Ep. #7: The Seventh Age of Spider-Man

 Posted: 8 May 2022
 Staff: Al Sjoerdsma (E-Mail)
 Staff: The Editor (E-Mail)

Al Sjoerdsma and Jonathan Couper-Smartt conclude their journey through the "Ages of Spider-Man". Our progress so far:

The First Age
The Ditko Age
Amazing Fantasy #15Amazing Spider-Man #38
Aug 1962 - Jul 1966 (4 years)
The Second Age
The Stan Lee Age
Amazing Spider-Man #39Amazing Spider-Man #150
Aug 1966 - Nov 1975 (9 years)
The Third Age
The Experimental Age
Amazing Spider-Man #151Amazing Spider-Man #251
Dec 1975 - Apr 1984 (9.5 years)
The Fourth Age
The Black Costume Age
Secret Wars #1Amazing Spider-Man #299
May 1984 - Apr 1988 (4 years)
The Fifth Age
The Superficial Age
Amazing Spider-Man #300Web of Spider-Man #116
May 1988 - Sep 1994 (6.5 years)
The Sixth Age
The Age of Undoing
Web of Spider-Man #117Amazing Spider-Man #545
Oct 1994 - Nov 2007 (13 years)

Last episode we settled the "Sixth Age of Spider-Man" to be "The Age of Undoing", in which Marvel tried time and time again to return Spider-Man to his younger, unmarried, former self – eventually performing a drastic deal-with-the-devil to give us a Brand New Day.

[Theme Song - "Blues in C minor"]

Jonathan: Hi Spider-Fans, and welcome to Episode Seven – "The Seventh Age of Spider-Man." on the Spider-Fan podcast. With me I have Al Sjoerdsmaa. Hi Al!

Al: Hey Jonathan, how are you doin'?

Jonathan: I'm going good. I'm glad you could be with me as we work through what could very well be our last age.

Now, just to recap. Age one was the Ditko Age. Age two the Stan Lee. Age three, Experimental Age. Then the Black Costume Age, the Superficial Age, and The Age of Undoing. Which finally ended with the undoing of Spider-Man's marriage, and his reset to... a young... mmm... not a teenager. But a young man in his twenties. Free in New York to do whatever he wanted.

What was "Whatever Disney wanted."

Al: Ha, ha, ha. Well, yeah, I guess so. And what does Disney want?

Jonathan: Well... you know. This is the thing that makes this age interesting, and different, is... that Disney... is not Marvel.

Marvel... I, I don't think they ever really knew what they wanted.

They... in the beginning just wanted to do what everybody else was doing. Sell a few comics and move on. They never thought that any particular character would last more than a year or two. And once Marvel were successful, in the 60's and the 70's I don't think they ever really figured out what that meant – how did you turn that into long-term profit.

Al: Yes, yeah.

Jonathan: They hired writers that did... different things... and they... they threw a lot of things at the wall, to see what would stick.

But... you know they never managed to turn it into movies, effectively, in the days before Disney came along.

Al: Right, but you had, I think, more creative freedom.

Obviously during Stan and um, and Steve's time. Or Stan and John's time, Stan could pretty much do what he wanted to do.

Jonathan: Mmm.

Al: And even after that... I mean something like making the decision to kill off Gwen Stacy, was (uh) a major decision at the time that... I'm not sure you could get away with now.

They had a lot more leeway. There was als-, often times when things went sort of haywire. You know, or the writers weren't up to it. But there was less (uh) editorial interference, I think, back then.

Jonathan: Yes.

Al: And now I think there's plenty.

Jonathan: There's nothing but editorial interference, really left.

Al: Yes.

Jonathan: And the editorial interference even in the 90's where... comics were booming, and there was the smell of easy money in the air. Really they only cared about next month's sales, you know. And was this month's comic going to sell more than last month's comics.

Al: Right, right.

Jonathan: And I think Disney has a completely different attitude. Disney saw the big picture. Disney... is bigger than the comics as well, you know they really did care about the movies and the marketing. The toys, the tie-ins, that Marvel never really got right. Marvel frittered away all of those marketing opportunities.

They gave away the movie rights for next to nothing. They gave away the figure rights, and the sticker rights. They never got their act together at all in terms of cashing-in on Spider-Man and all his buddies.

Al: Yeah, that's true. And of course now, um, with all the movies and everything else. As you mentioned you've got the Disney Juggernaut which knows how to cash in on all these things.

Jonathan: Mmm. Mm-mm. And they know how to make the writers behave. You know, you'd read these stories about Jim Shooter, and him... and even back in the days of Stan, trying to deal with these late deadlines. These creative types who just would fight the system and would try to sneak stuff through and wouldn't make their dates on time.

And Disney has no tolerance for any of that.

Al: Right.

Jonathan: It is far, far bigger than any individual creator ever was.

Al: Yes. Yeah. All of which to some extent brings us up to today...

Jonathan: Well, that's the ground we need to cover, because our job is to separate the ages of Spider-Man.

It sounds like that you are in line with my position that I haven't put on the table yet. But my feeling is that since Disney took over, their consistency and their structure and their steady-handedness means that even though we've had major, major changes in terms of the story-line, like Doctor Octopus taking over and becoming the Superior Spider-Man,

Al: Right.

Jonathan: Because that is so well-managed, they can make a big change but they never let it get out of hand. They always have it operating within these careful bounds, to make sure that no permanent damage is done to the character, and the big picture is always respected.

Al: Well, I have a couple of quotes that I want to throw out there.

Jonathan: Hit me!

Al: One of which is an old quote, it's from 2004. It's a old issue of Back Issue Magazine. I was reading this old issue with this conversation with John Byrne. And John Byrne said in 2004.

Spider-Man hasn't been Spider-Man for 25 years.

So he's going back to 1980 with that quote.

Now, I realise that it's sort of amusing to have John Byrne, who wrote and drew Spider-Man: Chapter One, complain about how Spider-Man hasn't been Spider-Man.

But it's an interesting question: "What makes Spider-Man, Spider-Man?" and is it true that Spider-Man is no longer Spider-Man?

The other quote is from the American Comic Book Chronicles, the 1990's one. And it's from when DC comics decided to do the Batman story "No Man's Land". And Denny O'Neil was the editor at the time, and the quote from Denny O'Neil is, when he was faced with the possibility of doing this story, he said:

It's a story that has never been told as far as I know — certainly not in comics — that's always a reason to do something.

And so my question with that is... "Is that always a reason to do something?"

Jonathan: We didn't really want to stray into this area, because I've always thought that this is a separate discussion. But at some stage we should sit down and talk about "Why are comics?" "Why is Spider-Man?" And some of the bigger questions as well, you know, "Is Spider-Man any good?" "Was Spider-Man ever any good?" "Is he any good now?"

"What are these stories for? Who are they for, any why should be reading them?"

Al: Yes. But "Is Spider-Man Spider-Man?"... part of that question is... "For Spider-Man to be Spider-Man, does Spider-Man have to be single?" "For Spider-Man to be Spider-Man, should be be a teenager, as he's now become in the movies?"

Jonathan: Mmm.

Al: The other question of, if that's always a reason to do something because it's never been done before, that is certainly true of The Superior Spider-Man. But is it really something worth doing?

Jonathan: Hm, hm, hm. I need to put my cards on the table for the listeners here who might not know, but... I no longer collect Spider-Man since 2015, because I believe that Spider-Man really isn't Spider-Man any more. I think I wouldn't be quite as bold as to say that he hasn't been Spider-Man since 1980. But I certainly think that he hasn't been Spider-Man for quite some time.

Because within this world of Spider-Man, there's only really a certain number of stories you can tell before you start repeating yourself. And we're obviously long past that point.

Sitting down and writing a Spider-Man story, a writer these days is constrained by these two terrible things. He's constrained by the definition of everything that's gone before, and he's constrained by his editorial, marketing limitations. And within that he has to try and find — as you say — a story which has not been told before.

And quite often I think they fail. Because if you try and create something new, you run this incredible risk of not being Spider-Man. You try and create these new villains, or these new situations, and the fans hate it. They say "No! Give us Spider-Man, give us the classic stuff!"

And so then you give them the classic stuff, and the say "Aahh... that's all been done before. Give us something new!

Al: Yeah.

Jonathan: Anything that goes on for a certain amount of time, eventually fills the space that it occupies. And then it refills it. And for a lot of new fans, that's fine, because they haven't read these old stories. But for fans like us who've been following for 40 years... I eventually got to the point where I'm tired of seeing the same stuff repeated, or seeing these attempts to do things which to my mind are not Spider-Man.

Al: That's the question. When you do something like "Superior Spider-Man", is that Spider-Man? And I actually enjoyed Superior Spider-Man quite a bit. Just throwing that out there.

Jonathan: Mmm... I did too. I did too.

Al: When we decided we were going to do this "Seventh Age", my confession is... I could remember almost nothing about what is happened, from like, 2008 to the present.

Jonathan: Heh, heh, heh.

Al: Now, part of that might be my age. Part of that might be I've just been reading Spider-Man so long that it all sort of blends together. But some of it may just be... what was being done.

Jonathan: Well, I'm going to say that there's one more thing to blame in there, and that is the "Events".

Because these Events that used to be occasional things, that are now annual things, that are now annual things that start six months before the actual event, with a pre-Event.

So, when it's Fear Itself, or the invasion of Olympus, or Axis. These events that come in from outside of Spider-Man, they are so big now that they dominate the character for nearly eight months of the year, and leave no room for "Spider-Man." There is just "Spider-Man as part of this Event". There's no "Spider-Man" left. There's no room for him to be "Spider-Man" in. What is actually happening with Spidey gets subjugated.

Al: So that comes out of "Editorial", and it comes out of this whole Group... this whole Group-Think that takes place these days. So that we get back to where we're leading off, which is after One More Day. And the first thing that happens with Brand New Day is... you have group of writers.

Jonathan: Mmm.

Al: You don't have a single writer. You have like, this "room" of writers. And they're all sort of alternating, taking turns...

Jonathan: They rotate.

Al: ...rotating. So all of a sudden you no longer have a single writer's vision.

Now, that got dropped off after a while (and) you had Dan Slott with his single writer's vision. But for quite a while, you had this group or guys.

Jonathan: Mmm.

Al: And that's really the way I think they would prefer to do it these days. They don't really want the single writer's vision.

In fact we're back to that right now, after Nick Spencer's run... which also brings up another aspect of editorial. Because his last issue was a huge disappointment in my opinion.

And my suspicion is that he didn't get to do what he wanted to do, that he was shut down by Editorial.

Whether that's true or not, what you have going on now is, you have a group of writers again. And to me that's... that's always the wrong way to go about it.

But that's what we started with... back with Brand New Day. And I went through some of the stuff because I couldn't remember anything!

I... uh... was reminded that there were characters like The Freak, and Paper Doll, and Menace. D'you remember Menace? Menace was a Big Deal!

Jonathan: Mmm.

Al: You know. I'd totally forgotten Menace. Menace was gone from my mind. That says something about what these issues are presenting.

Jonathan: Well, the problem is... nothing artistically great was ever designed by committee.

Al: Exactly.

Jonathan: Any committee process always tends towards the centre and tends towards compromise. So you can always give something that is good to entertain the kids. And you can re-cycle as Marvel under Disney has very effectively done. As you've said, they've taken him back in the movies to be a teenager, and they've not so much re-invented him as re-presented him from scratch.

And they've done a great job. You know, Tom Holland, I love.

Al: Yeah, they have.

Jonathan: But... you know, at some stage, my feeling is that... as an adult reader... I kinda feel done. You know. I kind of feel complete these days.

I have seen pretty much every good, or bad, Spider-Man story come out of the door. And I feel like I'm saturated with Spidey.

After 60 years.

Al: Hah, hah, hah, hah. After 60 years of Spidey, not 60 years of you!

Jonathan: Well, yeah... yeah.

Al: Yeah. So that is the question. "Has everything been done. Or has everything been done that should be done?"

Again, I was looking through some of this stuff that were the things that were going on, during the period of time that we're talking about — which I again had completely forgotten about.

You had J. Jameson — J. Jonah Jameson's father showed up. And he married Aunt May.

Jonathan: Oh yeah! Oh, goodness gracious yes!

Al: Heh, heh, heh.

Jonathan: Oh, can't believe I forgot that!

Al: Yeah! But then I think they killed him off!

So that was one of those situations where, it was something that hadn't been done before. Sort of. I mean, Aunt May has had boyfriends before and so on. And they... they usually die, now that I think about it.

Jonathan: Well, except for Doctor Octopus.

Al: Yeah, right. Exactly.

Norman Osborn... was... I don't even know what he was the head of. I don't remember. He was the head of some organisation, where he had his own Avengers?

Jonathan: Yeah.

Al: Peter at a certain point worked for Horizon Labs. He later had his own company, Parker Industries.

Jonathan: Does he not still have that?

Al: No, he does not.

Jonathan: Ah, OK.

Al: I'd forgotten all of this stuff. You would think that these are big, significant things that you would remember.

Jonathan: Well that's 'cos we're old, and our brains are full of all the good "Classic" Spider-Man stuff. And this new regurgitation just doesn't make an impact any more.

Al: Yeah. It could be. I'm... you know. And then some of the other stories are Spider-Island, where like, everybody was turning into a spider.

Jonathan: Yeah.

Al: And all of the Spider-Verse stuff.

Jonathan: Well, we did get great movies out of Spider-Verse. But I digress, because we're talking about the comics books here.

OK, so we've agreed that the stories were pretty forgettable. What about the villains? Did we get anything new, ground-breaking, or is it just regurgitating, and recycling the same old classic characters.

Al: It's a natural state of affairs in comics – because comics are not going to stop – that villains are used, and re-used and re-used. So that they become insignificant. And there are some villains that should never be used more than once. You know, they're part of the perfect story.

And I think a great example of that is Morlun. From J. Michael Straczynski's first story.

Jonathan: Yes.

Al: The fact that they've ever brought him back. And then... brought in his family, or whatever it was with Spider-Verse, was a large mistake, to me.

Jonathan: Well that's... that's the rule. If anything's worth doing in comics, it's worth overdoing.

Al: Exactly.

Jonathan: The thing about the 60's is... is it was hugely creative. The comics that came out — Spider-Man, the Avengers, the X-Men, the Fantastic Four — they all came along and in nearly ever case they replaced something that had gone before.

The heroes of the 40's and the 50's (with a few exceptions like Captain America who got resurrected), they disappeared — you know, "The Spider" and "The Phantom" and so on. They sank and their time was over and they moved aside.

But that hasn't happened in any of the subsequent generations. In the years that followed, Spider-Man just grew and kept sitting in that place... taking up that space, and prohibiting other things from coming in and replacing him in a lot of cases.

The cycle of "artistic ideas", their time coming to an end, and being replaced by something else in a natural process. Of... "new generations"... seems to have broken down now.

Al: That is a really good point.

There are certainly new things now. And there are certainly writers and artists out there doing their own thing in comics.

Jonathan: And in other popular culture. You know "Squid Game", and "Stranger Things" and so on. There is still space for new things.

Al: Right. You can look at something like Robert Kirkman, who created "Walking Dead". He has dispensed with doing the Walking Dead comic. He's dispensed with doing his Invincible comic. He's doing new comics.

Jonathan: Right.

Al: You know, he's said everything he wanted to say about those things, he's moved onto other htings.

Jonathan: Yeah. Game of Thrones. Oh, OK. Bad example 'cos it crashed and burned. But... did its' thing and then it moved on.

Al: Yeah.

Jonathan: Spider-Man, and all of the Marvel comics, just refuses to move on.

Al: Right, exactly. So you still have new characters that crop up. You still occasionally have new series with new characters. But for the most part, the monoliths are there. And they're going to stay there for both Marvel and DC.

You know, you're not gonna get rid of Spider-Man, you're not gonna get rid of the Hulk. You may do different things with them, but they're gonna be there. You're not gonna get rid of Superman, you're not gonna get rid of Batman.

Jonathan: Mmm.

Al: And it's true, actually, it's interesting. Because it's not just comics. For instance, popular music.

There's still new music coming out. There's still new performers. But it many ways is still dominated by what went on in the 60's and 70's.

When we were listening to rock music in the 60's and 70's... the thought of listening to something that our parents listened to... you know, something from the 40's for instance, just seemed ancient. But it was only 20, 30 years before.

Now we're looking at stuff that was done 50, 60 years before, and it's still out there. You know, it's not the current music obviously, but it's still out there for all to hear.

Jonathan: Well that's exactly it. If you go to a bar, you're going to hear Creedence Clearwater Revival.

Al: Yeah, right. You know, and I love that stuff. I'm not dumping on that stuff. It's just that feeling of... time standing still with a lot of things that have become, like, the big popular culture things.

Jonathan: And they just... they just won't move on.

Al: Yeah... and I think... and I think...

Jonathan: [Interrupts] Star Trek! Star Trek and Star Wars...

Al: Yeah. Star Wars at this point is 50 years old... 45 years old.

Jonathan: You've got to give credit to Disney, because-se... Disney clearly has spotted the things that either are lasting, or they feel they can make them last. And they gone out and said "Right, we'll take that, we'll take that."

And now it feels like Disney owns a huge percent of our permanent popular culture.

Al: Yeah, exactly. So what Disney's doing with the Marvel characters, or you know, what Marvel Studios is doing via Disney, I think is terrific. I go to all those movies. And I think the Spider-Man movies are, have been terrific. I'm all-for having a young Peter, back at high school.

Jonathan: But at this point we have to separate what's happening with the movies, versus what's happening with the comics.

Al: Yes.

Jonathan: Because it feels like the movies have been... reset. You can sit down and watch the movies, without needing to have a doctorate in "the back history". It starts again from scratch, it's very accessible for a younger generation. Whereas the comics books that's not necessarily the same thing, is it?

Al: Right. You know, I have a friend who is a comic shop owner, and he has complained in the past about how... the different movies will bring people into his shop. And then when they read the comic that they think is the movie... it's not the same thing.

Jonathan: Mm.

Al: For instance, at this moment once again... Ben Reilly is Spider-Man.

If people go to that movie and say "Hey I wanna read some Spider-Man comics," and they go and by the latest issue of Amazing... they're not even seeing Peter Parker as Spider-Man.

So... there's a disconnect.

And part of that disconnect, I think is because, that the comic companies have sort of accepted that the readers at this point are adults, and are long-time readers. People who have been around for, as like we have, that are interested in the continuity.

Jonathan: So there are two Spider-Man at the moment. There's the Spider-Man of the comics, and the Spider-Man of... pretty much everything else.

Al: Right. Yes.

Jonathan: SO!

Al: I don't know where this all leads us... heh, heh, heh.

Jonathan: We set out to define the "Ages of Spider-Man". But we never really set out our ground work down very clearly as to which Spider-Man we were measuring the ages of.

Al: Yes.

Jonathan: Can we uh... can we make a decision now, and...

Al: Well, I think we've always sort of assumed... since we started with Stan and Steve that we were dealing with the Spider-Man of the comics.

Jonathan: OK.

Al: But again... "Is Spider-Man still Spider-Man?" Uh... is Spider-Man in the comics still Spider-Man?

Jonathan: Well, he's not for me. I... I made that decision quite some time ago — that I had...

Al: Yeah.

Jonathan: You know, I could sit down and re-read my entire Spider-Man collection. It would probably take me... the best part of ten years at this point.

Al: Right, exactly.

Jonathan: I've got enough Spider-Man. I... I don't need any more Spider-Man.

Al: I think if you looked at what John Byrne was going for.. is very much like what Spider-Man is in the movies now.

Jonathan: Yes. The... I think the Spider-Man of the movies is a better, more relevant Spider-Man than the Spider-Man of todays' comics.

Al: Right. So you had, you had as we talked about before. You had a development of a character who was around for many, many years and was slowly progressing through life. Very slowly.

So that he ended up getting married. Mary Jane got pregnant. And then they threw that all away.

So... at this point... maybe the comics should be rebooted back to a high-school Peter? They've done that with some of the comics.

Jonathan: Why... why... why? You know, I think the comics should be cancelled.

Al: Ah, hah, haaa!

Jonathan: Because... why go back and just do it again?

I mean, obviously the reason why is to make money.

Al: Yes.

Jonathan: But, from an artistic point of view, there is absolutely zero reason to go back and do it again.

Do something else, for goodness' sake! Do something creative! You know, ground-breaking strategy here.

Al: Yeah. And actually they have go back and done it again. That's what Ultimate Spider-Man was, to begin with, was going back and doing it again.

Jonathan: Yeah. That's been done once, right?

Al: Yeah.

Jonathan: Why go back and re-invent him for the third time?

Al: And there is other comics that I think are actually geared towards kids, because the main tiles are no longer geared towards kids, where I think Spider-Man has gone back to being rebooted to being like a teenager and so on.

Jonathan: So, talking about the comics by itself then.

Al: Yeah.

Jonathan: We seem to be in agreement that the comics have come to the end of their story.

And now they are either becoming something else, sometimes... although as soon as they attempt to do that, they get reined in, just at the last mile, before they manage to make that structural change that the writers are trying to do.

Al: Right.

Jonathan: Or else they are just repeating themselves and re-inventing themselves. Not even necessarily re-inventing themselves. They're just having another bite at the "Spider-Man cherry" which is really nothing but dried-up pip by this point.

Al: Hah, hah, hah. WELL! What more needs to be said? Heh, heh, heh.

Jonathan: So. So what... what... is... is this the Age...?

Al: This is the Age of DESICCATED PIP!

Jonathan: Heh. This is... this is. I was going to say it's the Age of Well-Managed, it's the Well-Managed Age, was my original thing. It's the Commercial, the Corporate Age.

Marvel wasn't really a corporate before. I mean, it was, you know they tried with the junk bonds and did all the corporate games. But they never really were a properly coordinated, managed corporate.

But now, in these days, they're just a machine. They're a sausage factory that churns out a couple of different products.

Very high quality sausages!

Al: Yes, and I still read a number of the books, and I still enjoy them — even though ultimately I know they're not really going to go anywhere. So, issue by issue, I'm fine. You know, I'll take them as they come.

But if you look at it overall, as we're trying to do, then... Yes. I think to a great extent, everything that really should have been done with the character has been done, and Spider-Man isn't really Spider-Man.

Jonathan: This feels like... Spider-Man... he's not dead yet. He hasn't been cancelled. He's in this place where he's still going and stories are happening. But he's inside the box where as soon as the writers try to anything that goes outside of what the marketing team says is permissible, he's shut down.

So he's effectively come to an end. This is the Final Age because he's not going to be allowed to do anything more that matters, past this point — certainly not if it damages the movies, or the figures, or the toys, or the cartoons.

Al: Yeah, I think that's true. Issue-by-issue, I enjoy reading it. And you can carry on with a certain level of continuity. But there is sort of this feeling that, nothing's really going to go anywhere, ultimately.

Maybe that's always been true. But it really hasn't had that feeling in the past, I think.

Jonathan: No.

Al: I think when they reset with One More Day — where is where we're beginning this age —

Jonathan: ...that was the final reset...

Al: that... that was it. Where they said: "OK we allowed him to, to develop as an adult, with a wife. But now... No."

"He's got to go back to a single life, and then... you know, we may... we may throw him into working for Horizon Labs, or he may have his own company for a while. But none of this is gonna stick. 'Cos he's not ultimately going to progress."

So maybe this is the "No-Stick Age?"

Jonathan: [pause] Well, that's as un-catchy a name as I've heard in a very long time.

I'm gonna suggest that we just go with... "The Final Age."

Al: Alright. That's fine with me.

Jonathan: It's... the... well... it's... well... maybe that's doesn't capture the open-endedness of it.

Al: No, it'll never end.

Jonathan: So this isn't the end of the comics. But we do agree then that... the days of structural development for Peter Parker / Spider-Man pretty much seem to be over.

Al: Maybe I'm just influenced by what happened in the recent comics. Because there certainly seemed to be the goal of Nick Spencer in the recent comics to eliminate One More Day and bring back the marriage. And it certainly seemed like that's the way it was heading.

The character of Kindred was talking about a "sin" that Peter had committed, which sure seemed to indicate the sin of making a deal with Mephisto. And then Mephisto was actually appearing in the comic, hanging out with Doctor Strange.

So it sure seemed like that's where it was all going. And then, it didn't.

Jonathan: Right.

Al: And that to me was... this is definitely where the writer was going... and then he got shut down. So...

Jonathan: OK, so. So Spider-Man is not allowed to "die". But he's not allowed to live and grow and change any more, so.. OK Al, how about this. This is "The Interminable Age".

Al: Hah, hah, hah! Oh yeah, I like it!

I like it. Let's go with that.

Jonathan: It's just the age of drivelling on... much like this podcast. But! Unlike Marvel, we know where to stop.

Al: Unlike Marvel, we're going to end!

Jonathan: This is the final of these ages of Spider-Man. The Seventh Age of Spider-Man is "The Interminable Age", it begins with Brand New Day, and it ends when Marvel ever finally grows a pair and pulls the plug on the comic book.

Al: ...which means "never".

Jonathan: Which means almost never.

But we'll be back, goodness knows when, with a new series of podcasts. I'm thinking we might pick out some of the great runs, some of the classic Spider-Man runs, and maybe we'll see if some of the other guys on the staff, some of the other fans want to come and join us and talk about their favourite stories as well.

Maybe you and I can kick things off. I'm sure you've got a favourite series of Spider-Man stories.

Al: Oh, I definitely do.

Jonathan: Yeah, I could probably dig one up as well I think. Ah... I can get excited about that old Spidey stuff. There's a little life left in me.

Al: Heh, heh, heh.

Jonathan: Unlike Spider-Man.

Al: Well, that's good to hear.

Jonathan: Alright man, so that's it. The Seventh Age of Spider-Man is the Interminable Age, and we're wrapping things up!

Thanks, Al!

Al: You're welcome Jonathan. Any time.

The Seventh Age
The Interminable Age
Amazing Spider-Man #546
Feb 2008 - ...
 Posted: 8 May 2022
 Staff: Al Sjoerdsma (E-Mail)
 Staff: The Editor (E-Mail)