

I'm rejecting the idea that an individual human being can be replaced by another. PERIOD. If Spider-Man is nothing more than a concept, or a costume to you, isn't that extremely superficial?

Why don't people have a problem with Miguel O'Hara, who is also quietly been a hispanic Spider-man in an alt Universe for twenty years now? What's the difference between Miles Morales and Miguel O'Hara? Peter Parker died in their alt universes and they both have taken over the mantle to try and honor and respect their hero Peter Parker and carry on his good work and deeds. Ditto Spider-girl. This is no different so why are folks suddenly treating it like it is different? The media spotlight? It's most definitely NOT a trademark issue.?

These examples are just as tired & ridiculous as the New Spider-Man.

[Keeler]

Sorry to go off topic (I guess) but did the new guy get bitten by a radioactive spider? Does he climb walls, spin webs, etc?? To me comics, especially Marvel have been irrelevant since 1989 but if this is just a kid running around in a costume how long can he last? (hypothetically speaking of course as this is fiction we are discussing)

[ctc]

>I really don't see trademarks playing into any of the books or characters you mentioned

Some would. “Spider Girl” could be problematic. If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t Spider Woman made to hang onto the name? (Was it ‘cos of the “Web Woman” cartoon?) It’d be easier for them to squash a small publisher too; DC could afford a protracted legal battle.... IF they wanted to go that route.

>Spider-Man is Peter Parker, and Peter Parker is Spider-Man.

This one I find kinda troubling. Sure; it’s usually a gimmick to replace a superhero with a new identity.... it’s been a gimmick forever; but I don’t think it NECESSARILY has to be. Rigid thinking like this puts a lot of limits on the story, and a good story is a crime of collaborators. The writer writes, but the reader has to let things happen. I find a lot of hardcore fans come into things with a LOT of preconceptions of what SHOULD happen. Too much of that and you can NEVER enjoy a story. This could be a good story.... a passing of the torch sort of thing. (I think back in the day the cover blurb would refer to a “Bold new era!!!”)

I think this argument against the book is unfounded, given that it’s already been demonstrated in this universe that someone else was ALREADY Spiderman. The point is demonstrably untrue.

....’course, you don’t have to LIKE it, but it’s not wrong. It is. That’s where the story went.

Don C.

[david_b]

These examples are just as tired & ridiculous as the New Spider-Man.

So is this thread.

[Dark Shadow]

This one I find kinda troubling. Sure; it’s usually a gimmick to replace a superhero with a new identity.... it’s been a gimmick forever; but I don’t think it NECESSARILY has to be. Rigid thinking like this puts a lot of limits on the story, and a good story is a crime of collaborators. The writer writes, but the reader has to let things happen. I find a lot of hardcore fans come into things with a LOT of preconceptions of what SHOULD happen. Too much of that and you can NEVER enjoy a story. This could be a good story.... a passing of the torch sort of thing. (I think back in the day the cover blurb would refer to a “Bold new era!!!”).

You can consider my position as "rigid" if you wish, just know that your position could just as easily be labeled as desperate, gullible and needy.

The story is about Peter Parker and his personal journey. Once his personal journey is over, so is the story. If you find that "troubling", then perhaps your issue is not with this argument, but instead with death itself? If you have a pet that dies, are you the type that immediately replaces it with one that looks exactly the same? Or do you grieve, let some time pass, and then choose another pet based on its own unique characteristics and personality?

The reader doesn’t have to do anything. A writer writes, and if it is good, people will read; if it is tripe, people won’t.

I think this argument against the book is unfounded, given that it’s already been demonstrated in this universe that someone else was ALREADY Spiderman. The point is demonstrably untrue.

Once it's established that Spider-Man is nothing more than a costume that can be occupied by anybody willing to wear it, then what is the point? The character is no longer unique and has lost its intrinsic value. If that doesn’t bother you, then keep reading whatever the writers shovel your way.

Nobody is asking you not to read, are they? No one is calling for a ban on the line. No one is trying to keep people from reading it. No one is calling for a boycott. Some (or perhaps most) are simply choosing not to “buy” into it. How does that detract from your personal reading pleasure?

[The Bat]

The story is about Peter Parker and his personal journey. Once his personal journey is over, so is the story. If you find that "troubling", then perhaps your issue is not with this argument, but instead with death itself? If you have a pet that dies, are you the type that immediately replaces it with one that looks exactly the same? Or do you grieve, let some time pass, and then choose another pet based on its own unique characteristics and personality?

Once it's established that Spider-Man is nothing more than a costume that can be occupied by anybody willing to wear it, then what is the point? The character is no longer unique and has lost its intrinsic value. If that doesn’t bother you, then keep reading whatever the writers shovel your way.

Well said my Brother!!

[Werewolf]

Once it's established that Spider-Man is nothing more than a costume that can be occupied by anybody willing to wear it, then what is the point?

I do sympathise with the Spider-Man fans upset by this.

Because I certainly would not like it if Wonder Woman or Superman were murdered and replaced. Wonder Woman is Diana. Superman is Clark Kent. I want stories about them. Not stories about other people wearing their costumes.

Nobody is asking you not to read, are they? No one is calling for a ban on the line. No one is trying to keep people from reading it. No one is calling for a boycott. Some (or perhaps most) are simply choosing not to “buy” into it. How does that detract from your personal reading pleasure?

I am not aware of anyone here telling people that like the idea of Peter being killed and replaced that they shouldn't read the new comic or they can't enjoy it. I'm only seeing Spider-Man fans saying they personally are not intested in reading it anymore. That is their business and there is nothing wrong with it.

People that like the new Spider-Man, great keep on reading it. People that don't like Peter being replaced, also good. There is no right and wrong. Just differences in tastes.

[ctc]

>You can consider my position as "rigid" if you wish, just know that your position could just as easily be labeled as desperate, gullible and needy.

That’s a little personal.... we could also call my position enlightened, accepting or Zen if you want to go there.

>The story is about Peter Parker and his personal journey. Once his personal journey is over, so is the story.

I wouldn’t say this was wrong.... but it’s only one take on things. Wether or not Spider Man is a legacy depends on wether or not someone else takes up the mantle after Peter’s tale is complete. Stories can go all sorts of places, and since the character exists only AS a story, their reality IS the story. Sure, it then becomes a DIFFERENT story; but that neither invalidates the future, or negates the past.

>If you find that "troubling", then perhaps your issue is not with this argument, but instead with death itself? If you have a pet that dies, are you the type that immediately replaces it with one that looks exactly the same?

Okay.... THAT went somewhere weird. My point all along has been “lighten up, it ‘aint that big a deal” and you go all Freud on me. I’m getting the impression this whole issue runs pretty deep for you; so for clarity’s sake I’m gonna ask if you read this (or any other) comics; and if so, what it is that you get from doing so?

>The reader doesn’t have to do anything.

THAT I gotta disagree with wholeheartedly. The reader invests in the story.... as your comments would indicate as well. If the reader isn’t involved in the process there’s no connection, no excitement, no feeling, no story.

>The character is no longer unique and has lost its intrinsic value.

Well.... I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. Characters have been replaced before. Sometimes it works, especially if the writers take the time to establish the new character as their own entity. (People freaked when Wally took over as the Flash, but warmed to it when they started making him his own person rather than a Barry clone.)

Don C.

[Dark Shadow]

^
OK, O' Enlightened One, you have convinced me:

Acceptance is always a redeeming quality, lead me anywhere, and I will follow...without question.
Spider-Man is a conceptual ideal, not the individual contribution of a unique human being.
It was good for Peter Parker to be murdered because individualism is creatively limiting.
Readers are obligated to accept and follow each and every whim of the writer.
To object to even one directional change constitutes rigidness and ignorance.
If something has been done before, it must be repeated over and over again.
Nostalgia is the roadblock to progress and must be killed.

Thank you, O' Mighty Zen Master, you have brightened my darkness and I bow to your superior insight!

BTW...Peter Parker is Spider-Man and Spider-Man is Peter Parker. I apologize if my perspective "troubles" you, perhaps a session or two with your friend Freud could help ease the burden?

[samurainoir]

Sorry to go off topic (I guess) but did the new guy get bitten by a radioactive spider? Does he climb walls, spin webs, etc?? To me comics, especially Marvel have been irrelevant since 1989 but if this is just a kid running around in a costume how long can he last? (hypothetically speaking of course as this is fiction we are discussing)

In his single appearance this week, he has Spider-sense, agility, maybe speed. Possibly invulnerability... car gets dropped on him and he's relatively okay albeit he looks like he's in pain. Not sure if he's got much extraordinary strength since his punches don't really have much effect on a super powered thug.

He wall crawled, but did not spin webs.

[Type Two]

"It's worse than PC, it's social advocacy. Marvel has been trending this path since Civil War and when it bombs Bendis will blame bigotry instead of admitting it was blatant pandering."

That's deep, Hedrap, and very true. After all, the path you've outlined above is EXACTLY the same scenario that played out when DC killed Blue Beetle and replaced him with a completely different character. This was in 2006 and the book lasted two years before it was canceled. I remember the calls of racism from writer John Rogers and DC honcho Didio, as if that would entice people to buy the book out of guilt or something.

It's not racism when fans of a particular character are upset that the particular character is killed off and replaced by a new character. The negative feelings from the death naturally carry over onto the new character. It would be better in these circumstances if the "legacy" character had been introduced as a friend (or some other conceit) of the original character; that way the readers would have developed some positive feelings about the "legacy" character before the changeover.