How Come Spider-Man Doesn't Have A Sidekick?

[Manga Shoggoth]

(For those of you born in this millennium, the 80s was a wondrous time where we didn't have computers but we did have black jeans, poofy hair, and otherwise fluorescent clothing.)

But we did have computers! The ZX80 and ZX81 came out in 1980 and 1981, and they were hardly the first computers, home or otherwise. We also had rainbow braces, which makes up for it a little bit.

[The Glyphstone]

The 2020 Spider-Man video game has Miles Morales being mentored by Peter Parker, so that's something at least.

[Ramza00]

But we did have computers! The ZX80 and ZX81 came out in 1980 and 1981, and they were hardly the first computers, home or otherwise. We also had rainbow braces, which makes up for it a little bit.

1971 Oregon Trail board game (but not published) created by a history teacher. Friends of the creator said this would make a great computer game and the computer can keep track of the book keeping and randomness. A few weeks later there was a video game version running on computers.
1974 a newer updated video game version.
1978 source code was shared on purpose.
1982 the Atari console port.
1984 the Apple II version in which the game now has colored graphics and is not just text.

Some people would argue this experience was so formative for children born in the mid 70s to early 80s that there was a transitional micro generation between Gen Xers and Millenials. They have traits of both groups but also separate experiences where they were born in the analog world, we see the first computers when they were children prior to teenage years and during their teenage years we see the transition from analog to digital yet prior to the World Wide Web becoming popular / mainstream. The “Oregon Trail micro generation.”

[Psyren]

Those both sound like interesting side stories/versions of the character. Given that we now have a whole Spider-Verse, it is too bad we haven't seen more of those specific versions.

I view those more as gags with very limited shelf-life.

[Willie the Duck]

1971 Oregon Trail board game (but not published) created by a history teacher. Friends of the creator said this would make a great computer game and the computer can keep track of the book keeping and randomness. A few weeks later there was a video game version running on computers.
1974 a newer updated video game version.
1978 source code was shared on purpose.
1982 the Atari console port.
1984 the Apple II version in which the game now has colored graphics and is not just text.

Some people would argue this experience was so formative for children born in the mid 70s to early 80s that there was a transitional micro generation between Gen Xers and Millenials. They have traits of both groups but also separate experiences where they were born in the analog world, we see the first computers when they were children prior to teenage years and during their teenage years we see the transition from analog to digital yet prior to the World Wide Web becoming popular / mainstream. The “Oregon Trail micro generation.”

Minnesotan born to that demographic here. One of the Oregon Trail creators (so Don Rawitsch, Bill Heinemann, or Paul Dillenberger. Sadly do not remember which) came to my middle school and told the story of how that game came about. Definitely kick-started plenty of my cohort to start taking programming classes.

I view those more as gags with very limited shelf-life.

Oh, to be sure there's not many places to take it. What I'm saying is that having multi-verses (and specifically a 'spider verse' since I'm assuming they will want to do a sequel to that film, given the reception) is that you can drop said characters into a multi-SpideMan scrum and have fun with where-ever that takes you. They did that once with Wolverine in Marvel Exiles -- taking a bunch of different fan favorite (and not-so-favorite) versions of Wolverine and putting them all on a bizarre fetch quest to stop a Wolverine-Mesmero hybrid from taking control of hundreds of different wolverines from across the multiverse (including some visually interesting things, like hulk-wolverine and thing-wolverine). It... was really fun for a one-off thing.

[Precure]

At some point In 2000s he himself became Iron Man's sidekick.

[Rater202]

At some point In 2000s he himself became Iron Man's sidekick.

I mean, not really.

First, he was the New Avengers "science guy" and then Civil War happened and Tony essentially emotionally manipulated Peter into becoming a figurehead for the pro-registration side.

Which directly lead to One More Day.

Then Peter realized that Tony was the bad guy and switched to Cap's team.

That's not really a sidekick.

[dps]

I'm far from an expert on the subject, but to my knowledge, aside from the gods-know-how-many Robins (and Batgirls, if they count, not sure on those), I don't think there's actually all that many sidekicks out there - at least not of any note. Kid Flash, Aqualad, Speedy, Bucky... and pretty much after that you're starting to get into obscure territory.

Best as I can tell, most of the DC Golden Age superheroes did in fact have sidekicks, but most of those Golden Age superheroes are themselves obscure nowadays.

[TeChameleon]

True, although the Golden Age sidekick situation could get very strange- as an example, for a period of time, the Golden Age Green Lantern, Alan Scott, was himself a sidekick. To a dog named Streak. The Flash (version 1.0, Jay Garrick) had a trio of sidekicks, three tramps named Winky, Blinky and Nod, collectively known as 'The Three Dimwits', who also somehow were high-tech inventors..? And Wonder Woman had Etta Candy (who has since reappeared in the rebooted universes as a member of the military, for whatever reason) who was a short, plump college girl with an obsession for candy (subtle, the Golden Age wasn't) and who kicked a surprising amount of ass for an overweight four-foot(-ish) (probably-)teenager. Plastic Man had his buddy Woozy Winks, a short, fat guy who occasionally came up with some good ideas and otherwise provided comic relief and someone for Plas to talk to. The Star-Spangled Kid flipped the script a bit, with the kid being, well, a kid, and an adult sidekick named Stripesy, who was just a big guy in a striped shirt while the Kid had actual powers.

... honestly, looking at it, the 'little-boy-reader-identification-conduit-sidekick' was a relatively late innovation- many, if not most, of the pre-Robin sidekicks were adults who served as comic relief and to save the hero from having to talk to themselves all the time.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Red Sonja and Kulan Gath are examples of how not being careful with this kind of thing can bite you in the ass.

Marvel had the license to publish comics about Conan the Barbarian—In fact, Marvel's Conan comics are as important as Howard's original stories when it comes to the popular conception of what "Conan" is and is what "coined" Conan The Barbarian as his official title.

Red Sonja and Kulan Gath are Marvel original characters created as a side character and a recurring villain, respectively, in Marel's Conan comics before spinning off—Red Sonja to her own title and Gath became more her villain than Conan's. But because they first appeared in the Conan title, Marvel lost the rights to them when their license for Conan expired.

Marvel has the rights to Conan back and the rights to Kulan Gath now... But Red Sonja is still owned by a company that did not create her.

It's particularly awkward because Marvel depicted their Conan stories as taking place in the ancient past of the Earth 616 setting(And some elements from Conan ended up permanently part of Marvel lore), and Mary-Jane Watson, Spider-Man's romantic partner, is explicitly Red Sonja reincarnated—she's twice been possessed by Sonja's memories

...Marvel lost the rights to Red Sonja when their license expired because Marvel did not create Red Sonja, she already existed in Howard's works (a Ukranian riflewoman). Marvel took the name, and trademark, and turned her into a Conan character but she is still very much not Marvel's invention. Just the chainmail bikini wearing, axe wielding version of her.

And I would point out that the movie, Conan the Barbarian, has far more to do with people's conceptions of what Conan is (along with the original stories) than Marvel comics. Most notably because Conan bounces around from comic company to comic company and it would be difficult to pin down exactly WHICH comic book company made Conan comic-famous.

[Scarlet Knight]

...
And I would point out that the movie, Conan the Barbarian, has far more to do with people's conceptions of what Conan is (along with the original stories) than Marvel comics...

I would submit Frank Frazetta did more than either...

[Rater202]

...Marvel lost the rights to Red Sonja when their license expired because Marvel did not create Red Sonja, she already existed in Howard's works (a Ukranian riflewoman). Marvel took the name, and trademark, and turned her into a Conan character but she is still very muh not Marvel's invention.

And I would point out that the movie, Conan the Barbarian, has far more to do with people's conceptions of what Conan is (along with the original stories) than Marvel comics. Most notably because Conan bounces around from comic company to comic company and it would be difficult to pin down exactly WHICH comic book company made Conan comic-famous.

1: Red Sonja is based on the similarly named Ukrainian character, she is considered to be distinct enough to be a legally distinct character. Marvel lost the rights to her becuase she appeared in a Conan comic prior to getting her own series. Legally, that's the reason.

2: Marvel published Conan comics from 1970 to 2000.

For three entire decades, Marvel was the go-to for Conan stories that weren't the original Howard stories.

Marvel also popularized the title: Conan the Barbarian was used exactly once in a collection of Howard's short stories. Then Marvel got the license to publish comics about Conan and titled them Conan The Barbarian.

You think of Conan as "The Barbarian" and not "The Cimmerian" or "The Adventurer" or "The Conquerer" or any of the dozens of names and titles he's had over the years becuase of Marvel comics.

Arguably, the Movie was influenced by the comics: Thulsa Doom was the villain of the Movie... But had no connection to Conan whatsoever, appearing in stories of one of Howard's other heroes, prior to that movie and his depiction appears to be more similar to Marvel's depiction of Thoth-Amon than to any other depiction of Thulsa Doom in any media before that film.

[Peelee]

1: Red Sonja is based on the similarly named Ukrainian character, she is considered to be distinct enough to be a legally distinct character.

Is she? It sure sounds like Red Sonja, LLC. admitted that Red Sonja was not too distinct from Red Sonya to be a distinct entity by paying for the rights to Red Sonya:

On June 6, 2006, the comic news site Newsarama reported that Red Sonja, LLC (which holds rights to the Roy Thomas version of the character, created in 1973)[37] filed a lawsuit on four counts against Paradox Entertainment (which claims rights to Red Sonya as part of the Howard library) in US Federal Court in April 2006. The four counts were claims of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition.[38] The lawsuit was settled in January 2008, on the second day of the hearing, for a sum of $1 each. Red Sonja LLC paid $1 to Paradox for the rights to Howard's Red Sonya and permission for the Red Sonja stories to continue being set in Conan's Hyborian Age. Paradox simultaneously paid $1 to Red Sonja LLC for the exclusive print-publication rights for "The Shadow of the Vulture" now that one of the characters belongs to Red Sonja LLC.[39]

[Rater202]

Is she? It sure sounds like Red Sonja, LLC. admitted that Red Sonja was not too distinct from Red Sonya to be a distinct entity by paying for the rights to Red Sonya:

That happened after the rights were lost though.

And honestly, that seems more like a case of corporations and companies getting up to squirrely business and then backing down when they find something more profitable by not by not being jerkweasles.

Red Sonja was a legally distinct character from Red Sonya in the early 2000s when Marvel lost the rights.

What happened was that the specific license Marvel had for Howard's works had a clause that meant that any original characters who first appeared in a title centered around a Howard character would revert to the Howard Estate when the license expired.

This is also why Marvel made no references to the immortal, time-traveling Sorcerer Kulan Gath, except during the intercompany crossover Spider-Man/Red Sonja which was co-published with the new owners of the Sonya IP, for almost 20 years until they got the Conan license back.

[Peelee]

That happened after the rights were lost though.

...and? This is a civil issue, it's only going to get called into question when challenged. And, when challenged, the owners of Red Sonja elected to pay the owners of Red Sonya for the rights.

And honestly, that seems more like a case of corporations and companies getting up to squirrely business and then backing down when they find something more profitable by not by not being jerkweasles.

CRed Sonja was a legally distinct character from Red Sonya in the early 2000s when Marvel lost the rights.

Same answer as above.

What happened was that the specific license Marvel had for Howard's works had a clause that meant that any original characters who first appeared in a title centered around a Howard character would revert to the Howard Estate when the license expired.

If Marvel had a specific license for Howard's works, and Red Sonya is one of Howard's works, then unless I'm missing a specific clause about her, it sounds like Marvel had a license for Red Sonya, which would explain the lack of any legal challenge over Red Sonja.

[Rater202]

...and? This is a civil issue, it's only going to get called into question when challenged. And, when challenged, the owners of Red Sonja elected to pay the owners of Red Sonya for the rights.

But prior to that incident, Red Sonjya the Barbarian warrior who was imbued with superhuman strength and agility by a covenant with her god that forbade her to lay with a man unless he bested her in combat was legally distinct from her inspiration, Red Sonya, ukranian riflewoman, despite being inspired by the earlier character.

She ceased being legally distinct when and only when there was a civil suit regarding the similarity between the original character and the, honestly radically different, character inspired by her and the embers of that case agreed to settle.

But, at the time Marvel lost the rights, they lost them becuase of a clause in their licenses for Howards Work that gave the rights of any Marvel original character that debuted in an adaption of Howard's works to Howard's estate when the license expired. At the time, she was considered a Marvel original property and they lost her becuase of this clause, not becuase she wasn't distinct from her inspiration.

Which means that, had Marvel debuted Red Sonja in a completly original story and only then had her appear in Conan stories, instead of introducing her in a Conan story and then spinning her off into Hyborean Age adaptions of the Red Sonya stories, Marvel would have held onto her even after they lost the rights to Howard's IP and that lawsuit might not have happened to begin with.

[Peelee]

But prior to that incident, Red Sonjya the Barbarian warrior who was imbued with superhuman strength and agility by a covenant with her god that forbade her to lay with a man unless he bested her in combat was legally distinct from her inspiration, Red Sonya, ukranian riflewoman, despite being inspired by the earlier character.

A.) A court case would be a short, succinct, inarguable way of proving your case.
2.) What the ****, Marvel?

[Rater202]

2.) What the ****, Marvel?

She made the choice to enter that covenant and under most writers it was depicted as "she's allowed to sleep with a man only if he can beat her in a fight" rather than "she has to sleep with a man who defats her in a fight."

[Keltest]

She made the choice to enter that covenant and under most writers it was depicted as "she's allowed to sleep with a man only if he can beat her in a fight" rather than "she has to sleep with a man who defats her in a fight."

It was pointed out to me, possibly by you, that this clause may have specifically been there to protect her in the event of rape.

[Peelee]

She made the choice to enter that covenant

She's fictional and only chooses whatever the person writes her wants her to choose, so that's not a whole lot of solace.

and under most writers it was depicted as "she's allowed to sleep with a man only if he can beat her in a fight" rather than "she has to sleep with a man who defats her in a fight."

That's definitely better, but still pretty messed up.

[Rater202]

She's fictional and only chooses whatever the person writes her wants her to choose, so that's not a whole lot of solace.

That's definitely better, but still pretty messed up.

I mean, is it messed up when a D&D 3.5 character takes a feat from the Sacred Vow tree? BEcuase that's basically what she did, made a pact with a benevolent deity where she abstains from certain behaviors in exchange for a supernatural boon.

Though, to be fair to your PoV, Sonja's current owners have essentially rebooted her and removed that vow from her character in her current canon. Even introduced a similar character with a similar vow(a man who can only sleep with females warriors who have best him in battle, which is more strict than Sonja's if you think about it) solely to point out how stupid it is.

[Peelee]

I mean, is it messed up when a D&D 3.5 character takes a feat from the Sacred Vow tree? BEcuase that's basically what she did, made a pact with a benevolent deity where she abstains from certain behaviors in exchange for a supernatural boon.

If I play with a person who takes such a feat, links it specifically to sex, and then plays a sexed-up caricature? Yeah. I likely wouldnt have much interest in playing with that person.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Though, to be fair to your PoV, Sonja's current owners have essentially rebooted her and removed that vow from her character in her current canon. Even introduced a similar character with a similar vow(a man who can only sleep with females warriors who have best him in battle, which is more strict than Sonja's if you think about it) solely to point out how stupid it is.

...Well that's dumb.

Also, wrong from before. I think of Conan as 'the Barbarian' entirely because of the movie and then because of non-Howard books and then Howard's stories. I never even knew that Conan had comics until much later. And when I did, it was IDW's comics before Marvel's. Is that normal for Conan fans? Have no sweet clue but the fact he's a comic book character was probably the last facet of the character I became aware of and probably the least interesting (though Savage Avengers is a concept so out there I kind of want to read it).

As for the movie being influenced by the comics, I have my doubts considering...well..Thoth-Amon was again in the Conan stories before the comics. He was not an invention of Marvel (not that you claimed as much) nor did Marvel invent Thoth-Amon's characterization. That'd be The Phoenix on the Sword. And considering the fact when the majority of people imagine Conan speaking in an Austrian accent and being a dumb(ish) brute would point towards the movies being bigger than Howard's stories and definitely the comics.

[Rater202]

I think of Conan as 'the Barbarian' entirely because of the movie

The Movie was called "Conan the Barbarian" becuase of the comics.

The term "Conan the Barbarian" had been used exactly once prior to Marvel using "Conan the Barbarian" as the title of their Conan licensed comics. The Marvel Comics Conan stories are what popularized that moniker.

By the time the movie was made "The Barbarian" was cemented in the collective consciousness of the fanbase becuase of the comics.

That's what I meant.

[dps]

I mean, not really.

First, he was the New Avengers "science guy" and then Civil War happened and Tony essentially emotionally manipulated Peter into becoming a figurehead for the pro-registration side.

Which directly lead to One More Day.

Then Peter realized that Tony was the bad guy and switched to Cap's team.

That's not really a sidekick.

I think he may have been referring mostly to the Avengers MCU movies, and not so much to the comic books. And I think the remark was largely meant in jest, anyway.

[Callos_DeTerran]

The Movie was called "Conan the Barbarian" becuase of the comics.

The term "Conan the Barbarian" had been used exactly once prior to Marvel using "Conan the Barbarian" as the title of their Conan licensed comics. The Marvel Comics Conan stories are what popularized that moniker.

By the time the movie was made "The Barbarian" was cemented in the collective consciousness of the fanbase becuase of the comics.

That's what I meant.

That's..not true either though?

The movie was in planning the exact same year as Marvel comics began their Conan the Barbarian series (1970). And by the time the movie was being pitched/entering production (1975-77) Marvel had already dropped the Conan the Barbarian series for the Savage Sword of Conan which is Marvel's most popular run not just with the character but apparently for Conan comics in general. The Savage Sword of Conan was one of the most popular comic series of the 1970s and if the movie took the moniker for its title from the Marvel comics, it would have been called 'The Savage Sword of Conan' and not Conan the Barbarian considering the movie finally debuted in 1982. Well after it would be well known that 'The Savage Sword of Conan' would be how to lure in comic fans, but that wasn't really the point.

In other words, there was a 'Conan the Barbarian' movie in the works before the comics even would have had a chance to get successful, let alone be influenced by them. And while the movie was being made, Marvel's success with Conan wasn't under the 'Conan the Barbarian' moniker but a different one but the filmmakers used Conan the Barbarian anyway because the character was already well known by that moniker despite the fact it only appeared as the title of a story once because that was already engrained in the public consciousness thanks to Weird Tales and Frank Frazetta.

...And now I want to look up how expensive Savage Sword of Conan comics might be, so thank Rater.

[Scarlet Knight]

She's fictional and only chooses whatever the person writes her wants her to choose, so that's not a whole lot of solace...

That's definitely better, but still pretty messed up.

Not by 1970's standards.

[Willie the Duck]

Not by 1970's standards.

Yes, the 1970s were indeed pretty messed up.

[Thane of Fife]

Is she? It sure sounds like Red Sonja, LLC. admitted that Red Sonja was not too distinct from Red Sonya to be a distinct entity by paying for the rights to Red Sonya:

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're reading that backwards. It reads to me that Red Sonja, LLC was worried that because they were legally distinct, someone else could use Howard's Red Sonya character in ways that they wouldn't be able to control, but which would potentially reflect on their Red Sonja character. Therefore, they sued Paradox with the intent of establishing that the characters were not legally distinct, and that they owned both of them.

Paradox appears to have not been confident that the ruling would go in their favor, so they sold/gave the rights to Red Sonya to Red Sonja, LLC, in exchange for the right to continue publishing the story that she appears in.

2.) What the ****, Marvel?

In the first Red Sonja novel, Roy Thomas wrote an introduction where he attributes this as coming from/being inspired by a play he particularly liked, William Butler Yeats' On Baile's Strand, where apparently a similar line is used to refer to the Irish warrior queen Aife:

I overheard her telling that she never had but one lover, and that he was the only man who overcame her in battle.