Why the Marvel Movies Should Ditch Peter Parker

WolfThomas

Man must have a code.
Dec 21, 2007
5,294
0
0
My captcha is glass ceiling. It is getting sentient isnt it?

I just want a fully established Spiderman from the get go. Not another f'ing origin movie.
 

Stewie Plisken

New member
Jan 3, 2009
355
0
0
The article is making two unrelated points; one is an issue of branding and marketing, the other is an issue of diversity. You're more likely to see a black Peter Parker than even see a white Miles Morales as Spider-Man. This isn't a Marvel-only thing, DC has yet to ditch Hal Jordan or Barry Allen in their big productions (with the exception of Timm's Justice League). The current Wally West in the comics has transformed from a white ginger to typical black character and you still won't see him taking up the Flash mantle in any mainstream production any time soon.

It'd be nice to see a change, but the average movie-goer that will pay for the ticket to see a classic super-hero once every two or three years needs the hook of recognisability to be drawn into the theatres. It sucks for comic book readers, who crave change, but it's not going to happen. I do agree, it kinda sucks; especially for Spider-Man.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
No, because this isn't solving anything, it's not helping progress anything, it's not even interesting.

You're throwing another character into the costume of another superhero because "it'd be cool to see a black spiderman". What the hell does skin color have to do with this? Peter Parker was created as Spiderman, Spidergirl works as there's at least some sense behind it being the genetic offspring of the actual super hero.

How about instead of throwing someone different into the established roll they make a new fucking super hero for once? All this seems to me is "I bet a black guy could fit the role just as good!" uh yeah a black guy is the same as a white guy- they're both human men so I can't say it'd make a difference who's behind the mask.

But how about a new black super hero, with his own origins, own issues and own powers and own universe to thrive in? Why not make something new with effort, a budget, develop it and STICK to it and create something new. Maybe this guy could meet up with Spiderman and wish he was Spiderman, or maybe he hates spiderman since Spidey is an ass. At least it'd be new, different and compelling instead of someone trying to fill shoes that have been already.


Why does changing the race, sexuality or gender of a hero excite anyone? It's a marketing ploy that pulls views till it's charm wears off then they bring back CokeaCola Classic the original again for more market joy, then black guy then gets a spinoff that fades away. It doesn't matter what kind of story you twist it around with, it boils down to the above and it's just sad.

I'm not against spiderman being different, skin color doesn't change my opinion on a character- it's about the traits, characteristics, flaws and strengths. I thought Ben Reily made an interesting Spiderman (with a better costume) but what a twist he got removed and Peter is back! APPLAUSE AND MEDIA ATTENTION PLEASE.

Deep Space 9 cast a black commander and he worked his way to captain and had all these challenges to face in the series and the big challenge one outside in the real world. He was basically competing with Captain Picard/Patrick Stewart and he was the fan favorite then and even now.
What did they do? Put them at odds with eachother in the show! Sisco hated him for what happened they had a confrontation about it, they expanded on it, and it was development- he was different than the previous captains and was he was more interesting for it! They also didn't put any focus on what his skin color was, he was just a man with a rough past doing his best.

Janeway was the same, new crew, new ship, new story challenge, a woman in the captains chair of ANOTHER ship and it worked and didn't come off as cheap.


New heroes, new shoes to fill, pick whatever race,gender,species. This swap out is cheap and stupid and only serves as a money maker rather than trying to make something interesting.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Snotnarok said:
But how about a new black super hero, with his own origins, own issues and own powers and own universe to thrive in?
How many original characters completely unattached to an already property do you think succeed in comics? How many do you think succeed in their own movies?

Snotnarok said:
Why does changing the race, sexuality or gender of a hero excite anyone?
Because not everyone who likes comics is a straight, white man, and there is a very sad tendency among those who do exist to be sidekicks or variants on an original version. It would be nice to see someone who is not all three of those things be not just a hero but the protagonist, someone whose story is not dependent on a straight, white man's story for direction.

Snotnarok said:
It's a marketing ploy that pulls views till its charm wears off then they bring back Coca-Cola Classic the original again for more market joy, then black guy then gets a spinoff that fades away.
So? Is the enjoyment I took in reading Miles Morales: Ultimate Spider-Man somehow less real because the creative team put effort into making a financial profit off it?
 

Ramzal

New member
Jun 24, 2011
414
0
0
JimB said:
Snotnarok said:
It's a marketing ploy that pulls views till its charm wears off then they bring back Coca-Cola Classic the original again for more market joy, then black guy then gets a spinoff that fades away.
So? Is the enjoyment I took in reading Miles Morales: Ultimate Spider-Man somehow less real because the creative team put effort into making a financial profit off it?
To you, no because you enjoy what they put out. To many others yes, it is kind of a slap in the face because if that spinoff can't stand on it's own two legs while the original can it means the character did not really have as great of a following as they intended/(s)he is not very interesting and what people were reading for were signs that their original hero would be coming back. Then again, I am sure there are many others who share your opinion.

Companies don't stop comic titles just to do it, they stop comic titles because they aren't getting the traction that was projected. What this means is that overall the majority of the public were not interested in the character or what was offered. For example: The most current run of She-Hulk. Great story, great use of She-Hulk and a lot of down to earth storylines... to ME. I wished it didn't end because I found it interesting, but a lot of people didn't so the title fell through.

It has nothing to do with it being "white males" being the main heroes and more to do with just general appeal to the public. I don't like The Falcon (namely because I think he's lame with a chip on his shoulder all the time personality wise, but in comics he's pretty badass) so I don't read the current on going series of him as Captain America. I also don't think he should have been the new Cap because he's the Falcon. If he's going to be awesome for any reason he should be awesome as The Falcon and bring people in by his own mantle rather than tacking Captain America on him.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I love me some Isaiah Bradley. He was THE Captain America and the reason he wasn't brought out to the public was largely the origin behind him becoming Captain America being really disturbing and kept under wraps. (Even Wolverine has no idea who he is)
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Ramzal said:
To many others yes, it is kind of a slap in the face because if that spinoff can't stand on its own two legs while the original can it means the character did not really have as great of a following as they intended/(s)he is not very interesting and what people were reading for were signs that their original hero would be coming back.
In a business as petrified of changes to the status quo as the comics industry, it strikes me as very un-self-aware to be concerned that things always return to the status quo. In the meantime, Miles Morales has been the Spider-Man of the Ultimate universe for four years. That ain't bad.

Ramzal said:
Companies don't stop comic titles just to do it, they stop comic titles because they aren't getting the traction that was projected. What this means is that overall the majority of the public were not interested in the character or what was offered.
Yep. Hence me asking half a dozen people in this thread, none of whom have cared yet to respond, how many original characters they think become commercial successes without piggybacking goodwill off an existing franchise.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
JimB said:
Yep. Hence me asking half a dozen people in this thread, none of whom have cared yet to respond, how many original characters they think become commercial successes without piggybacking goodwill off an existing franchise.
Every year there are at least handul of comic titles that are completely independent of the DC and Marvel mythologies that achieve both critical and financial success, without piggybacking goodwill off an existing franchise. Far more often than not they're the work of an already well-established and popular author and/or artist, but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that it totally does happen. They just don't stick around to eternally wander the comic book stands because nowadays there is very little incentive for creatives to sign away their very best material to the big comic book publishers. The author and artists pool their talents to write the story that they wanted to tell and then it's wrapped up, finished, forever.

Furthermore, it's just not in the style of the big superhero comic publishers to give brand new characters their own book without testing them out in a pre-existing title. They don't need to take that risk, so they don't.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
Every year there are at least handful of comic titles that are completely independent of the DC and Marvel mythologies that achieve both critical and financial success, without piggybacking goodwill off an existing franchise.
Okay, so, follow-up questions:

1.) Is there a number you care to attach to the term "handful," or do you prefer to be vague?
2.) Do you think it is reasonable to expect creators to ride those odds with their new characters, since apparently only a "handful" can be expected to succeed?
3.) Of that "handful," how many of those characters are not white, straight, and/or male?

Paradoxrifts said:
Furthermore, it's just not in the style of the big superhero comic publishers to give brand new characters their own book without testing them out in a preexisting title. They don't need to take that risk, so they don't.
That is what I have been driving at, yes, and I do not consider it a moral failing.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
JimB said:
Snotnarok said:
But how about a new black super hero, with his own origins, own issues and own powers and own universe to thrive in?
How many original characters completely unattached to an already property do you think succeed in comics? How many do you think succeed in their own movies?

Snotnarok said:
Why does changing the race, sexuality or gender of a hero excite anyone?
Because not everyone who likes comics is a straight, white man, and there is a very sad tendency among those who do exist to be sidekicks or variants on an original version. It would be nice to see someone who is not all three of those things be not just a hero but the protagonist, someone whose story is not dependent on a straight, white man's story for direction.

Snotnarok said:
It's a marketing ploy that pulls views till its charm wears off then they bring back Coca-Cola Classic the original again for more market joy, then black guy then gets a spinoff that fades away.
So? Is the enjoyment I took in reading Miles Morales: Ultimate Spider-Man somehow less real because the creative team put effort into making a financial profit off it?
How is that an excuse to not try something original? Because previous attempts didn't work out we should make new heroes? Just keep rehashing the same crap with a fresh coat of paint? If they can write good things with that they can do it with something new. They took Guardians of the Galaxy which far less people knew about and made it into a critical success they can make something new.

Oh stop it, you're taking my statements out of context. I'm not straight and I don't care what color or sexuality what anyone is. My point is strictly that an original character of whatever color, sexuality whatever would have far more impact and wouldn't be judged/compete with what the established character is. I thought my comments on Sisco from Deep Space 9 would have made that obvious but everyone likes to call racism or hatred of sexuality.

I don't care what gender or skincolor a character is or who they snuggle with at night, I care about their character and unless the race/gender/sexuality is a focus on the story? Doesn't matter.


No, your enjoyment of the change of spiderman is your own opinion and that's fine. But don't you think a black super hero with their OWN origins would be better than being transferred over from some other guy?

To me it's catering to the popular marketing trend which to me, personally lessens a character. I don't care about what's popular, I care about a well written character and re-branding one isn't a well written character. It's a spinoff and I don't care about those, I don't care about fanservice I like interesting characters. So if you enjoy a spinoff, more power to you. To me I'm sick of seeing characters get twisted around. Gwen Stacy comes back to life as a spider girl, what and why? That kills the meaning and depth of her death in the series- it's stupid. I love the costume and everything but it really just sours the story for me. If you disagree? Feel free to, but I apply the same thing to Miles whatever ( I didn't read much of Ult Spiderman). He could very well be intersting but it could have been a new hero. But it's not, so I hope whoever enjoys it, does but I want more new heroes and less rehashes.

I made my own comic series, starring a girl trying to make her way as a space merc. She's not filling anyones shoes but hers and she isn't being characterized by the fact she's a girl or a lesbian- it's not a point I think that makes a character but rather their history, strengths and weakness. Would her skin color change anything about her? No because skin color isn't a character trait, it's just a visual difference.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Snotnarok said:
How is that an excuse to not try something original?
Since you don't seem to know how to break up quotes, I am not certain what this question is in response to. I'm guessing it's in response to the bit about comic characters failing. It's an excuse not to try something original because trying original things doesn't seem to work very often, causing original characters to become financial failures that provide negative incentive to keep trying. I have no problem with stacking the deck in a new character's favor, and don't know why anyone else would, unless they think the publication business is a not-for-profit social charity willing to operate at no profits or even at a loss to bring us new characters as part of some quota-filling requirement.

Snotnarok said:
They took Guardians of the Galaxy, which far fewer people knew about, and made it into a critical success; they can make something new.
They took a Marvel property, gave it to a popular director and a nearly all-star cast, and released it by pasting the name of a studio that had already nailed twelve home runs all over the advertising. Guardians of the Galaxy absolutely rode the coattails of its predecessors to success (not that I'm saying the movie doesn't deserve it), and I frankly think your example goes much further toward proving my case than yours.

Snotnarok said:
Oh stop it, you're taking my statements out of context.
Again, I don't know what this is in response to, so I don't know what you think I'm taking out of context.

Snotnarok said:
I'm not straight.
I never said you are. What?

Snotnarok said:
My point is strictly that an original character of whatever color or sexuality or whatever would have far more impact.
Only if the character succeeds financially, which brings me back to the question you have refused to answer: How many original comic book characters do you believe succeed without attaching themselves to goodwill generated by an existing character?

Snotnarok said:
I don't care what gender or skin color a character is or whom they snuggle with at night; I care about their character, and unless the race/gender/sexuality is a focus of the story, it doesn't matter.
To you. It doesn't matter to you. I personally would enjoy seeing a minority character as his own hero independent of a straight, white, male character's guiding hand, and I think it's really weird to use the pretense of noble color-blindness to reinforce a tilted status quo.

Snotnarok said:
Don't you think a black super hero with his own origins would be better than being transferred over from some other guy?
Miles Morales does have his own origin, so I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Snotnarok said:
I care about a well-written character and re-branding one isn't a well-written character.
Uh, have you ever actually read an issue of Miles Morales: Ultimate Spider-Man, or are you just projecting absolutes for the sake of trying to make your argument seem unassailable?

Snotnarok said:
Gwen Stacy comes back to life as a Spider-Girl, what and why?
I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. I'm not following that Spider-Verse crap, but as best I understand, it's a Gwen from a different dimension. The Gwen Stacy whose death you revere is still dead.

Snotnarok said:
I made my own comic series, starring a girl trying to make her way as a space merc. She's not filling anyone's shoes but hers and she isn't being characterized by the fact she's a girl or a lesbian: It's not a point I think that makes a character but rather their history, strengths and weakness.
Okay, and how financially successful is your title?

Snotnarok said:
Would her skin color change anything about her? No, because skin color isn't a character trait, it's just a visual difference.
It is also a race and as such generally carries with it cultural baggage that inform a character's perceptions, at least here on Earth. I don't know you character or the book she's in, so I guess she could exist in a completely homogenous interplanetary society where no one suffers from xenophobia.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
JimB said:
I'm sorry, I just don't care to argue if you're going to validate a series based on it's success financially or the financial history of previous attempts. That doesn't help a story, that doesn't make a character better. I have nothing but hate for fanservice and catering to what's popular over a good story that tries something new. So I'm sorry but I'm just not going to bother, I've had these discussions with people who'll justify a game is good because it sold well and how that it should alter my opinion and enjoyment. I disagree and I'm leaving it at that.- I will not bother arguing this so, just save us the time won't you and let's drop that?

If you like what hey did with spiderman? More power to you. I'd prefer a new hero that's all it sums up to, whatever the race, gender, sexuality I'd like a new hero and that's why indie comics have been far more enjoyable to read. Because it's not the 500th iteration of Spiderman, 50th death of superman or whatever. That's my thought, and it's why I've not bought these series, I don't care to support that stuff.

JimB said:
Okay, and how financially successful is your title?
How successful is my comic financially? What does that have to do with anything? Does dollar value determine if a story is successful? Should I ape another story to leach popularity for the sake of money or should I put my effort into creating my own universe- to me that's more important. I'm just starting things up and I don't expect to be the next spiderman, but I'm happy just to tell my own story.

JimB said:
It is also a race and as such generally carries with it cultural baggage that inform a character's perceptions, at least here on Earth. I don't know you character or the book she's in, so I guess she could exist in a completely homogenous interplanetary society where no one suffers from xenophobia.
In a universe filled with aliens and different cultures there's too much to quantify, if anything she gets crap for being a colonist.

Just take my thoughts as an opinion, yes it doesn't make more money but I think it's more interesting, that's all.
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
Does Black Spider-Man really have to wear a black costume?
It actually seems a very natural and reasonable evolution of the spiderman outfit in the comics. You don't really notice the "black" in the art all that much. It just seems the suit has a darker base that better shows off the stylized webbing.

BTW guess who got shown off at the NY Toy Fair this weekend

http://www.fbtb.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-02-14-05.01.47.jpg

and before anyone gets their hopes up. Miles has shown up in the Cartoon. Lego also has an Iron Spider set in the same wave.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Snotnarok said:
I'm sorry, I just don't care to argue if you're going to validate a series based on its success financially or the financial history of previous attempts.
You misunderstand me. I think you are approaching this discussion from a completely unrealistic place of high-minded ideas without ever bothering to consider the real-world limitations that are in effect. You can argue that a character is only good if it's based on a completely original intellectual property, but I am saying that a character is only good if it's in publication to get its message out to its readers; and a character is only published if it remains financially viable to do so. I don't care much if the general public likes a character--if I did, then I would have to concede that Miles Morales is a bad character, based on his sales figures--but I do care whether the general public will continue to support the costs of getting a character out there.

Snotnarok said:
How successful is my comic financially? What does that have to do with anything?
See above.

Snotnarok said:
In a universe filled with aliens and different cultures there's too much to quantify, if anything she gets crap for being a colonist.
Your aliens do not represent my understanding of humanity, then. Maybe that's the point, of course, but still.
 

disgruntledgamer

New member
Mar 6, 2012
905
0
0
Um no...... This is just stupid, trying to be ethnic for ethnicity sake is a dumb idea. This is just SJW pandering for no reason and to top it all off the article completely contradicts itself. If no one is going to care who's behind the mask at the end of the day why bother changing it?

I'm all for ethnic characters (I'm a fan of Blade) and if they decided to make a White Blade I'd be saying the same thing. Stop messing with established characters and create new ones. Once again this is just a dumb idea not everything needs an agenda or be a political statement which seems to be the only reason the author of this article wants this to happen.
 

disgruntledgamer

New member
Mar 6, 2012
905
0
0
Robot-Jesus said:
Super Not Cosmo said:
Ugh! The only reason people have a hard on for having Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker in the new movie is simply because he's black. End of story. It's more of the same politically correct bullshit that got us the train wreck that was Avengers NOW! and this god awful lady Thor book and the upcoming mess of a book that's nothing but female heroes. The same people who are going elbow deep to pull reasons out of their ass other than "Because he's black" to justify having Miles Morales in the movie would collectively lose their shit if Marvel decided to go with a white guy to fill a traditionally black role.

It's not about political correctness, it's about appealing to more markets. Marvel has only two major black characters in the works; one is an african king and the other is an ex con. Black parents want to buy toys for their kids that are positive role models they can identify with, Marvel happens to likes making money; do you see where I'm going with this? In this day and age a lot of "political correctness" is just recognizing that black money spends as well as well as white.
From the tone of the article I beg to differ it has SJW "Fill in the blank with a nasty word" written all over it not to mention the "money" argument makes no sense since last I checked caucasians were still the majority.
 

fallen2far

New member
Feb 16, 2015
1
0
0
I'd rather a black teenger cast as peter parker than spiderman 2099 or the ultimate replacement. It's like advocating ben riley.

This is supposed to be: the avengers. It's supposed to be the teaming up of the heavy hitters. The biggest names. The icons. Everyone knows peter parker is spiderman, having someone else would be anticlimactic and a disappointment for the millions of fans that are not the 30 some odd thousand reading the ultimate book.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
disgruntledgamer said:
This is just stupid, trying to be ethnic for ethnicity's sake is a dumb idea.
"Ethnic" is not something one tries to be. It's something one is, by nature of birth. Further, the idea that white is some kind of default requiring no explanation, whereas not-white is something that must have a point and a narrative purpose, is really horrible and dehumanizing.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
JimB said:
Snotnarok said:
I'm sorry, I just don't care to argue if you're going to validate a series based on its success financially or the financial history of previous attempts.
You misunderstand me. I think you are approaching this discussion from a completely unrealistic place of high-minded ideas without ever bothering to consider the real-world limitations that are in effect. You can argue that a character is only good if it's based on a completely original intellectual property, but I am saying that a character is only good if it's in publication to get its message out to its readers; and a character is only published if it remains financially viable to do so. I don't care much if the general public likes a character--if I did, then I would have to concede that Miles Morales is a bad character, based on his sales figures--but I do care whether the general public will continue to support the costs of getting a character out there.
You say that like Marvel and DC have done anything original recently. How many variations are there of spiderman? How many universes have a different superman? How many people take up eachothers mantle? It doesn't have to be original but it'd be nice if they actually did anything other than retreading old ground over and over, slapping a new coat of paint on it doesn't make it new.
It's not high minded, it's not snobbery- they rehash their crap to death.

Yes the character can have some new stuff to them but it's the same thing over and over now. I mean there's what, Scarelet Spider, Ben Reiley, Spiderman 2099, Spiderman Noir, Spiderham, Ultimate Spiderman, the new Ultimate Spideran, the one with the hood I heard was Gwen, SpiderGirl. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of them too. Look I LOVE spidermans stuff, I like that he's a hero with weaknesses, who doesn't have a easy life because of it but the amount of spinoffs does not interest me. Not even going into the amount of spinoffs in figure form, I should know I saw many figures while they were being made as my dad painted MANY spiderman figures from awesome idea to incredibly shit ideas. Spiderman Beach anyone? Yeah they had him paint that up.

I'm not saying Miles Morales is a bad character, I'm saying he's a spinoff and regardless of what series does that game, movie,etc I've never really got into it. He could very well be good but he also could have been put into a different costume with different powers/tools, called something else and we have a NEW interesting hero added to the roster. That's it. I am in no way saying this is bad it's just to me? Marketing appeal. Which works for them but [repeat myself again bla bla bla rant rant from me]. I get it, you like the character I see how you could like him, I don't know what isn't to see about the appeal of something new.
How about that Zelda eh? Been wishing Link dead and a new character for ages. They almost put a female Link into the new game but that would have scared off the fans as even that little change would just be too drastic!

JimB said:
Snotnarok said:
Snotnarok said:
How successful is my comic financially? What does that have to do with anything?
See above.
I disagree. My comic is up, free with no ads or any merch, I make no money because I'm not charging anything. Most I have is a donation button on my site at the moment. I do it because I like it, while I don't expect Marvel or DC to do the same they have the money to market something new- like they did with Guardians of the Galaxy.

While it's not entirely new, it wasn't well known till they kicked out the movie and made critical appeal. I'm ONE guy, so you comparing me who does it for the love of it vs Marvel who consists of many artists/inkers/colorers, writers/editors/storyboard people, marketing oh and you know DISNEY- They do it for money- understood, but they also cater to mass appeal and compromise characters because of it.

Bringing characters back to life rendering their sacrifice moot and meaningless or swapping out characters making them feel interchangeable and less unique. There's a problem when one can say ask "Do you like Spiderman" and you can answer "which one".


JimB said:
Snotnarok said:
Snotnarok said:
In a universe filled with aliens and different cultures there's too much to quantify, if anything she gets crap for being a colonist.
Your aliens do not represent my understanding of humanity, then. Maybe that's the point, of course, but still.
They wouldn't be aliens if they were the same as humanity. <= I apologize for the patronizing comment, I don't mean it that way I just have no idea what to say to that.


At this point? I'd rather just shake hands and end the discussion because I've had this argument before and I'm very stubborn and I'm not interested in a confrontation over this. I already said a black spiderman could easily work- because it's still some guy and isn't a big change. I want something new, they're opposed to that. But you enjoy it and that's fine, so go enjoy it and don't let a random internet stranger lessen your enjoyment. Understand I'm not going to agree with you, it's not spiderman being spun off into another character I don't like, I don't like spinoffs in general. It has to do a lot different than change skin to change my mind. Final Fantasy VII to Final Fantasy Tactics comes to mind.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
This would be equivalent of saying that DC should drop Clark Kent in favor of John Henry Irons. Which... may actually be a pretty cool story, but still. I'm not sure Peter Parker and Miles Morales are all that inherently different. I don't think they'd necessarily bring different things to the table.

I'd say they could make SpiderMan more comedian and do a LOT better. They keep swinging and missing with the broody McBroodiepants versions of the character. That's as dumb as casting Deadpool as the straight man and does the character a great disservice.

But Miles isn't Spiderman anymore than Don Cheadle is Iron Man. He's warmachine and Miles is whatever non-spiderman name marvel decides to give him eventually.

Should his story be told? Sure, why not? I think spiderwoman could also be great. But not in place of Peter Parker. Just instead of. Like a movie about Batgirl as opposed to saying that Batman is dead and she's taking his place, you know? the difference is in just telling a story as opposed to wiping out a beloved hero.