Superior Spider-Man #11

[Prof. Warren]

Each issue selling lower than the previous.

That does tend to happen a lot in comics. It's called "attrition."

Not every comic it happens to is viewed as a "failure." Comics tend to run their natural course with a relatively small percentage being break out hits.

It's done significantly worse than every other satellite book on the market.

It's also the only one that doesn't feature either Peter or a traditionally heroic Spider character, like Miles or Gwen.

The latter was mandated by editorial. The former was part of the entire gimmick right from the start.

Editorial can initiate a story arc or introduce a character. It can't dictate how readers respond. Readers responded very well to SSM. They don't have to be interested in seeing Otto's heroic journey continue for years to come in order to make the success of SSM considered valid. Ben Reilly can't support widespread reader interest either but that doesn't mean that the character didn't win over a devoted fanbase during his time.

You mean the weakest and ugliest looking Spider-Man cartoon in the modern era. Produced in fact by Quesada and Stephen Wacker, as well as Dan Slott, all of whom have vested interests in promoting that era.

When someone's success eats away at you so much - as Slott's clearly does you - that you need to dismiss, diminish, or explain away that success in order to make yourself feel better it speaks volumes.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That does tend to happen a lot in comics. It's called "attrition."

Will keep that in mind next time people use voting-by-wallet arguments to denounce everything from Spider-Girl to RYV and so on. Because such special pleading wasn't entertained when discussing the question of the success of the marriage (which sold and sustained profit for several decades).

When someone's success eats away at you so much...

You were the one who brought up the cartoon, and I pointed out that the cartoon has been widely criticized and continues to be so by everyone. Likewise it's a fact that it's produced by Slott's own bosses and they have a vested interest in promoting Slott's work since it justifies their editorial decisions.

This isn't a case of something like Insomniac Games, an outside third-party making a game and choosing to adapt parts of Slott's run, as well as Bendis' and others when they made Spider-Man PS4.

[Prof. Warren]

Will keep that in mind next time people use voting-by-wallet arguments to denounce everything from Spider-Girl to RYV and so on.

You should always keep in mind that fact that fans do vote with their wallet.

Spider-Girl was saved from cancellation many times because the readership didn't support it but yet the powers that be were swayed to keep the title in play by the passion of the books core group of fans.

And RYV started out strong but was a victim of - you guessed it - attrition. Despite a high selling debut, it soon became obvious there wasn't a large enough audience out there who wanted to pay every month for an AU version of a married Peter and MJ.

When something doesn't find wide support with readers it doesn't mean it's bad or invalid. It simply means that a large enough portion of the comic buying public didn't feel the need to support it.

Because such special pleading wasn't entertained when discussing the question of the success of the marriage (which sold and sustained profit for several decades).

You'd have to prove that the marriage alone is what made ASM successful during the '90s. It was an aspect of the book, and surely a popular one at that, but clearly not the single driving force behind ASM's success. If it were, it would have allowed ASM to ride out unpopular storylines like the Clone Saga without taking a sales hit.

You were the one who brought up the cartoon, and I pointed out that the cartoon has been widely criticized and continues to be so by everyone. Likewise it's a fact that it's produced by Slott's own bosses and they have a vested interest in promoting Slott's work since it justifies their editorial decisions.

I brought up the cartoon because it offers another example of how SSM has embedded itself into modern Spidey.

You called it the "weakest and ugliest looking Spider-Man cartoon in the modern era." That's stating a personal opinion on your part, not just pointing out that the cartoon has been "widely criticized." Also, while I'm sure the cartoon does have its critics, I also feel confident in saying that its critics don't extend to include "everyone." That would be an overstatement on your part.

And to believe that the only reason that the makers of the current series would adapt SSM to animation is to promote Slott's work and thus justify their editorial decisions from a storyline dating years back is nothing but insanity. They don't have to justify their editorial decisions. The success of ASM during that era is all the justification they ever needed. It's because SSM was such a success on the publishing end that it would only be natural to want to tell it again in another medium. That's the motivation. Not "we're only investing all this time, money, talent, and creative energy in a desperate attempt to make the decisions we made a few years back in the comics look good."

Do yourself a favor. Just admit that you don't like Slott's work and realize that it doesn't mean that it's bad or that he has only succeeded thanks to an endless series of cheats or special conditions. It simply doesn't appeal to you and that's fine. It happens.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

You should always keep in mind that fact that fans do vote with their wallet.

Except in the case of SSM apparently. Pointing out the steep decline in sales in a context where it doesn't have special favor isn't proof against.

Spider-Girl

A title published when the marriage was still in 616 and whose appeal and success was never specifically about it, and which became the only Marvel title with a female character to clock more than 100 issues.

And RYV started out strong...

Issue #13 by Jody Houser outsold ASM #25 v. 4 (by Slott). You can count on one hand the number of times that happens (an AU outselling the main title).

If it were, it would have allowed ASM to ride out unpopular storylines like the Clone Saga without taking a sales hit.

The Clone Saga was a story that's goal was to reverse the marriage and it took a sales hit the minute it said that the regular married Peter wasn't the real one. So that's proof enough.

I brought up the cartoon because it offers another example of how SSM has embedded itself into modern Spidey.

While neglecting who produced it, and the fact that it's not considered very good. Almost like you didn't even watch it. I for one actually did watch the first season.

[Lee]

You should always keep in mind that fact that fans do vote with their wallet.

Spider-Girl was saved from cancellation many times because the readership didn't support it but yet the powers that be were swayed to keep the title in play by the passion of the books core group of fans.

Not quite. I recall DeFalco or Frenz explaining it something like this: Marvel would look at how books were selling and take standard attrition into account to predict when a book would need to be cancelled, but the attrition rate on Spider-Girl wasn't standard, it always stayed above cancellation level despite the bean counters' predictions.

It had a smaller audience than other comics, but it was a loyal audience that kept buying the book.

[Prof. Warren]

Except in the case of SSM apparently.

No, they did. They supported it while it was interesting to them and that support eventually tapered off. See how that works?

A title published when the marriage was still in 616 and whose appeal and success was never specifically about it, and which became the only Marvel title with a female character to clock more than 100 issues.

It only made it that far due to being spared from cancellation by an editorial regime that really wanted it to succeed.

The sales were never really there for it, which is why it eventually had to end.

Issue #13 by Jody Houser outsold ASM #25 v. 4 (by Slott). You can count on one hand the number of times that happens (an AU outselling the main title).

You failed to mention that issue #13 was also issue #1 of the Legacy era of RYV and the start of a new arc and creative team.

Also, that temporary bump didn't keep RYV from cancellation, did it?

The Clone Saga was a story that's goal was to reverse the marriage and it took a sales hit the minute it said that the regular married Peter wasn't the real one. So that's proof enough.

No, it isn't. The rejection of The Clone Saga was about fans widely rejecting the idea of having the Peter they'd been reading about since the mid-'70s turn out to have been a clone. That's it. Pretty simple.

While neglecting who produced it, and the fact that it's not considered very good. Almost like you didn't even watch it. I for one actually did watch the first season.

Congratulations. I'm an adult with other things to occupy my time. My son is past the cartoon age by now so I'm not going to carve out the time for myself for a cartoon that isn't even meant for my demographic. If you're an adult who hate watches a cartoon for a whole season, you have bigger issues going on.

[Prof. Warren]

Not quite. I recall DeFalco or Frenz explaining it something like this: Marvel would look at how books were selling and take standard attrition into account to predict when a book would need to be cancelled, but the attrition rate on Spider-Girl wasn't standard, it always stayed above cancellation level despite the bean counters' predictions.

It had a smaller audience than other comics, but it was a loyal audience that kept buying the book.

Loyal, which is what kept the book around. But that loyal base never built up enough to really sustain it.

[Lee]

Loyal, which is what kept the book around. But that loyal base never built up enough to really sustain it.

It sustained it for over 10 years. It was a low seller, but it was a stable seller.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It only made it that far due to being spared from cancellation by an editorial regime that really wanted it to succeed.

Loyal, which is what kept the book around. But that loyal base never built up enough to really sustain it.

The editorial regime that greenlit Spider-Girl was EIC Bob Harras' which wasn't sympathetic to the marriage or the idea of Peter having kids (he's the one who mandated the baby to be disappeared in the main titles and never mentioned again). So your argument is invalid on the first count.

On the second count, it lasted for 100+ issues more than any female superhero character in Marvel history. And that too a monthly title as opposed to Superior V.1 which clocked 30 issues because it published bi-monthly to glut up content in less time than other titles. IN a normal monthly cycle, Superior V.2 failed, while Spider-Girl lasted.

So I find it weird why you are saying that it didn't sustain it. For an AU title, which has the barrier-of-entry of the fact that readers are driven away by it being non-canon (even the ones who like it are discouraged/frustrated over the fact that it would never be in the main title), that's a success. Spider-Girl didn't lose readers month-by-month.

The point is you keep making excuses and explain away stuff you disagree with or are indifferent to, while saying that people who do that for Superior are wrong for doing so. That's hypocritical. You can't explain away success of other stuff and call foul when people do the same against something you like.

[Inversed]

The point is you keep making excuses and explain away stuff you disagree with or are indifferent to, while saying that people who do that for Superior are wrong for doing so. That's hypocritical. You can't explain away success of other stuff and call foul when people do the same against something you like.

I see it as less being hypocritical, and more playing devil's advocate using your techniques. You can't say "Superior failed because people prefer evil Otto to good Otto" and then cry foul over "Renew Your Vows failed because people prefer single Peter to married Peter." Because it's clearly not the reason in both instances, and it's always much complicated of a situation regarding said decisions.

[Celgress]

I see it as less being hypocritical, and more playing devil's advocate using your techniques. You can't say "Superior failed because people prefer evil Otto to good Otto" and then cry foul over "Renew Your Vows failed because people prefer single Peter to married Peter." Because it's clearly not the reason in both instances, and it's always much complicated of a situation regarding said decisions.

A very strong argument Inversed. I hate nothing worse than hypocrisy or even the whiff of it. If you follow the oversimplified logic RYV failed because people prefer a single Spider-Man and SSM failed because people prefer villain Otto to anti-hero Otto. One can't have it both ways, that the simplified logic works in one case but not the other.

[Prof. Warren]

The point is you keep making excuses and explain away stuff you disagree with or are indifferent to, while saying that people who do that for Superior are wrong for doing so. That's hypocritical. You can't explain away success of other stuff and call foul when people do the same against something you like.

I'm not explaining away anything. I'm staying facts.

I'm calling foul on completely absurd, nonsense theories like "Life Story did great and Superior Spider-Man didn't because readers prefer an evil Doc Ock!" rather than look to more realistic reasons for their relative performances like LS having a novel hook in telling Peter's life story in full as opposed to SSM being a satellite title starring a character no longer intrinsic to Peter's life.

This shouldn't be so hard to grasp.

And I'm not indifferent to a title like Spider-Girl. I'm a fan. But it lasted as long as it did due to Marvel responding to the passion of its fan base rather than the size of that fan base.

[Lee]

And I'm not indifferent to a title like Spider-Girl. I'm a fan. But it lasted as long as it did due to Marvel responding to the passion of its fan base rather than the size of that fan base.

And because the fan base managed to keep sales above cancellation level.

[Prof. Warren]

And because the fan base managed to keep sales above cancellation level.

Spider Girl was often on the bubble of cancellation. It's because of its passionate fan base that it had a longer run than its sales numbers alone would have given it.

[Lee]

Spider Girl was often on the bubble of cancellation. It's because of its passionate fan base that it had a longer run than its sales numbers alone would have given it.

Here's what Tom Brevoort said about it: https://web.archive.org/web/20080306...oort/entry/674

Protestors need to take their cues from the SPIDER-GIRL fans. Now, those cats are organized, and intelligent about what they do, and as a result, they've saved that title from cancellation on multiple occasions. How do they do it? Simple--they realize what needs to be done to achieve their goal, and they work to get it done. They know that only an upturn in sales can prevent their preferred title from going under, and so they organize, get the word out, buy additional copies and get them into the hands of new readers, people who are most likely to actually be hooked and pick up subsequent issues. They contact the buyers for bookstore chains, and ask them to begin carrying SPIDER-GIRL, both in single issues and in collected form. And they don't just whine about it, as most of these fan protestors do--they go out there and get the job done. I can tell you for certain, having seen it in action on multiple occasions, that every time those fans become active, we can track an actual increase in SPIDER-GIRL sales--it's a significant enough increase to show up. And that's what makes the difference--and what the fans who protested the end of Priest's BLACK PANTHER or Dan Slott's THING or any of a dozen other titles didn't manage to do.