Worth its own thread?

How long do you think this concept will last? Will it cause a bunch of other titles to spin off into Superior versions?

Probably not worth its own thread.

Then again, most threads here aren't...including 99% of the ones by me.

Especially me!

Superior to the Amazing Spider-Man, presumably.

(What's going on with his hands?)

They haven't run Uncanny into the ground yet.

Well, that can't be good.

I'm tired of the pattern where they make the "real" hero go away for a long time and have an imposter fill-in. They did it with Captain America and Batman recently.

You can skip a kid's whole adolescence that way. Ages 11 to 13. It's nuts.

I agree with you. A kid sees the Amazing Spider-Man and goes to the comic shop and has trouble finding a Spider-Man comic with Peter Parker in it.

What is this now?

Really?
Except for the 2 years from 1994-1996, Peter has been the star of pretty much every Spider-Man comic out there since 1962. So for 48 out of 50 years any reader should have had no trouble finding a Spider-Man book starring Pater Parker.

I think he means the new ongoing series, as opposed to back issues.

49 issues seems like too much. (Is it back to once a month?)

But they'll certainly want to put out Amazing Spider-Man #750, I would think.

Superior doesn't start until January, so for now, there are 3 series being published that feature Peter Parker.

Amazing Spider-Man
Ultimate Spider-Man (Based on the Disney XD cartoon)
Avenging Spider-Man

Once Superior starts:
Ultimate Spider-Man will still be around.

We're speculating that, in the main Spider-man title that comes out, Peter Parker won't be Spider-man for a year. Kind of like the way Steve Rogers was not Captain America for two years, and Bruce Wayne was not Batman for two years.

I don't like it when they do that. It's a lazy trick to stretch things out and try to get a lot of mileage out of a single idea. A stunt.

So you can try to mathematically prove that Peter Parker is somewhere to be found -- my issue, my problem, my objection, is there being a Spider-man running around that is not Peter Parker. Because to me, Spider-man is Peter Parker, Captain America is Steve Rogers, and Batman is Bruce Wayne. And I want any young new readers that come along to find that as well.

So the person who originated the role should never be replaced? Ok. Let's get rid of those usurpers Hal Jordan, Barry Allen, Ray Palmer, Johnny Storm, and many other Silver or Bronze Age characters that have replaced the original.

There aren't any "young new readers". Problem solved.

There's a new Spider-Man?

I thought...

No, now he's...

Replaced is not the same thing as what's happening here. If they reboot the character, with a new secret identity, then I will judge that work on its own merits -- a new, permanent character. I doubt I would like them to permanently replace Peter Parker, myself. You might like it.

But the "stunt" is that it is not permanent, it is temporary, and they drag it out for too long. Notice in my original post I said "I'm tired of the pattern where they make the "real" hero go away for a long time and have an imposter fill-in." In this context, "imposter" means that it is not the real superhero, and that they will revert back. I would prefer they tell the story in 3 to 5 issues, and wrap it up. But to tread water for 2 years, as I feel they did with Steve Rogers and Bruce Wayne, is more like an "event" or a "stunt." And it sacrifices the character for 2 years when I think they should be focusing on new readers with the iconic character.

To me, its' like they sit around a conference room table and figure out how to fill up 50 issues, and come up with a big "event" for 700, and another for 750. The big event for 700 is the "new" Spider-man, and the big event for 750 is the return of Peter Parker. And then we get a bunch of filler for 50 issues.

If there isn't one of those, there should be.

Right.

What's the difference? These comics are pretty impenetrable, anyway.