Okay, so you want Amazing Spider-Man to age?

[arthur pendragon]

Let's leave aside the fact that the aging many feel is so integral to Amazing Spider-Man doesn't apply to his Ultimate counterpart.

Taking in to account that comic book characters age slower than we do, where do you see this desire for aging ultimately going?

Okay, you want a child from his marriage, you've got it. You want her/him to grow up too, you've got it.

If you accept the idea that the world doesn't want to read about a Spider-Man that's pushing 40 or older(he's not the lead character in Spider-Girl and the sales speak for themselves), you must either accept the fact that Peter won't always be Spider-Man or that they'll restart the series. You may want to see another character become Spider-Man(as long as he's not Ben Reilly, right), but do you think Marvel will ever really do it?!

It's all well and good to say that you probably won't be reading the books then, if you're even alive, but you must follow through on the changes you're demanding now. Where do you see it going?! They're going to have to pick up the pieces of the changes readers are demanding and they won't be able to freeze time at any point because this isn't Ultimate Spider-Man and readers supposedly won't stand for it.

Saying you want to see Amazing Spider-Man be a finite title, and have the industry produce new characters isn't an option because Marvel's not going to close down their premier multi-million dollar franchise in the hopes they can come up with another one.

[Prozac Man]

I always liked the five to one theory. Five years in the real world equal one year for comic book characters. There is only so much that can happen to Spider-Man in one year.

[arthur pendragon]

Originally posted by Prozac Man
I always liked the five to one theory. Five years in the real world equal one year for comic book characters. There is only so much that can happen to Spider-Man in one year.

Nice dodge, but where do you see it going? Will a 40+ year old Spider-Man be featured in Amazing? Will another character become Spider-Man? Will the series end?

Please choose one or offer your own theory about where you see it going.

[Padding]

Originally posted by arthur pendragon
Let's leave aside the fact that the aging many feel is so integral to Amazing Spider-Man doesn't apply to his Ultimate counterpart.

Taking in to account that comic book characters age slower than we do, where do you see this desire for aging ultimately going?

Okay, you want a child from his marriage, you've got it. You want her/him to grow up too, you've got it.

If you accept the idea that the world doesn't want to read about a Spider-Man that's pushing 40 or older(he's not the lead character in Spider-Girl and the sales speak for themselves), you must either accept the fact that Peter won't always be Spider-Man or that they'll restart the series. You may want to see another character become Spider-Man(as long as he's not Ben Reilly, right), but do you think Marvel will ever really do it?!

It's all well and good to say that you probably won't be reading the books then, if you're even alive, but you must follow through on the changes you're demanding now. Where do you see it going?! They're going to have to pick up the pieces of the changes readers are demanding and they won't be able to freeze time at any point because this isn't Ultimate Spider-Man and readers supposedly won't stand for it.

Saying you want to see Amazing Spider-Man be a finite title, and have the industry produce new characters isn't an option because Marvel's not going to close down their premier multi-million dollar franchise in the hopes they can come up with another one.

Uh Art, don't you think these threads are getting kind of dumb, you're arguing against your own straw man here, I don't see anybody asking for pete to become an old fart, just that the character be in good stories and occasionally progress, I think the addition of a spider-baby would be interesting but it's certainly not a deal breaker for me whether it's included or not.

And Pete and Mary Jane will probably stay in that 21-29 holding pattern forever and it's fine with me.

[Xgirl1251]

If Spider-man was never going to age, then why would they have glimpses of his future in the book? In #500, Spider-man saw his beginning and his end. He was told things about his future by none other than his future self. Aunt May will die, he will have a son named Ben, and other things seem to be implied. Perhaps Ben could become the next Spider-man. We even see a new Spider-man costume, and lo and behold a couple issues later, along comes this taylor for super heroes who designs the very same outfit for Spidey as seen in "Happy Birthday".

It will be sad, yes, but I do believe that Spider-man will indeed have an ultimate ending. I don't know when and I don't know how, but I hope Marvel chooses what they think would be right for the character and the many fans that love him.

[MatthewSmith]

Originally posted by arthur pendragon
Nice dodge, but where do you see it going? Will a 40+ year old Spider-Man be featured in Amazing? Will another character become Spider-Man? Will the series end?

Please choose one or offer your own theory about where you see it going.

None of the above. Peter Parker continues to be Spider-man forever, just like Bruce Wayne has been Batman for the last fifty plus years, and Clark Kent has been SUperman, etc.

I can understand the need to age him past high school or college because those are finite periods that we know have to eventually come to and end. That's less so when the character's a grown up because the audience can see him doing whatever it is he does forever. However, when it comes to teenagers, we have a desire to see them grow up eventually.

Like we all knew Saved by the Bell had its days numbered because those kids eventually had to graduate.

[MatthewSmith]

Originally posted by Padding
And Pete and Mary Jane will probably stay in that 21-29 holding pattern forever and it's fine with me.

Exactly.

[arthur pendragon]

Originally posted by Padding
Uh Art, don't you think these threads are getting kind of dumb, you're arguing against your own straw man here, I don't see anybody asking for pete to become an old fart, just that the character be in good stories and occasionally progress, I think the addition of a spider-baby would be interesting but it's certainly not a deal breaker for me whether it's included or not.

And Pete and Mary Jane will probably stay in that 21-29 holding pattern forever and it's fine with me.

I wonder if fandom agrees with you about the freezing of time?

Many readers want Spider-Man to grow old with them, if not at the same pace, then at least consistently.

To demand aging and then to demand a child and then to demand that she age, is, whether intentionally or not, going to age Peter Parker. That's why I want those who are pro-aging to extrapolate about where they see it going rather than just talking about what they want now.

My question to you is how is Peter going to 'occasionally progress' when he's going to stay in a '21-29 holding pattern forever'?

[echoshifting]

Originally posted by arthur pendragon
I wonder if fandom agrees with you about the freezing of time?

Many readers want Spider-Man to grow old with them, if not at the same pace, then at least consistently.

This piece of fandom agrees with him. I've never heard anyone - ANYone - express a desire to see Spider-Man grow older than 30. Growing at the same rate as the reader is even more nonsensical. I would like to see a good number of examples of this if you are going to make this assertion because it sounds like you are just making stuff up to prove your shaky point.

Sorry, art, and no offense intended, but this is the lamest thread I've seen you start since I first came here.

[Padding]

Originally posted by arthur pendragon
I wonder if fandom agrees with you about the freezing of time?

Many readers want Spider-Man to grow old with them, if not at the same pace, then at least consistently.

To demand aging and then to demand a child and then to demand that she age, is, whether intentionally or not, going to age Peter Parker. That's why I want those who are pro-aging to extrapolate about where they see it going rather than just talking about what they want now.

My question to you is how is Peter going to 'occasionally progress' when he's going to stay in a '21-29 holding pattern forever'?

Not really, higher standards of living, longer lifespans,the Avengers insurance covering botox, and just generally clean living mean pete and mj can look like sexy 20-somethings forever, plus kids in comic books age like kids in soap operas, as the plot demands it.

[arthur pendragon]

Originally posted by MatthewSmith
None of the above. Peter Parker continues to be Spider-man forever, just like Bruce Wayne has been Batman for the last fifty plus years, and Clark Kent has been SUperman, etc.

I can understand the need to age him past high school or college because those are finite periods that we know have to eventually come to and end. That's less so when the character's a grown up because the audience can see him doing whatever it is he does forever. However, when it comes to teenagers, we have a desire to see them grow up eventually.

Like I said, it appears we are mostly agreed on the freezing of time. It's just a question of when the freezing occurs.

Speaking as someone in their thirties, I can tell you that your twenties are as finite as high school and college, although in most cases, they do last a little longer.

Originally posted by MatthewSmith

Like we all knew Saved by the Bell had its days numbered because those kids eventually had to graduate.

They didn't have the choice of staying a certain age forever. Peter does.

[Prozac Man]

Originally posted by arthur pendragon
Nice dodge, but where do you see it going? Will a 40+ year old Spider-Man be featured in Amazing? Will another character become Spider-Man? Will the series end?

Please choose one or offer your own theory about where you see it going.

I always liked the five to one theory. Five years in the real world equal one year for comic book characters. If we use the 5 to 1 theory, 616 Spider-Man will be 40 in about fifty years. By then Spider-Man will be public domain and any one will be able to make and sell any type of Spider-man comic they want. That is of course if there is still things being made called comic books.

Story wise, if the older Spidy still sells that would be grate. If not, start over with “Ultimate 2, the New Universe.

[Prozac Man]

The flip side is when the characters are de-aged with out a revamp. I like some of Chuck Austen’s work, but making Night Crawler 20 years old in Uncanny X-Men was just bad. Once you get to a certain point with a character, you have to move on. Not go backwards.

[Mostly_Muppet]

Originally posted by Padding
kids in comic books age like kids in soap operas, as the plot demands it.

I'm not sure I want Pete/Spidey to get "older" in terms of a calendar year age, but I would like to see the exploration of issues that married adults face. I think a kid would be cool (maybe b/c my daughter just turned one), but more than that I think we all want to see different aspects and explorations of the character. Marvel Age caters to young kids unfamiliar with continuity. Spider-Man Unlimited actually has some interesting perspectives that I enjoy.

There are now, what, 5 monthly titles for Spider-Man? I think if they each offer some dynamic, thoughtful storyline about a character we love that would be great. I don't know if Amazing is the best place to "age" Spider-Man, if that's even the issue at all, but speaking strictly personally I don't want to see a 40-year old webslinger in continuity. Conversely, I think the Unlimited version has its place as well. There are a lot of books here and I think there's got to be a place to grow the character within the constraints of continuity.

[Padding]

Originally posted by Mostly_Muppet
I'm not sure I want Pete/Spidey to get "older" in terms of a calendar year age, but I would like to see the exploration of issues that married adults face. I think a kid would be cool (maybe b/c my daughter just turned one), but more than that I think we all want to see different aspects and explorations of the character. Marvel Age caters to young kids unfamiliar with continuity. Spider-Man Unlimited actually has some interesting perspectives that I enjoy.

There are now, what, 5 monthly titles for Spider-Man? I think if they each offer some dynamic, thoughtful storyline about a character we love that would be great. I don't know if Amazing is the best place to "age" Spider-Man, if that's even the issue at all, but speaking strictly personally I don't want to see a 40-year old webslinger in continuity. Conversely, I think the Unlimited version has its place as well. There are a lot of books here and I think there's got to be a place to grow the character within the constraints of continuity.

Agreed, I think it would add a dynamic to spidey's life to have a kid, I don't think it'd make him and Mary Jane seem old at all and he'd have a new set of problems to deal with.

[Xgirl1251]

The way I see it, Spider-man is already aging, and will eventually die. As much as I love Spider-man, I think Peter Parker should die at some point.

Here's how I would do it...

Peter and MJ have a bouncing baby boy named Ben. Ben inherits his fathers powers. When Peter is about 35ish, I think he should ditch the spandex costume and get the one that the taylor guy designed for him. By then, Spider-man is an old pro at what he does. He meets lots of wannabe heroes who were inspired by him and maybe even helps some of them out. Overall, Spider-man Peter Parker ages gracefully. He's learned a lot in his years as a superhero and tries his best to pass that knowledge on to his son. He eventually goes down fighting as was shown in issue 500.
The young Ben Parker deals with his powers and the responsibilities that come with them after his fathers' death. He then becomes the next Spider-man.

I think a lot of interesting stories could be told with a Peter Parker's son as Spider-man series. He lives his whole life with his powers and is born with them like a mutant. He finishes high school and goes to college. Then the cycle starts all over again for a whole new generation of comics fans.

[Terram]

Originally posted by arthur pendragon
I wonder if fandom agrees with you about the freezing of time?

Since we are fans, and you are not, I'd say yes.

[arthur pendragon]

Originally posted by echoshifting
This piece of fandom agrees with him. I've never heard anyone - ANYone - express a desire to see Spider-Man grow older than 30. Growing at the same rate as the reader is even more nonsensical. I would like to see a good number of examples of this if you are going to make this assertion because it sounds like you are just making stuff up to prove your shaky point.

First, for novelty's sake, what I actually said.

"Many readers want Spider-Man to grow old with them, if not at the same pace, then at least consistently."

That means, "I'm married, I want Spider-Man to be married." "I've got a child, I want Spider-Man to have a child." Etc.

You've never seen me say(and I challenge you to prove otherwise) that comic book characters age at the same rate as we do because it's simply not so. That's why I said, "if not at the same pace, then at least consistently."

Now that we've cleared that up...

youdontlikeme wrote, "When God allows me become 50, I will not be mad if Peter is forty with two kids, a wife, and a mortgage; as long as the creative team is doing interesting stories."

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/show...&threadid=7506

While not as black and white, Michael eidson wrote, "No, maintaining the status quo sucks! I think it's cool that we, as comics fans, get to see characters grow, become wiser and more experienced, and deal with life's ups and downs. If characters never age and always stay the same, what's the point?! Change is good."

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/show...&threadid=7182

From the very next post in the same thread DaReekstah wrote, "Man.. give me a break. So what if Pete ages? What the hell would you want him to be.. immortal? He can't even be much more than 25 or 26.. so I really don't see what the big deal is."

GenXMaverick said, "Life must go forward for us all and I think that should include our beloved characters."

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/show...threadid=11777

Here's one from Taylor Porter that agrees with my 'anti-aging' philosophy, and perhaps he's more of a true believer than I am.

"Marvel's characters were designed for children, and most of us started reading them and loving them when we were younger. But now, most of us are adults. Marvel should not be expected to make their characters relevant and lovable to people in their 20s and 30s who've been reading the books for 10+ years."

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/show...&threadid=6369

Cyclopsfan wrote, "Just food for thought, but i feel like the problems driving the new readers away are simply a lack of a "new spiderman superman or x-men" Every other medium ages their characters to a point of finality, but never fails to bring in the next big thing."

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/show...&threadid=6352

Finally, what is quite simply the most throroughly researched Spider-Man fan page, Spidey Kicks Butt written by J.R. Fettinger
http://www.spideykicksbutt.com/
has written in various columns and in a personal letter to me, which naturally I'm unable to link, "My motivations for wanting Peter to have a wife and baby stem partly from the fact that I am a parent myself, and selfishly want my hero to age with
me." I'm sure if you contact him he'll corroborate what I've just said.

Originally posted by echoshifting

Sorry, art, and no offense intended, but this is the lamest thread I've seen you start since I first came here.

Hey, everyone's got an opinion and I don't begrudge you yours.

The point of the whole thread is that those who advocate change will grow weary of the brick wall the character hits when he's 29 and demand more change. They may not say it now, but after time freezes, I think you'll find they're singing a different tune.

[arthur pendragon]

Originally posted by Padding
Agreed, I think it would add a dynamic to spidey's life to have a kid, I don't think it'd make him and Mary Jane seem old at all and he'd have a new set of problems to deal with.

You may get your wish sooner than you think.

http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultim...&f=36&t=002152

[arthur pendragon]

Originally posted by Terram
Since we are fans, and you are not, I'd say yes.

If someone likes Connery as Bond but not Brosnan, does that mean they're not Bond fans?

If someone like the original Star Trek and The Next Generation but none of the other series, are they not Trek fans?

Are the people who publish retro fanzines not comic book fans because they're not writing about the things Wizard does?

If you liked Godfather I and II, but hated III, are you not a Godfather fan?

As I've said before, I know many people who aren't currently reading comics but still consider themselves fans.

[Moonbeam]

I don't think any comic book characters should age.

Might as well make Calvin & Hobbes old men.

Stupid.

They exist in another place, another time, another world. Let them be who they are. Period.

[jawaplumber]

Originally posted by Prozac Man
The flip side is when the characters are de-aged with out a revamp. I like some of Chuck Austen’s work, but making Night Crawler 20 years old in Uncanny X-Men was just bad. Once you get to a certain point with a character, you have to move on. Not go backwards.

It's been explained that the "20 years ago" bit was a mistake by editorial, not Chuck Austen. I forget if it was a misprint or if it was a decision that editorial made, but I do know that it's not what Chuck intended. It's unfortunate, because now it's out there and it's just another bit of bad sentiment towards Austen.

[orpheus]

Originally posted by jawaplumber
It's been explained that the "20 years ago" bit was a mistake by editorial, not Chuck Austen. I forget if it was a misprint or if it was a decision that editorial made, but I do know that it's not what Chuck intended. It's unfortunate, because now it's out there and it's just another bit of bad sentiment towards Austen.

Thank god.

I'm glad to see that Kurt's not just been retconned into post-puberty. It kind of bugs me that these things happen. I mean, Beast refered to Jean heading towards thirty back before she married Scott, and then it was conveniently forgotten.

Thankfully Grant Morrison came along and she began to look and sound like she wasn't a teenager anymore.

(BTW, I know Morrison didn't draw them, just saying that seems to be the point when they were allowed to become older again.)

[Prozac Man]

Originally posted by jawaplumber
It's been explained that the "20 years ago" bit was a mistake by editorial, not Chuck Austen. I forget if it was a misprint or if it was a decision that editorial made, but I do know that it's not what Chuck intended. It's unfortunate, because now it's out there and it's just another bit of bad sentiment towards Austen.

At first I thought it was just a typo and was glad when the editor said so. But then I read the rest of the story ark. Nightcrawler was definitely portrayed a lot younger and less experienced than he actually is.

[Mostly_Muppet]

After careful consideration of exactly the points you were making, I think I've switched sides on this issue twice since last night. I'd love to see Pete age a little, have a kid (or two) and tackle some more "adult" issues, but I wonder whether Amazing is the place to do that.

Maybe the Marvel Age book is intended to be what Amazing was to me way back in '85 when I started my subscription. Maybe Amazing is the best place to explore these aspects of the chatacter and extend the mythos. I honestly don't know.

What will be the ultimate effect of these changes? Their logical conclusion?

That's a really tough question that I don't think anyone has really answered. I can see your point about people getting fed up with a "freeze" that would put Pete as a pushing 30 dad, but I'm willing to take that risk. I think if it was handled the right way any arc that gave us a Spider-Dad could be successful for at least 2-3 years.

In any event, I think this has been a really useful conversation. It really highlights just how difficult it is becoming to please core/continuity/old fans while still attracting new readers and accounting for the burn/churn rate. In the end I honestly believe that anything that makes the character more human, relatable and (shudder) believable is a good thing. Whether or not Amazing is the title to do these things in, the main reason for the thread, really is a sticky question. I think if you're Marvel and you take that plunge you've got to stick to your guns and make sure you have a thoughtful steward to helm that title for at least a 2-3 year arc.

OK. That's way more than my 2 cents. I'm done.