|
Post by Marvel Boy on Oct 11, 2012 23:28:40 GMT -5
Forgive me if this subject was brought up elsewhere. I tried looking for older threads with this subject but haven't found any.
Still being a relative newbie here, I wanted to know what everyone's thoughts are on Spider-Man and Wolverine being Avengers. Here's my stance:
To this day, I have no idea how or why Logan is a member of this team. He is the face of mutants but other than his relationship with Carol Danvers and his professional relationship with Cap, I can't figure out why he is here.
Peter is another issue. To my knowledge, prior to Bendis putting him onto the team, Spidey last flirted with joining back in Avengers #236-237. Here, he accosts the team, wanting to join for two reasons, to earn some respect and to earn a paycheck. But while inadvertently helping the team on a mission, he questions whether he can work well with others. Later though, the government rejects him based on his reputation.
Isn't that keeping in line with Marvel's underlying intent on portraying Peter as the Loveable Loser? He never has it easy, is always near-broke, his motives constantly questioned, never getting the girl in the end. Yet now he is a member of the most powerful team on the planet. How is that hard luck?
Sticking iconic characters on a title does help raise sales and probably helped Bendis make the Avengers into the powerhouse franchise it currently is for Marvel. But I think it also calls for logical, in-story reasons for doing so. I still don't see any of that for Peter nor Logan.
(Now, I'm just talking about their initial joining, not so much their current standing. I haven't read all that much of the Amazing Spider-Man lately but I recall seeing that Peter has a good job, is dating a new girl, and such so my stance on his hard luck may weaken in that regard)
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 12, 2012 11:24:48 GMT -5
We've discussed it here and there several times, but I don't think there was specific topic for it.
They were obviously added for marketing choices, but here are my two cents
- Wolverine: wouldn't have have fitted in the old Avengers, at all, and I would still prefer him to be off the group. However, I should say I can no longer find in-story reasons why he couldn't be an Avenger, either, other than his long association with the X-groups. My complaint was that he is an assassin, while the Avengers weren't, but for a couple of years now Hawkeye and, especially, Black Widow have been retconned as killers, so I suppose the point is moot now. But yes, he doesn't really add anything, other than his knowledge of the mutant world.
- Spidey: I feel he should have become an Avenger decades ago. He has shed what you call the "Loveable Loser" persona when he married MJ in the late 80s (early 90s?), and has never, really, been the same. He still has more than his fair share of troubles and personal drama, but a lot of what made him a constant victim of the circumstances hasn't been there for a long time, and having him become an Avenger, to me, is a good way of saying that no matter how much trouble you go through, things will get better if you stick to your principles. I see it as a well-deserved reward, whereas the idea of him still getting all the stick 50 years later would be pretty saddening. I do have issues with how he has been used as an Avenger, but I'm happy he got there.
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Oct 12, 2012 12:18:15 GMT -5
I have to say that the the argument against Spidey as an Avenger has not held up for a long time for me, basically stemming from his personality. He gets on well with many peers and has done for decades worth of stories, and has never been the isolative loner-type; it just makes sense.
As for Wolverine - I don't honestly believe he has added much value to the Avengers in his tenure; I don't regard him as a modern great Avenger (as I do regard Luke Cage, for example), and his inclusion just does not seem as natural as characters like Iron Fist, Dr. Strange or even Red Hulk, oddly enough.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Oct 12, 2012 17:59:22 GMT -5
I have to say that the the argument against Spidey as an Avenger has not held up for a long time for me, basically stemming form his personality. He gets on well with many peers and has done for decades worth of stories, and has never been the isolative loner-type; it just makes sense. As for Wolverine - I don't honestly believe he has added much value to the Avengers in his tenure; I don't regard him as a modern great (as I do regard Luke Cage for example), and his inclusion just doe not seem as natural as characters like Iron Fist, Dr. Strange or even Red Hulk, oddly enough. Oh, Pulp, Shir--- you guys're bringin' a tear to my jaundiced eye-! Yep, MarvelBoy, the ol' "Spidey as an Avenger: Yes or No?" question has popped up two or three times even during my stay here, and the prevailing majority opinion has fallen pretty consistently on the "No, he's a loner and should stay that way" side of the fence. I've politely disagreed (and to everyone's credit here, no one's said, "HB, yer an idiot!" or anything like that). My main argument has been very similar to those expressed here: Pete knows EVERYBODY in the MU; he's worked with ALL of them multiple times; he's had two runs of MARVEL TEAM-UP (which I struggled through recently. . . and I suppose I should get back and re-visit that thread I optimistically started. . .); and he's actually an extremely good team-player. On at least one occasion- of the several- when he was giving the Avengers a try, Cap in particular noted the easy atmosphere of camaraderie that Spidey brought to the table (something about inspiring even old stoic Thor to crack a bit of a joke during a fight). Spidey is chatty and HIGHLY communicative, and lets you know exactly what he thinks. His unfailing drive to work past his own limitations and to never give up on a cause is practically the definition of that- well- undefinable "Avengers Spirit" that's talked about a bit in Van's books. I always get a little rant-y on this subject in general, I admit. I wonder, though, if a case could even be made that Spidey (Peter) might even make a solid leader for an Avengers team? This would hearken back to the extremely intelligent, resourceful, observant and quick-thinking Peter that we used to know. The one who is a fine detective, and who can both execute a complex plan as well as improvise brilliantly on the spot with whatever resources he has at hand (battle w/ the Juggernaut, f'rinstance)-- that's who we could see calling the shots. Although it would have to be a squad of newer, Young Avengers/AvAcademy types, I'm thinking. I admit I have a bit of trouble seeing Pete try to tell Thor or Luke Cage or the Thing what to do. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 12, 2012 23:10:03 GMT -5
As far as Spidey is concerned, I've never really had a problem with him being an Avenger. Technically, he joined long before Bendis anyway. I didn't even mind him serving a term on the team. What I don't like is the longevity of it. I think he works better as an Avenger who is there for a while and then leaves and comes back occasionally. He simply always has too many irons in the fire for it to seem believable to me that he has time to commit full-time.
Wolverine, on the other hand, is a completely different story. I've never thought he fit in. He didn't add a thing to the issues I read before I gave up (Of course, in his defense, neither did anyone else.)
My biggest problem with these characters being involved is that it is such lazy storytelling. Relying on the established popularity of the characters to make the book sell well rather than on good stories is boring. The Avengers were also more fun when the line-up used to change often. Nowadays, only a few characters change but for the most part the core line-up stays consistant (Hopefully the post AvX stuff will finally shake this up.) I seriously think it's because he who shall not be named for fear of being accused of further bashing (Yes, I know that's the same thing) knows he's not a good enough writer to sell books unless he depends on the already established popularity of the characters.
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Oct 13, 2012 11:30:01 GMT -5
It just doesn't work for me. "MY" Avengers is always the Big 3, (the soldier, the warrior, the god, it'sthe perfect combo for drama), and then some ancillary or "second tier" heroes to build stories upon. Daredevil, Spidey, Logan, even Cage and Iron Fist, they have/had their own books, to much back-story and baggage, to move along in terms of character development, such as Vizh and Wanda falling in love and marrying, Hank and Wondy's friendship, Capt. Marvel's development from rookie to team leader, etc.
--Although the movie was the first time I've liked the Hulk's "membership", and I've always thought Dr Strange could work.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Oct 14, 2012 0:30:36 GMT -5
You all bring up some excellent points for Peter belonging with the group. He's built up a camaderie (of sorts) with most of the Marvel heroes, is resourceful and quick-thinking, can represent the heart of any group with his Never-Say-Die attitude and is very intelligent (I would loft Peter right up there with Reed, Hank, Stark, and Banner) I would have no problem with his being on the team.....if he hadn't joined around the same time as Brand New Day and One More Day, the sole intent of which, according to Quesada, was to take Peter back as far as they could to his Lee/Ditko days. No marriage, troubled life, caring aunt. The timing of it all is what I find troubling. They wanted to make his life more hectic yet put him on the most popular super-hero team in the MU. The two actions seem opposed to me. Based on what you all have brought up so far, the better question is why didn't he join before now? Back in the 80s, his joining up was always the biggest tease. However he ended up joining, I do think he's a valuable member of the team now. As for Logan, it'd make more sense to me if he'd joined now when they are looking for mutant members. Perfect reason for him to be there now. Figures Logan would show up a decade early.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Oct 14, 2012 10:27:16 GMT -5
It just doesn't work for me. "MY" Avengers is always the Big 3, (the soldier, the warrior, the god, it'sthe perfect combo for drama), and then some ancillary or "second tier" heroes to build stories upon. Daredevil, Spidey, Logan, even Cage and Iron Fist, they have/had their own books, to much back-story and baggage, to move along in terms of character development, such as Vizh and Wanda falling in love and marrying, Hank and Wondy's friendship, Capt. Marvel's development from rookie to team leader, etc. --Although the movie was the first time I've liked the Hulk's "membership", and I've always thought Dr Strange could work. I, too, have to confess that getting Dr. Strange into the Avengers fold struck me as an "Of course! How did we ever miss that?" move. And Bendis' using the rest of the team to convince Stephen to do so "officially" once they'd been granted legitimacy was not badly done. Spidey's being on the team at that point (and, IIRC, being one of the primary cajolers to get past Stephen's defenses) was particularly helpful from a deeper-history perspective, as the Spidey/Doc Strange friendship was one of the more consistent elements in the original run of Marvel Team-Up. A surprisingly strong connection and deep trust was portrayed a number of times, which I don't know that we ever saw much of in any of Spidey's core titles. For the record, I really, really liked that level of personal friendship between these two characters. I might quibble just a smidge w/ your archetypes for the Big 3, SF. Maybe making Iron Man a "Knight" rather than a "Warrior"-- but that does start to split hairs. You're right, of course, about having 2nd-tier characters be the foundation for building on-going stories. But I think the book had requests from its earliest days that the Big 3 have storylines of their own, as well, that focused on their Avengers life. A couple of attempts that come to mind are the Iron Man/Cap friction when Tony took over as Chairman from Steve--- and Steve did NOT like the job he was doing. But it was awkward and protracted, and both characters tended to be written OUT of character to make it work (Cap too snarly & impatient, and Tony too self-doubting & submissive). Then there was the brief-but-enjoyable sub-plot where Tony & Don Blake figured out each other's secret identities. It was a little DC-ish-- but my buddy & I liked it. Only there was nowhere to go with it (although it was amusing down the road when Steve found out he'd been left OUT of that particular loop. . . ). One of the best example would be the effects of Acts of Vengeance on Steve personally. A surprisingly quiet, personal look at the humanity of our star-spangled Avenger. Overall, though-- those moves do seem to fall kind of flat, or are simply too restricted by the ongoing lives in those characters' solo books. Spidey too, of course, would fall into the same category as the Big 3. The problem with him, though, is that I think he may be just about the most identified-with superhero ever created. If Spidey's in the book, we immediately start trying to see it from his perspective, his eyes. For many of us- and possibly w/out our fully realizing it- he's our window into the Marvel Universe. So if we see him in a book, and we're not particularly inside his head, it doesn't feel like "our" Spider-Man, y'know? Even the weaker eras of MTU made a game attempt at having the book "matter" from Spidey's singular perspective. That's tough to do in an Avengers book where he's one of the Big 5, as it were. Not impossible, I'm sure-- but it would take a heckuva good writer. . . liiiiiiike a Busiek or a Whedon or a height-of-his-game Roy Thomas. What archetype to bestow upon him? "The Jester"-- no question. Wolverine (wow, who I haven't even talked about)-- "The Assassin". Enough of me, already-- HB
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Oct 15, 2012 8:40:45 GMT -5
I'll admit I'm prejudiced on this subject, purely because it's Bendis who did it, and who then proceeded to have them in every single issue for the next 8 freaking years. My objections to Spider-man stem from the fact that as an "everyman" who can never catch a break, being on the worlds premier, most officially accepted, publicly adored and highly paid team undercuts about 80% of the character's original appeal and premise. How can Peter worry about paying Aunt May's mortgage or his own rent if he can simply live in Stark Tower or Avengers Mansion? Not to mention the fact that Avengers get a hefty stipend. And yes, I know Bendis had a cretinous, truly moronic explanation that he could only be paid if he unmasked, which is just so stupid on so many levels that I cannot even be bothered to discuss it. Then we have Peter as the outsider, the unpopular-with-the-public-and-press but still does what's right idea. That too is flushed away if he's one of the people the President asks to save the world on a weekly basis. Then there's the idea that Peter has to juggle his normal Peter Parker life with the demands of being a hero. That he makes tough choices, get's in trouble with work, family and friends because of his Spidey commitments. Well, Avenger-ing should be a full time thing. It's one of the reasons he's had to turn down membership before.
Lastly there is an element to Peter not often mentioned or discussed, a kind of self-sabotage touched on by the stuff about the Spidey/Pete obligation conflict, but also seen in how he attempted to join the FF to make money, not to be more effective as a hero, or how despite working with every solo hero or team he never makes the associations permanent or even informal. He seems to go out of his way, driven by guilt, to make his own life harder than it need be. And being in a team with Thor and the Hulk is not that person anymore.
So although yes, he knows most of them already, and, yes he teams up on a very strictly temporary basis with many people, I feel that for the reasons above Peter should not be an Avenger. It changes who he is on some very basic levels that we have not really seen addressed or dealt with at all, in any way, over 8 loooong years. Instead he just makes tedious "funny" comments like a git the whole time. Which is yet another mis-characterization. Peter makes the funnies in combat to distract and enrage opponents. Around friends or allies he talks like a normal, sane person who is not in love with his own voice.
Wolverine is a psychopathic killer who the Avengers should be putting down, not in the vetinary sense, but "in prison" type sense. Moreover, the alleged rationale for his place on the team "to do the things we cannot" is utter rubbish too. The notion posited by Captain America, who killed a fair amount of people as a soldier in WW2, and Tony Stark, arms manufacturer who likes to go "hands on" to see his own weapons in action, that there are "things they cannot do" is ludicrous. Either man can, has, and will kill if necessary, but neither pops out a set of knives during every single conversation he has, unlike the midget maniac. *snikt*
So no, I want neither Logan nor Peter anywhere near the Avengers. Logan because he tarnishes the team and is superfluous, and Peter because the team sort of tarnishes him.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Oct 20, 2012 9:59:36 GMT -5
This subject may have more than just a little in common with the (fantastic, lively) discussion we had over in that Hawkeye thread about the merits of a "growing" character vs. those of a "consistent" character. But, these are different characters, and have their own unique perspective to bring, I think. My objections to Spider-man stem from the fact that as an "everyman" who can never catch a break, being on the worlds premier, most officially accepted, publicly adored and highly paid team undercuts about 80% of the character's original appeal and premise. How can Peter worry about paying Aunt May's mortgage or his own rent if he can simply live in Stark Tower or Avengers Mansion? Not to mention the fact that Avengers get a hefty stipend. And yes, I know Bendis had a cretinous, truly moronic explanation that he could only be paid if he unmasked, which is just so stupid on so many levels that I cannot even be bothered to discuss it. Then we have Peter as the outsider, the unpopular-with-the-public-and-press but still does what's right idea. That too is flushed away if he's one of the people the President asks to save the world on a weekly basis. Then there's the idea that Peter has to juggle his normal Peter Parker life with the demands of being a hero. That he makes tough choices, gets in trouble with work, family and friends because of his Spidey commitments. Well, Avenger-ing should be a full time thing. It's one of the reasons he's had to turn down membership before. Yep, I think I'm simply on the other side of this issue. In fact, know I am-- but I do completely understand your perspective. The character, as originally conceived, is what's attractive and compelling to folks, and as soon as he moves past a certain point of those established parameters, it may well seem that he's not the same character anymore. However, w/ Peter especially, having him be perpetually downtrodden, half-failing, unable to catch (or take advantage of) a break, and serve as the eternal hang-dog sad sack of the super-hero world is simply unsustainable (to me) over the course of several years of storytelling. No matter what happens to Pete issue-to-issue, his overplot simply stagnates, and then I completely lose interest. Instead of being sympathetic to his perpetual plight, I find him dull and annoying in his inability to learn from his mistakes and grow as a person. He's the lifelong friend/acquaintance who can NEVER get their act together. . . and eventually the relationship itself with them becomes toxic because of it. "No, this new guy is a drunken, violent, two-timer. . . just like the LAST fifteen guys you've been 'serious' about. I don't want to hear it anymore!" Although it may have been entirely unintentional, I think Stan had a much deeper insight into the younger Peter than we may have given him credit for. The attempt to join the FF, in particular, as well as his first foray into the Avengers 'waaaaaay back when--- how old would he have been at that point, really? 15? 16? Maybe 17 at the most? I've only just realized that my own teenage HBSon has a remarkable number of character traits (and complications) in common w/ the younger Peter Parker. . . and I can completely, COMPLETELY picture him handling his life and many of those difficult situations almost as ineptly. In retrospect, that whole period is so true to life it just breaks the heart of an older, wiser parent. BUT-- that's Peter the Teenager. And unless he's simply gonna remain a teenager permanently, he has to grow past that stage, or we will view him as unable to mature and his ability to live an effective life comes into question. From a parental perspective, that's not something you EVER want to see happen. From a peer perspective, you want your friend/peer to GET A GRIP, for heaven's sake! From a fan perspective, well--- that's not a terrific role model, in some ways. (The endless, perpetual lying to loved ones, alone, for instance. . . ) My point here, though, is that Pete was a rather isolated teenage kid when he was exhibiting much of the behavior you refer to. . . and that behavior was surprisingly on the money, character-wise. But teenage behavior is not the same animal as even young adult behavior, and I think it may be dicey to look to it as concrete character-constructing precedent. I just disagree, is all. The slog through Marvel Team-Up does reveal close relationships with Johnny Storm, Daredevil and Dr Strange, an unusual bond w/ old Gargoyle, and a solid (albeit somewhat contentious) working relationship w/ Iron Man, as well as pretty much the rest of the Bronze Age Marvel Universe (except Quasar, for some reason-- a point was made for them to NOT hit it off-??). Ultimately, the Avengers is a high-pressure "work" situation, and the ultimate measure is how well an individual functions in that team environment. And Spidey would really be one of my first choices in most circumstances. The "Loner" tag strikes me as kinda false for him. I mean, heck, was anyone more of a "loner" than the Vision? And T'Challa was specifically referenced on a number of occasions as "The Man Alone". [quote[It changes who he is on some very basic levels that we have not really seen addressed or dealt with at all, in any way, over 8 loooong years. Instead he just makes tedious "funny" comments like a git the whole time. Which is yet another mis-characterization. Peter makes the funnies in combat to distract and enrage opponents. Around friends or allies he talks like a normal, sane person who is not in love with his own voice.[/quote] Completely agree with the criticism, here. I kind of don't even count most of Spidey's time in the Avengers during this Bendis reign. Now, I WAS enjoying the whole Aunt May Living In Avengers Mansion arc that was nicely unfolding. . . and so of course that was completely wiped out and undone by Civil War & Brand New Day. Never happened, I guess. The fact that I liked it should have raised an internal alarm. . . Disagree with the assertion that, just because Cap & Tony have, in their pasts, been willing to be involved in killing when necessary in times of war (Cap in direct battle; Tony as a weapons manufacturer), it means that they're perfectly and understandably willing to recruit and maintain very dirty black ops program ("to do the things we can't"-- ugh, how revolting). Sure it's idealistic, but point with both of these guys is that they've gone to extraordinary lengths to leave killing behind them. Bringing in an assassin team member to do it for them is no different than the U.S. outsourcing its torture needs. Tony has historically wavered in his resolve. . . but Cap? No. . . that's what makes (made) him Cap. Back when the new team was forming, and Tony said "Wolverine is you. He's the missing piece" (to paraphrase) to Steve-- honestly, Steve should have punched his lights out right there. And I COMPLETELY agree with your assessment of Wolverine on the team. Cripes, he's not a good team-guy on his OWN team! He's been murdering henchmen from early in the Byrne run on the X-Men--- no one seems to recall that. . . Oh my lord, look how long this went on-- I've returned to it over a couple of days. Many apologies! HB
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 20, 2012 14:21:47 GMT -5
There is one recent editorial by Roger Stern, I believe for one of the special books celebrating 50 years of Spider-Man, where he describes Peter as the typical "late bloomer", pointing out more or less what you are saying. But even a late bloomer has to bloom, sooner or later, or he becomes an underachieving / immature young adult.
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Oct 20, 2012 15:06:27 GMT -5
There is one recent editorial by Roger Stern, I believe for one of the special books celebrating 50 years of Spider-Man, where he describes Peter as the typical "late bloomer", pointing out more or less what you are saying. But even a late bloomer has to bloom, sooner or later, or he becomes an underachieving / immature young adult. I think HB and Shiryu both nail a very strong point about Peter Parker/Spider-man the character, and the issue at hand for those that seem to feel his inclusion is merited and a natural story-path for his character . Forgive me for making a leap, but could part of the problem that for those against Peter/Spider-man's inclusion, it is more of a problem with Peter/Spider-man the icon, and what the icon represents, rather than with Peter/Spider-man the character?
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Oct 20, 2012 15:48:02 GMT -5
What's interesting with Wolverine is just how much his role in the Marvel Universe has changed in the past 15 years. Up until the late 90s, Logan was very much the loner and the dangerous guy; the one that no one ever trusted and no one was ever sure when he would turn on the heroes and become the villain.
But somewhere around the late 90s/early 00s, Logan's character really began to change. Marvel revealed that he was more embedded with characters history than before (including a connection with Ben Grimm).
Not only that, but in terms of the X-Men, Logan has taken up the position that Cyclops and Professor X once held -- as the heart and soul of the team. We've seen Logan become very tempered and balanced, with less "berserker rage" issues than before. Part of this attributed to two events: 1) Enemy of the State, in which Logan was brainwashed into becoming a Hydra agent; and 2) Wolverine Origins. Both events shed light on Logan's past and his vulnerabilities, forcing him to come to terms with all the manipulations that he has undergone and how he must not let this happen to others (ie. the Generation Hope kids, X-23, Dakken, etc).
Basically, since 2000ish, we've seen Logan develop from being an anti-hero loose cannon to become a true, loyal hero. Who kills bad guys.
In terms of his Avengers membership, hmm. Bendis' Avengers can be broken into three basic segments: 1) the post-Breakout team; 2) the outlaw team (Civil War/Dark Reign): and the Heroic Age team.
I seem to call that Cap and Iron Man offered Logan a place on the team after he ran into the team on their first mission -- a mystery in which they were both working on individually. Cap seemed all caught up in "destiny" and "fate" and that may have been part of his driving force behind offering Logan a place on the team.
We can also argue that it may also have to do with Logan's past with Cap. Cap has a lot of reasons not to trust Logan -- considering their second encounter during WW2 and the Logan's recent bout with terrorism during Enemy of the State. Keeping him on the Avengers may have had something to do with Cap keeping an eye on him.
Further, I think one of the big reasons was because of Logan's willingness to go a little further than other Avengers. Wolverine has a skillset and a moral willingness that other Avengers don't. Wolverine will kill. We only really see Wolverine being asked this once, and that was during Civil War, to find Nitro.
The reason for staying during the "outlaw" days of the Avengers, following Civil War and Secret Invasion, can be accredited to being morally indebted to a recently fallen Cap; experience in "going underground" and connections to help keep the team undetected; and loyalty to his allies on the team.
As far as the Heroic Age goes, I'm missing quite a bit of this, so I'm not sure.
tl;dr? My reasoning for Wolverine's joining the Avengers is because of a journey into becoming a more heroic person - as well as his relationship with Cap, his willingness to cross a line other Avengers won't, and his connections with various aspects of the MU -- not to mention it's a good way for the Avengers to keep an eye on him. His reason for staying comes mostly from loyalty.
As far as the reason Marvel put him on the team? Simple. They wanted the Avengers franchise to become more visible and centered in the nuMU and thus put of the company's most recognized characters on it (Wolverine and Spider-Man).
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 20, 2012 16:15:22 GMT -5
I think HB and Shiryu both nail a very strong point about Peter Parker/Spider-man the character, and the issue at hand for those that seem to feel his inclusion is merited and a natural story-path for his character . Forgive me for making a leap, but could part of the problem that for those against Peter/Spider-man's inclusion, it is more of a problem with Peter/Spider-man the icon, and what the icon represents, rather than with Peter/Spider-man the character? Hmm, you make a very good point, Pulp. I think the problem with icons is that they are expected to be "forever eternal", so to speak. And this is perfectly acceptable for a mature, extablished character. But not so much for younger, growing characters, who will have to change at one point or another. Spidey is Marvel's "heart", someone who is always going to make the right choice regardless of personal consequences. This is, in my opinion, what makes him and icon, and it hasn't changed in 50 years. His personality has never really gone dark for any lenght of time, unlike Cyclops, or Daredevil. Even at his lowest, during "Back to black", he ultimately refused to kill Kingpin in cold blood. I just don't think that being an underachiever with rotten luck is part of his iconic value. I sort of see it as something else, important but one step short of iconic. To make a parallelism, his classic costume is iconic; his armpit webs... not quite so much. Take away the former for too long and you ruin the icon, take away the latter and it's just evolution. See, I can't get my head around that one, I find it contradictive. To me, one can either form a group willing to kill, or not, as long as it's clear from the start. But if you don't want your group to resort to killing enemies, it seems hypocrite to include someone specifically because he can go the extra mile whilst you aren't willing to. It's like handing the gun you don't want to fire. If a situation ever gets so dire to require murder, I would expect Cap or Thor or Tony to be honest enough to do it themselves, whereas it seems implied they would rather look away and let Logan do the dirty work just to keep their own hands clean. It's... murky, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Oct 20, 2012 19:10:44 GMT -5
There are many valid counter-points to my personal objections. And there is an odd dance that characters do where their very popularity pushes them into being things which they were not, initially. Batman's evolution from a rather grim figure who relied on intimidation to the family friendly brand of the 50's and 60's, who then rolled back into the darker role throughout the 70's and 80's, is a case in point. Batman's popularity pushed him into areas his creators had not intended, and in many ways he lost the very elements which made him both popular and enduring. And then more or less froze. With Spider-Man I feel that there is a false assumption on some of your parts that his changes from the early Lee/Ditko version are "character growth", whereas I see them as merely the process of making a popular IP cast an even wider net. I do not see any real evidence for Parker having moved forward or aged in the last 30 years. Just about every way in which any writer has attempted to do so has been un-done. Peter is back to being the single, start of his career early 20's figure he was in 1980. I'm sure individual writers have wanted and intended some growth and motion, but ultimately he is not a literary character but a Brand, an IP, a corporate vehicle. Perhaps I'm too convinced by the website about the Fantastic Four as The Great American Novel, (whose name I forget) where the author makes a compelling case that since Marvel abandoned Real-Time in the late 60' early 70's, they have also abandoned actual character growth, (despite the best efforts of various staff members). So, I'm afraid I cannot see Peter's presence on the team as evidence of character growth, but rather as Product Placement, the same as Wolverine. And it's a commercial venture, so why not have your Best Selling Properties in the book? As a business strategy it is sound thinking. As literature, I think it fails. The characters are all frozen. Come back in 10 or 20 years time and find Peter Parker still in his early 20's, still just starting his career. Even if they were to move him forward, he would Mephisto-Deal/ Crisis-Reboot rubber-band back at some point, because 50 year old Spidey is a hard-sell. The very things which made Marvel great, the growth, the relate-able character development through time, the sense that you did not know what would happen, but whatever it was it would have a consequence in the Marvel Universe, these are gone. And were gone long before Bendis, or Joe Q arrived, too. Yes, there are still good issues, even good runs. But unlike Sherlock Holmes, or King Arthur, there will be no final tale, just an unending stream of stories that kind of dilutes both itself and all that has gone before. Sorry, I'm rambling off-topic somewhat. Theres a tenuous link to humanbelly's good point about character development somewhere under all that typing though..
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 20, 2012 20:42:22 GMT -5
I think I disagree with the premise of comparing Spider-Man to Batman in first place, because Bruce starts up as an adult. I have no idea whether his age has ever been given, but I would put him in his mid to late 30s. True, he doesn't evolve or grow much, but neither does Cap, or Thor. They more or less remain what they were when they were first presented to us, which is understandable because, barring some growing cynicism, people don't really change much anymore once adulthood is reached.
But Peter starts up as a teenager, I see him more as a Dick Grayson figure, and you can probably agree with me when I say that Dick has changed tremendously over the years. He went from childish sidekick to leader of the Titans, and it's only because of Batman's presence (similar power set and skills would make one superflous) that he hasn't become a core member of the JLA already. It's true that Spider-Man today isn't very different from the 80s, but he is (and was, in the 80s) very different from the 60s. I'm more inclined to believe that the problem was not having him join the Avengers in the 80s, instead of having him as a member now.
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Oct 21, 2012 13:19:52 GMT -5
Shiryu, The assumption that adults do not change over decades of time is the assumption of a young adult. If and when you get to middle age and beyond, you can see that the apparent plateau which seems to be reached at about 20 is actually a window not much longer than the 20 year period of childhood preceding it. Then between 40 and 50, your body and mind both begin to alter in ways as dramatic as the transition from teen to adult, despite what Hollywood or the cosmetic industry may have told you. There may well be 15 or 20 years of being oblivious to this truth in everyone's life, but that does not make it less of a truth. If I wanted to be a pedant I could point out that Peter was as much older than Dick upon staring his hero career, as Bruce was older than Peter. All 3 are fictional super hero characters. We've seen parts of the childhood, and adulthood, of all 3. To say they cannot be compared because of a few years difference in age seems silly to me. But anyway, you managed to miss my point (or I failed to make it clear) which was not to mention Batman as a "character" in comparison to Spider-Man, but as an example of how "character" is ultimately subsumed by the Brand. That however Batman or Spider-Man were conceived of by their creators, or by those who first read of them, both are now a Brand, and have to be unchanging, new reader friendly and bland. Both now appear in their relative universe's Biggest, Best Known Super-Teams, not because the "characters", background or powers of either really merit a place, but simply because the companies which own them both can shift more comics if they are in those teams. And to be blunt, you are kidding yourselves if you believe either is in the JLA or Avengers as part of some literary arc of character development. Unless you also believe that their appearing on lunchboxes or pillow cases is also part of their literary journey. At the end of the day, for me personally, there have been many odd choices of Avengers, many where the logic of membership has been odd, or the consequences of it forgotten. Spider-Man is probably no worse than many others, except that now he's in, he's likely in for good. Unless Sony hang on to his film rights, thus precluding an appearance in the Avengers movies, it makes commercial sense to bolster the sales of the mag by having him, and Wolvie in it. We shall see.
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Oct 25, 2012 17:00:17 GMT -5
I don't know if this post pertains to this topic directly, but it seems like this thread has been one of the more popular lately, so here goes...
I just read the Avengers Academy with the Wolverine/X-men guest appearance, and IMHO WTF? is up with Logan being the leader of a bunch of young mutant students. That is a pretty lame use of a character I remember as a lone wolf-type, definitely not a role model, and who would only let certain characters (Kitty Pryde, Jean Grey, Storm) get close to him. It's just such a watering down of such a dynamic personality/character.....I realize they want to put him in as many comics as they can for sales purposes---but it's just so lame, IMHO, to make him a "teacher".
I feel Marvel really should have concentrated on making Storm or (a more mature) Kitty Pryde as the teachers. Storm, IMO, should be in charge---I know Cyclops usually ends up leading, but I personally like Storm better. I just never was a Cyclops fan.
I admit I haven't read many X-books in the last 20 years, but this "new" Logan just plain sucks. Maybe when the new movie comes out (with ninjas, I hear) they'll bring back the old Wolverine, instead of the "Super Hero Squad" version, at least for the mainstream Marvel comics.
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Oct 25, 2012 18:16:18 GMT -5
Actually, Kitty has been filling the role as co-headmistress and teacher in "Wolverine and the X-Men."
|
|