Has anyone thought recently that all of the Spider-Man stuff have changed? I mean seriously, first we go to Peter Parker's life, how it was how it was developed and stuff. Is the NOW Spider-Man really worth reading? I don't really search media anymore for images of the NOW attire of Spider-Man. Instead, I read the old age comics. I enjoy reading them a lot and I don't have any problem with reading them, but the only problem I have, is where is Spider-Man going to go next? The last reboots with other heroes like, Batman '66 have gone wrong. I highly recommend a reboot for the old Spider-Man. A reboot with Spider-Man would go quite well wouldn't it? Well let's look, Spider-Man has been with many teams & other groupings over the years. First he has been a lone wolf and now he is with teams like, New Avengers and more. I don't think Spider-Man is terrible, what I'm trying to say, maybe he has changed a bit too much, and he probably needs a bit of a reboot there. Now, I'm not talking about the new Spider-Man, the new Spider-Man is WAY different. The changes with Superman, Batman, and other heroes have took their place. Now I see why Peter Parker would have to be some kind of genius, but before he was changed a bit. He wasn't really known for being smart, but look at him now, he has changed a lot, even in his upcoming movie, like the untitled reboot (the sequel to The Amazing Spider-Man 2).

The movie had bad results when it released, BUT; the 3rd movie might spice a bit things, even though it might be the last. I want to explain how The Amazing Spider-Man could have changed the franchise. Marvel has control over several heroes in the comics, movies, and almost everything. They can change the characters point of view and stuff, we know that. But after what I've seen on the new details on the Spider-Man movie. I'm kind of confused for a second, how is this movie going to go well? Well, it's never too late to change. I think the Spider-Man movie should at least be re-imagined and all, I mean all the movies that Spider-Man has been in has been pretty much all conflict with the life of Peter Parker. But I don't blame Sam Raimi for his entirely OLD concept of Spider-Man. After all, Peter DID go through a lot of conflict in his life when he was created in the 60s and all the way to the 70s, and then he started getting changed a bit. The only mistake the movie did, was what the comics did I think. The movie is based off the comics and all, but it makes it look like something was wrong with the comics. But it was pretty much Sam Raimi's film right?

Well..? What can we change with this movie? What could this movie accomplish if it was given a chance to put Spider-Man 4 on the big screen? Well. I try not to think of this because, well, you should probably think about a movie before you actually think about the future about this movie, what will it do with this popluar genre of superheroes and stuff for the sake of fans.

Game franchises like The Art of Rocksteady's Batman: Arkham Asylum, Arkham City & Arkham Knight have been way succesful and have brought major popluarity. So what can we do with Spider-Man? How can we change the superhero and how can we make him as popluar?

Well. By the time Spider-Ock has left, Peter has lost popluarity. All Dr. Octopus has ever done was make Peter some scentific genius and give us a different Spider-Man, which is highly different, I don't really like how Spider-Man has been changed'n all..

Nowdays, I find Spider-Man pretty boring with his NOW attire and stuff. It took me a while to start noticing that there was a Spider-Verse and Spider-Ock joined the crew. Now after reading the Spider-Verse story, it packed me up with a lot of notice and stuff. One of my newest favorite characters are Kaine with one of his newest abilties. I also noticed he is taking the role of the Scarlet Spider, so I was pretty shocked with the big moves.

The costume is great and all, but what I find shocking is that every since I've noticed the character, he hasn't been really noticed like other popluar fighting characters like Wolverine. I think Kaine & Logan would be one of the biggest fights, I've already seen one of the clashes in the battle IT was epic!

Anyways, you probably didn't read all of this. What are your thoughts?

This post is extremely tl;dr.

But to answer one of your questions, I don't want a reboot of the spider-man comics. And IMO Peter being different is a good thing because his character is evolving and doing something new.

Hmm, I'm not sure I got what you're saying there. Is it another one of the "I don't like Peter this way 'cause it's not the way I see him/grow up with?"

I completely 100% disagree. If they reboot Peter to be a teen, I'd quit reading and I'd hope Marvel goes bankrupt. This is the best place Peter ever has been, since he has finally been characterized as the genius he was ever since Stan Lee wrote him. Sure, it took a couple detours and a lot of dumbing down of Peter and his capabilities, but we're finally there!

ANAD Spider-Man is more popular than ever, and I see this popularity growing. A lot of people I've talked to seem to enjoy Spider-Man finally not being contrived into being some sort of loser despite being a veteran superhero and supergenius that ranks along the likes of Tony Stark and Reed Richards. Hopefully, this era of Spider-Man will be with us for a long long time!

(BTW, you do mean ANAD Spidey, not NOW! Spidey, right?)

Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good

Like I've said in the past, people are settling for a mediocre book because they've had nothing but mediocrity for a decade now and know it won't improve, and a lot of those fans are also just trying to be "trendy" and want Spidey to fulfil their wish-fulfilment fantasies at the expense of the characters relatability. They've lost all sense of the core of the character in the name of "success at any cost" and it's quite disheartening to see.

I don't think Peter's in a good place at all. He didn't earn anything. This story is designed to end only one way...and that is in his downfall. People are only fooling themselves if they can't see this deconstructive parody of the Iron Man set-up for what it really is. Slott can only write two types of thematic storytelling: Kisses to History and Deconstruction. There's even instances in the book where he still comes across as an arrogant loser in different ways that will become clearer later when it all backfires on him.

Hell, even Slott has called his masterplan for the character in interviews an "evil one", even he's not being subtle about it.

Stan Lee wrote him as an everyman who existed outside your window...and still writes him like that. He's never been the corporate sell-out megagenius man-child he currently is.

^^THIS^^. I 100% agree with you.

But if it is popular, that means there are many who do think that it's good. After all, a lot of people would drop it if they didn't enjoy it. To be honest, I've found that those few who dislike the run because of Peter finally becoming successful are few, and those who do are mainly older fans who don't want to see Peter progress, and are willing to forego logical sense for creative consistency. On the other hand, it is mostly newer fans and/or those who weren't as invested in Spider-Man who seem to prefer Peter finally progressing (of course, they are exceptions to both, such as me, an old fan who likes this direction). Then there are those who sit outside both camps, such as those who hate Slott, those who feel this is hypocritical because of how Marvel removed the marriage, etc. Of course, there is also a lot of overlap. However, I think that it is true that most people seem to like this new direction - and this number would only grow if the marriage was restored and/or Slott was replaced. As such, I think that helping Peter succeed was a genius decision on Marvel's part. Personally, I don't think Volume 4 has been mediocre by any stretch of the imagination, and that it is good for the character to evolve and shed that stupid "everyman" tag which has done nothing but hold Spider-Man back, often illogically and made for contrived situations (again, a supergenius would not be struggling to get a job). Neither do I think relatability is anywhere near the core of the character - I'd say that is his wit, persistence, intelligence and just the fact he is such a great inspiration to readers. Relatability was something that was often a by-product of that, and it was when Marvel latched onto that as what they wanted Spider-Man to be that we got some really bad stories (like the Mackie/Byrne run).

And Peter did earn most of this. Ock started a small-time company that was barely city-wide, let alone the scope of the world-famous company (which has a verb named after it) that Peter has turned it into. I think we can agree that this was 1% Ock, 99% Peter. Besides, Slott always says he has "evil plans", but Peter has only become more successful as his run has continued. Anyways, even if Slott does plan to take this away, hopefully Marvel would editorially mandate that he can't, since this move has been so successful.

As for Stan Lee, one thing: How is inventing webshooters, spider tracers, anti-flying magnetic inverters, etc. not being a megagenius, let alone at the tender age of 15? Hell, I'd say web fluid is even greater an intelligence feat than some of the stuff that has come later, like even the cryo pellets and stuff. And how the hell is Peter a "corporate sell-out"? What does that even mean? In fact, i'd say Peter being this rich billionaire is hundreds of times better for the world in general than Peter being a teacher or worse, a photographer or whatever.

@kcomicfan Thanks! :)

Logical fallacy: popularity is not quality

Arguing that an idea or product has merit because it has popular support is one of the oldest argument tactics around. It’s also one of the most flawed. Does McDonald’s have the best hamburger because they sell billions? Is a Toyota better than a Ferrari because one is far more common than the other? Is Britney Spears a better musician than Mozart, who you never hear on the radio unless you tune into a classical radio station? The counter-examples continue ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

Even professionals can make the mistake of arguing that popularity indicates some inherent quality.

Yes, it’s very easy to take things at face value and assume it’s “great” because everyone is doing it.

Plenty of what’s popular isn’t good, and plenty of what’s good isn’t popular.

One of the grand confusions of modern life is the confusion between what is good and what is popular. Most of the time people confuse being popular with being good, which isn’t necessarily true.

I don't have a problem with Peter's progression into being successful. I have a huge problem with the execution and tacky second-rate writing.

The same can be said about the counter-argument, tho....

Literally everytime popularity argument comes up, the same counterargument shows up as well. One really isn't more valid than the other.
Feels like every time this comes up is because they couldn't put the opposing side into a corner... A "GOTCHA" moment that doesn't really work.

"Yeah well, it's popular/selling, so they're doing SOMETHING right and people agree with me bla bla"
"Oh rly, just because its popular doesn't mean it's great. Justin bieber bla bla"
Then we're back to square one. That's why I always find it easier to simply putting it on opinions most of the time...

If they reboot Peter to be a teen, I'd quit reading.

I stopped purchasing after ASM #700, but read SSM & ASM at my local comic book shop.

This is the best place Peter ever has been.

Perhaps in some ways, but being a Bruce Wayne / Tony Stark composite is not a very original idea and conceptually, not the best way to portray Peter's intellect and genius.

Sure, it took a couple detours and a lot of dumbing down of Peter and his capabilities.

Yes, I totally agree with the very underrated comment above. A very strange detour with SSM and lots of dumbing down and deconstruction of the Spider-Man mythos.

Hopefully, this era of Spider-Man will be with us for a long long time!

Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell, but hopefully with better esteemed writers.

Oh, I definitely agree. That's why I typed: "The counter-examples continue ad infinitum and ad nauseum." :-)

@magnetic_eye: Ya, guess we can say it's a moot point. I just think it's really silly when people bring either of those up like it would end the argument. Seems more like a "I can't really prove you wrong, so shut up" (Talking about this in general, not just on spidey)

If it was so popular why are the sales not higher? More people know of Spider-Man now than ever before, and the movies and products are adding to the fame, yet comic book sales do not reflect that.

In the 70's a movie would boost book sales dramatically, today it is not happening.

Hmmmm...could there be a disconnect?