Real talk. Was Slott's run HONESTLY better than Michelinie's?

[Miles To Go]

Whatever people say of Slott, I don't think anyone can say his run has ever been boring.

Volumes 3 and 4 say hi

Who exactly are you to say what type of stories Spider-Man's character is supposed to be about? Laughable.

"Laughable" is exactly how I'd describe most of this era

[Lukmendes]

Whatever people say of Slott, I don't think anyone can say his run has ever been boring.

Volumes 3 and 4 say hi

I'm repeating myself, but I'll just say once again how much I love how divisive Slott's run is, most either love it or hate it , too bad a few years from after it's done it'll be less divisive...

[Miles To Go]

I'm repeating myself, but I'll just say once again how much I love how divisive Slott's run is, most either love it or hate it , too bad a few years from after it's done it'll be less divisive...

There are bits of it I love myself, which is why disliking so much of it is a tough call for me.

[Spidercide]

I prefer Slott over Michelinie and it's not close.

The problem is that the Michelinie run had a few big flaws that the Slott run did not have.

While Michelinie created Venom, he used the character excessively. It became repetitious and culminated in Maximum Carnage, one of my least favorite Spider-Man stories ever. Also turning Venom, who killed many innocent people, into an anti-hero who protects the helpless seemed in bad taste to me. I think this is a far greater OOC behavior than anything Slott did.

Michelinie also had a lot of editorial mandates that hurt his run. The proposal/wedding happened with little build up and was OOC for what came before. The plot of Peter's parents returning was written without any idea of how it would proceed. Michelinie's last few years seemed rather lifeless and devoid of joy. It ended with a whimper, not a bang.

While I understand people not caring for Slott's run, almost all of his stories have an energy and enthusiasm that was missing in half of Michelinie's run.

I'm sorry...I really am but...c'mon.

Michelinie's run was bad because he used Venom six times across 8 years.

Dude...Slott used Doc Ock SEVEN times across 10 years and also for 33 issues that were entirely about HIM as Spider-Man.

How...how is that NOT excessive?

Maximum Carnage was also never Michelinie's fault it was an editorially mandated story.

Meanwhile no on mandated Slott to do Spider-Verse a.k.a. the modern equivalent to Maximum Carnage (the repetitive fights, the evil Spider-Man co-leader, the deus ex machina ending, too many characters, over long, needlessly violent and a video game tie in that was better than the actual story). And at least Maximum Carnage centred around Carnage who HAD a personality and his family, unlike Morlun's were visually dynamic. Morlun didn't have a personality beyond 'I am evil and kill Spider people'.

Plus Maximum Carnage was at least trying to be life affirming. Spider-Verse was mean spiritedly gleeful in killing off people's favourite spider characters and invovled the abject destruction of Spider-Girl's core concept for no reason beyond trolling.

How is THAT somehow not as bad if not worse than Maximum Carnage.

And as for Michelinie's thing being far greater OOC behaviour than anything Slott did....dude...no.

Perspective. Eddie Brock is and always was a goddam lunatic who was NEVER consistent in his lunacy even in his debut. It's therefore not particularly OOC for him to change his attitude as time goes by. His transition into an anti-hero though creatively reductive didn't NOT make sense if you'd followed the character's gradual evolution and understood his incredibly flexible morality.

In contrast Dan Slott took Aunt May, a character who was literally in Amazing Fantasy #15 and who is one of the three most recurring characters in the entire series and had her call out Peter for 'abandoning her' the night uncle ben died.

Dan Slott took Mary Jane the biggest female character of the franchise and had her victim blame Spider-Man for the events of Superior.

Dan Slott took Peter Parker himself THE lead character of the entire series the one character you catagorically CANNOT write OOC because you've literally failed at your job if you have and CONSISTENTLY wrote him OOC. One of the very first arcs he ever did was have the lead character invade people's privacy as a paparazzi photographer.

Lemme repeat that. Dan Slott the writer of the series about Peter Parker ignored how Peter Parker hated paparazzi journalists in the past because they invaded people's privacy, ignored how from day 1 he safeguarded his OWN privacy, ignored how he was in a serious relationship with a woman who was hounded by paparazzi journalists, ignored how ONE YEAR before he made a deal with Mephisto to RESTORE his own privacy and ignored how his girlfriend died because ONE bad guy invaded his privacy and had Peter casually invade people's privacy for money.

Even if Michelinie was guilty of writing Venom OOC Venom WASN'T the lead character of the entire series. He DIDN'T have decades of history defining his characterisation.

Peter did and Slott IGNORED it. THAT my friend is infinitely worse so I cannot fathom how you could ever say Michelinie in regards to Venom could ever be guilty of WORSE OOC writing than Slott.

Like...it's literally easier to count who Slott DIDN'T write OOC as opposed to who he did.

Michelinie also had a lot of editorial mandates that hurt his run.

Okay but that's then not his fault.

We're not discussing the RUNS we're talking about the men's qualities as writers. Editorial mandates hurting their work doesn't mean they lose points because those are not their fault.

The proposal/wedding happened with little build up and was OOC for what came before.

Dude you saying this is revealing to me you do not know your spider history.

Check this link out because it disproves that assessment entirely.

http://community.comicbookresources....pider-Marriage

The plot of Peter's parents returning was written without any idea of how it would proceed. Michelinie's last few years seemed rather lifeless and devoid of joy. It ended with a whimper, not a bang.

Again not his fault so it's wrong of you to hold that against.

While I understand people not caring for Slott's run, almost all of his stories have an energy and enthusiasm that was missing in half of Michelinie's run.

Slott literally admitted he was hangign around the book post superior ONLY to get to ASM #800. Volume 3 was more lifeless than anything Michelinie did and Michelinie's work was as you said lifeless towards the end for reasons that were not his fault.

[Lukmendes]

There are bits of it I love myself, which is why disliking so much of it is a tough call for me.

Yeah, disliking something when you want to like it is annoying, but liking while ignoring the flaws that would otherwise annoy you is, well, very sad, legit have no idea how people can manage that.

[Mister Mets]

Dude...Slott barely qualifies as a writer period.

He systemically writes everyone OOC to fit around whatever plot he has going.

Michelinie rarely if ever did that which alone should make him egregiously superior.

I think a lot of people don't realize how Slott is mostly sizzle with very little steak but get taken in with the flashiness of his ideas in spite of their pay off rarely if ever being anything beyond shallow and superficial.

Michelnie also wrote Peter as the sum of his experinces whereas Slott's Peter is in his own words mentally 15 years old.

Michelinie also rarely took Spidey outside of the types of stories his character is supposed to be about. Pseudo science which is an expansion upon grounded real world science is well within Spidey's wheelhouse. Slott though? Time travel, pan dimensional wars with totem vampires, routine global threats, mind swaps and stuff in outer space.

Michelinie did that stuff too but far, far, far, far less often. Even Venom and Carnage's alien status was more incidental to their characters than anything. They functioned as glorified power suits for the all too realistic and human Eddie Brock and Cletus Kasady.

This isn't even getting into how Michelinie created grossly more successful spin off characters. Venom and Carnage alone are infinitely more popular than any of Slott's spin off characters...and Michelinie at least was the guy to MAKE them popular whereas the spin off Slott has generated were made good by OTHER people.

Silk under Slott is laughable and rapey. Robbie Thompson is who made her worth anything.

Why is it not even close again?

I'm guessing Tuck appreciates elements of Slott's craft that you do not.

Superior Spider-Man and No One Dies never made sense though.

Spidey/Torch also isn't a legit Spider-Man story. It's a team up mini-series that's half an FF story

The stories made sense to me.

I don't really care about the team-up/ solo division. A good Spider-Man/ Human Torch story remains a good Spider-Man story.

[Spidercide]

Who exactly are you to say what type of stories Spider-Man's character is supposed to be about? Laughable.

Well...putting aside how I have literally been paid on a contract and freelance basis for my expertise on Spider-Man (and other comic book) knowledge and contributed written work to officially licenced info books about the character (and others too)...

It's less that I specifically can say what types of stories he's supposed to be about so much as I have the basic ability to read and understand how literature works.

As such I can read Spider-Man's stories from day 1 to now and tell you catagorically along with...the overwhelming majority of Spider-Man fandom (oh and Steve Ditko) that the stories that Spider-Man's character are supposed to be about are NOT those things I outlined.

It's real simple. You look at the original concept for the character and then how he's been defined in regards to that for most of his history.

And then you employ even the most basic literary analytical abilities and deduce that oh yeah most/all the great characters throughout fictional history have not been playdough that just be anything and everything but have actual definitions to them that dictates who they are and what context work best for them.

Yeah so not so laughable after all.

P.S. I am not saying anyone ENJOYING such stories is a bad thing. ENJOYMENT is awesome. But we're not talking strictly personal preferences here. I personally prefer Phantom menace over Empire Strikes Back but the latter is clearly better whilst the former is garbage.

P.P.S. Dan Slott himself ironically complained about how Venom was an alien in 2007 and how Bendis' USM take was better on the basis that Venom wasn't an alien.

P.P.P.S. By your logic if a space ship randomly showed up in Lord of the Ringers or the Sopranos and anyone said 'that's not right' they'd be 'laughable'. Which itself is laughable.

[Mister Mets]

Three posts were deleted. Disagree without being disagreeable. Don't insult the other guy.

[Dan Slott]

I am really not a fan of this thread. Even if I'm "winning" the poll at this time. This shouldn't be some kind of competition between myself and David Michelinie-- who I have had the pleasure of meeting, hanging out with, and chatting with about our love of Spider-Man. There's really no need to turn things which should be celebrated and enjoyed into things that are somehow propped up at the expense of the other. I dearly love all of Michelinie's run. And Stern's run. And DeMatteis run. I see no need to pit one against the other.

Slott literally admitted he was hangign around the book post superior ONLY to get to ASM #800.

There is not a single issue of ASM that I've phoned in or coasted to. I've loved working on this character for the entirety of the run. Reaching the milestone of ASM #800 is something I'm proud of. It's not something I hung around to. It was a goal I strived towards.

[blackspidey2099]

Volumes 3 and 4 say hi

I really don't think you can call a volume which was basically all about the aftermath of one of the biggest Spider-Man stories of all (Superior Spider-Man) and then THE biggest Spider-Man story of all (Spider-Verse) boring. I didn't like a lot of it, but you can't say it was boring. And given how much I saw you talking (read: complaining) about Volume 4, it clearly engaged you enough that you weren't bored... It was definitely action-packed and very eventful, and my main regret is how early (and unsatisfactorily) it ended. Out of curiosity, what do you think about Slott's run since he went back to original numbering?

"Laughable" is exactly how I'd describe most of this era

I disagree, but you are totally entitled to your opinion. As long as you don't try to set yourself up as some sort of Spider-Man guru who is enlightening us filthy peasants with his/her knowledge like that dude I replied to, it's all cool. This is a question about opinions, and anyone's opinion can be right as long as it can be backed up with reasoning.

I'm honestly willing to admit that my opinion (which is Slott's run is better) is a bit biased since I view the end of Michelinie's run as the time that Spider-Man stories started going to **** until JMS rescued Peter like a decade later. So it's hard to have the aftermath of Michelinie's run not color my opinion, even if just a little bit.

[blackspidey2099]

Well...putting aside how I have literally been paid on a contract and freelance basis for my expertise on Spider-Man (and other comic book) knowledge and contributed written work to officially licenced info books about the character (and others too)...

Good for you, but I'd wager a lot of other people on these boards have done similar or have enough knowledge to do similarly. And if it's just a question of knowledge on the character, then that means your entire post was moot since Slott is the writer of Spider-Man and if he thinks those stories are fine then they MUST be fine because he's the writer (which outshines your resume). Anyways, I don't think your knowledge (which is undoubtedly very impressive) or anyone else's is enough to make their opinion into fact like you are trying to do.

It's less that I specifically can say what types of stories he's supposed to be about so much as I have the basic ability to read and understand how literature works.

As such I can read Spider-Man's stories from day 1 to now and tell you catagorically along with...the overwhelming majority of Spider-Man fandom (oh and Steve Ditko) that the stories that Spider-Man's character are supposed to be about are NOT those things I outlined.

It's real simple. You look at the original concept for the character and then how he's been defined in regards to that for most of his history.

And then you employ even the most basic literary analytical abilities and deduce that oh yeah most/all the great characters throughout fictional history have not been playdough that just be anything and everything but have actual definitions to them that dictates who they are and what context work best for them.

Well, as someone who possesses all the skills you mentioned to a high degree, as well as having read all those Spider-Man stories, I can tell you what Spider-Man is supposed to be about. Really, there's only one thing which Spider-Man absolutely has to be about, and that is responsibility.

Looking at the original concept of the character isn't so simple since he was created as a teen hero who didn't have to be a sidekick and could do the job as well as adult heroes. Are you saying he should have never grown beyond being a teen? Because I disagree (and I'd wager you would as well). Furthermore, that's a horrible idea because looking only at the original concept ignore character development and growth. Spider-Man now doesn't have to be the same as the Spider-Man as the 1960s, and I'd say that's a GOOD thing (though, in my view, a lot of the changes have been for the worse - like the fact that 30 year old Spidey is apparently less mature than 15 year old Spidey - but that's because of the shitty management at Marvel that wants Peter to constantly regress; I believe the idea of character growth is still essential).

Peter now is a much more effective (and powerful) hero and scientist than he was at 15 - for obvious reasons. So it makes clear logical sense that he can (and does) take on much more varied threats, including time travel, multi-dimensional wars, global threats, outer space stuff, etc. while still doing the street stuff as well. Slott's run has been good in that it's always been clear that no matter what, Peter always takes the time to do the street stuff, even if it's just in the intro to stories or implied off-panel. Because who wants to read a multi-part story with Peter fighting against some gang members who he could defeat in literal milliseconds? There are ways to go around Peter just physically fighting street threats so it would be a challenge for Peter (like making it a mystery to solve, or something like that), but even they would be repetitive if done all the time. The next bit is just my opinion, but I feel like Peter works better in stories as the underdog, so it makes sense that as he becomes a lot more powerful he should face more serious threats so he can still be the underdog. Spider-Man trouncing gang members every story isn't great for dramatic effect. If you want to treat him like he's still a teen, then read some of the material where Peter is a teen.

Please let me know what "the actual definition" of Spider-Man is so I can either debunk it or have a laugh. Spider-Man is a character who's been around for so long that he has a different definition and different meaning to pretty much everyone who knows him. You may think your interpretation of the character is superior to everyone else's, but that's the only opinion which I'd ever say is 100% wrong.

Yeah so not so laughable after all.

Sure about that?

P.S. I am not saying anyone ENJOYING such stories is a bad thing. ENJOYMENT is awesome. But we're not talking strictly personal preferences here. I personally prefer Phantom menace over Empire Strikes Back but the latter is clearly better whilst the former is garbage.

Okay, so now you are going on again about the idea there is an objective quality to things. If you are so 100% sure that Michelinie's run is clearly better while Slott's is garbage, and that that's a fact rather than just your opinion, why even make this thread in the first place?

P.P.S. Dan Slott himself ironically complained about how Venom was an alien in 2007 and how Bendis' USM take was better on the basis that Venom wasn't an alien.

I have no idea how this is related to the conversation.

P.P.P.S. By your logic if a space ship randomly showed up in Lord of the Ringers or the Sopranos and anyone said 'that's not right' they'd be 'laughable'. Which itself is laughable.

How is this remotely like anything that's happened in Spider-Man? If I was reading a Spider-Man comic and 2 of the panels in the middle of the story were scenes from an Archie comic, I'd think that was very weird as well.

[Spidercide]

I really don't think you can call a volume which was basically all about the aftermath of one of the biggest Spider-Man stories of all (Superior Spider-Man) and then THE biggest Spider-Man story of all (Spider-Verse) boring. I didn't like a lot of it, but you can't say it was boring. And given how much I saw you talking (read: complaining) about Volume 4, it clearly engaged you enough that you weren't bored... It was definitely action-packed and very eventful, and my main regret is how early (and unsatisfactorily) it ended. Out of curiosity, what do you think about Slott's run since he went back to original numbering?




I disagree, but you are totally entitled to your opinion. As long as you don't try to set yourself up as some sort of Spider-Man guru who is enlightening us filthy peasants with his/her knowledge like that dude I replied to, it's all cool. This is a question about opinions, and anyone's opinion can be right as long as it can be backed up with reasoning.

Actually this was more about critical analysis of stories not just which one you prefer in your opinion.

I never claimed I was a spider guru. I never claimed to be the ultimate authority. But was I laying out that yeah someone could clearly tell you what types of stories do and don't work for Spider-Man using like basic analysis. Yeah.

Like I said your comments = someone is wrong for saying spaceships shouldn't be in LOTR or Harry Potter.

Also...yeah you seriously could call it boring. For sure Spider-Verse was the biggest scale Spider-Man story ever. I don't remember Spider-Man ever doing anything (in the comics, other media sure) that involved saving countless people from across multiple universes.

But yeah you could call it boring. Scale isn't inherent to anti-boredom. Action for the sake of action alone isn't anti-boredom. The second X-Men movie was on an incredibly smaller scale to virtually all the Transformers movies since 2009 with nowhere near the same amount of action. Those were far bigger in scale and had near hour long action sequences. But they were boring to basically everyone.

Spider-Verse was particularly problemtic in this regard because too many characters were in the spotlight during the main issues of the event and the story overly repetitive (much like Max Carnage was). Worse there was far too little focus upon Peter Parker himself, his thoughts, his feelings in meeting all these different riffs upon himself. We got more of that in Conway's Spiral story than in the actual event.

And if I am harping on about that it's only because in case you hadn't noticed making the stories about or focussed upon Peter's thoughts and feelings in response to the events of his life is kinda sorta the thing that has been done by most writers since 1962.

This extends to the book that was 'dealing with the fallout' of Superior Spider-Man. Like...did we ever see Peter try and recover from what would objectively be an extremely traumatic event for him? He didn't seem all that upset at all. That's part and parcel of dealing with the fall out, in fact that is probably the most important thing to deal with and again...Conway talked about it more than the main issues of Volume 3.

I mean ever since Civil War II fans and comic journalists have been discussing how event fatigue is one of the single greatest problems with Marvel with the fallout from that+Secret Empire leading to Marvel saying they'd ease off events. Events which more or less have been relentless since 2006.

Events happening ALL the time with just action all the time and high scale all the time isn't anti-boredom. It is in fact very much boring.

[Rincewind]

I'm sorry...I really am but...c'mon.

Michelinie's run was bad because he used Venom six times across 8 years.

Dude...Slott used Doc Ock SEVEN times across 10 years and also for 33 issues that were entirely about HIM as Spider-Man.

How...how is that NOT excessive?

Because the situations are different. The Venom appearances kept hitting the same notes. Venom shows up, tries to screw with Peter, then Peter defeats him. The motivation of Venom didn't change. The MO didn't change. The character kept showing up because he was hot at the time. Venom appeared like clockwork about once a year. By the time Erik Larsen was artist, Larsen himself was tired of the character and kept drawing him more and more grotesque as protest.

Doc Ock had a clear ongoing story and development. He starts out dying and wanting to 1. prove his genius 2. get revenge on Spidey when point 1. was thwarted. He then takes over as Spider-Man and tries that until he realizes Peter was in fact better than him. Then he figures out a way to return and tries to take back the company he feels he started.

One case is a writer using the same character in the same way again and again. The other is a writer playing out a long story for a villain over the length of his run.

Maximum Carnage was also never Michelinie's fault it was an editorially mandated story.

Meanwhile no on mandated Slott to do Spider-Verse a.k.a. the modern equivalent to Maximum Carnage (the repetitive fights, the evil Spider-Man co-leader, the deus ex machina ending, too many characters, over long, needlessly violent and a video game tie in that was better than the actual story). And at least Maximum Carnage centred around Carnage who HAD a personality and his family, unlike Morlun's were visually dynamic. Morlun didn't have a personality beyond 'I am evil and kill Spider people'.

Plus Maximum Carnage was at least trying to be life affirming. Spider-Verse was mean spiritedly gleeful in killing off people's favourite spider characters and invovled the abject destruction of Spider-Girl's core concept for no reason beyond trolling.

How is THAT somehow not as bad if not worse than Maximum Carnage.

As for Venom turning into an anti-hero. Again not Michelinie's fault. That was ANOTHER editorial mandate established so Venom could get a spin-off. Not a legit thing to hold against the writer. Meanwhile Dan Slott pretended he redeemed Doc Ock.

Being editorially mandated does not mean it is a good story. And it is still part of Michelinie's run. While Maximum Carnage may have tried to be life affirming, it did not succeed in that endeavor. Instead it felt like a joyless slog to me.

As far as Superior and Spider Verse, I think we just have fundamentally different views of those stories. I didn't find the characters killed off in Verse to be particularly beloved. And I found Spider Girl to affirm being a hero despite her loss, not that her her core concept had been destroyed.

As for Superior, when I read that I never got the impression that Ock had been redeemed. I saw it as a story where the villain tried to take over the hero's life and felt he could do it better only to utterly fail and have to admit that the hero was better in the end. I certainly never thought the actions Ock took were meant to be morally justified or pure.

Again, editorial mandate does not make the story better. I am not attacking David Michelinie as a writer or denigrating his writing skills. I am pointing out the weaknesses in his ASM run. And turning a remorseless killer into a hero is a weakness no matter how talented the writer is.

And as for Michelinie's thing being far greater OOC behaviour than anything Slott did....dude...no.

Perspective. Eddie Brock is and always was a goddam lunatic who was NEVER consistent in his lunacy even in his debut. It's therefore not particularly OOC for him to change his attitude as time goes by. His transition into an anti-hero though creatively reductive didn't NOT make sense if you'd followed the character's gradual evolution and understood his incredibly flexible morality.

In contrast Dan Slott took Aunt May, a character who was literally in Amazing Fantasy #15 and who is one of the three most recurring characters in the entire series and had her call out Peter for 'abandoning her' the night uncle ben died.

Dan Slott took Mary Jane the biggest female character of the franchise and had her victim blame Spider-Man for the events of Superior.

Dan Slott took Peter Parker himself THE lead character of the entire series the one character you catagorically CANNOT write OOC because you've literally failed at your job if you have and CONSISTENTLY wrote him OOC. One of the very first arcs he ever did was have the lead character invade people's privacy as a paparazzi photographer.

Lemme repeat that. Dan Slott the writer of the series about Peter Parker ignored how Peter Parker hated paparazzi journalists in the past because they invaded people's privacy, ignored how from day 1 he safeguarded his OWN privacy, ignored how he was in a serious relationship with a woman who was hounded by paparazzi journalists, ignored how ONE YEAR before he made a deal with Mephisto to RESTORE his own privacy and ignored how his girlfriend died because ONE bad guy invaded his privacy and had Peter casually invade people's privacy for money.

Even if Michelinie was guilty of writing Venom OOC Venom WASN'T the lead character of the entire series. He DIDN'T have decades of history defining his characterisation.

Peter did and Slott IGNORED it. THAT my friend is infinitely worse so I cannot fathom how you could ever say Michelinie in regards to Venom could ever be guilty of WORSE OOC writing than Slott.

Like...it's literally easier to count who Slott DIDN'T write OOC as opposed to who he did.

Here's the thing, I can find examples of characters behaving badly or contrary to many of their appearances. That includes Aunt May, MJ, and Peter himself. I could cite example after example of Peter doing something immoral, then changing his mind. That has been a staple of his character and history since Amazing Fantasy #15. All three characters have had wildly varying behavior and motivations long before Slott was ever on the scene.

Instead, I'm going to suggest that you might have a very narrow definition of the characters and are labeling anything that falls out of that narrow definition as OOC. Characters, especially in serial forms over 50 years, can change and evolve. Their motivations and actions from one period may not match a later period. That does not mean the action are invalid or OOC.

Okay but that's then not his fault.

We're not discussing the RUNS we're talking about the men's qualities as writers. Editorial mandates hurting their work doesn't mean they lose points because those are not their fault.

Actually, I've been talking about runs this entire time.

*checks thread title* Yup, right there at the top of the page. The subject is which run is better. Michelinie's run was rife with editorially mandated stories. The run suffers because of this. Doesn't matter who's fault it is, the end result is still the same.

Dude you saying this is revealing to me you do not know your spider history.

Check this link out because it disproves that assessment entirely.

http://community.comicbookresources....pider-Marriage

Yeah, stating an opinion, then linking to your own posts about that opinion does not prove anything. And me disagreeing with you does not mean that I haven't been reading Amazing Spider-Man for 4 decades. It means that 2 people who have read the character have different views of the character.

Again not his fault so it's wrong of you to hold that against.

Slott literally admitted he was hangign around the book post superior ONLY to get to ASM #800. Volume 3 was more lifeless than anything Michelinie did and Michelinie's work was as you said lifeless towards the end for reasons that were not his fault.

Again, I am not talking about fault. I am not discussing who is the more skilled writer. I am talking about the relative pros and cons of 2 respective ASM runs.

And it seems to me that you are deliberately misquoting Slott to criticize him. While he stated that he wanted to stay on the title to reach a milestone, that does not mean it is the ONLY reason he stayed on the title. You are misinterpreting what he said to cast him in a negative light.

[Dan Slott]

Dan Slott's run is often (and in my view extremely unfairly) praised and will run for around 10 years.

To be fair, if you see any unfair praise about my work online... it's probably my Ma.

[Rincewind]

Wow, that escalated quickly. I wonder why more creators don't post on the boards here?

On topic, I've seen comments about the latter part of Michelinie's run being marred by editorial edicts with which he disagreed, but I don't think the source for that is online (certainly, a link has not been supplied, and a rudimentary google search yielded nothing). Does anyone have a link or scans? Or at the very least a cordial and non-condescending summary? I'm mostly interested in whether he bailed because the Clone Saga was coming, Maximum Carnage was too much, they were changing what was going to happen with Richard and Mary or some other reason (or a mixture of them), but I'd happily read the whole interview if that's feasible

I don't have a link to any quotes online, but there is a book called Comics Creators on Spider-Man by Tom DeFalco where he interviews David Michelinie (and many others) about their experiences writing/drawing Spider-Man. Michelinie talks about many subjects such as the marriage ("I wasn't keen on the marriage from the start, in fact I was plainly against it.")

Below are excerpts from the book.

WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE HIGH POINT OF YOUR SPIDER-MAN RUN?

The entire Macfarlane period. I liked almost everything we did during that period. I enjoyed working with Todd and Jim Salicrup and writing the stories. I was happy with almost everything.

DO YOU HAVE ANY REGRETS WHEN YOU LOOK BACK ON YOUR SPIDER-MAN RUN?

When I started out, I wanted to write Spider-Man for three reasons: one, because he was my favourite hero, two, because it was fun, and three, because it was a nice paying job. After Jim Salicrup left, my second reason started to erode. I was not enjoying myself or writing the stories I wanted to write. The last year or so was not my best work. If I have any regrets, it's staying on Amazing as long as I did. I probably would have been better off leaving while my work was still a the peak of its quality.

For the record, Jim Salicrup was editor up to issue #345. Danny Fingeroth was editor from issue #346 on.