Spider-Man: Major in real life, Minor in-universe?

[blackspidey2099]

It is pretty ridiculous how downplayed Spider-Man gets in universe. I mean, it's pretty established that he's is destined to be the greatest hero of them all, and that he is one of the few whose ethics even Steve Rogers respects, and yet he gets relegated to comic relief in 99% of his guest appearances. I really wish they had a moratorium on Spider-Man being a guest character or being a part of a team unless he gets a real role and important reason to be there. I don't necessary want Spider-Man to always be the biggest player in the MU, but I do think that when he does participate in the wider MU, his experience, intelligence, and willpower should be paid their dues. For some reason, I find that this usually only happens in team ups with the Fantastic Four, and very rarely in other titles.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It was not just "Marvel was developing properties besides X-Men and Spider-Man", it was "Marvel was promoting their biggest properties for the MCU, at the expense of what wasn't available for movies (X-Men and Fantastic Four)".

Exactly.

I mean The Avengers and the X-Men had a comparable publication history. In the 70s, Avengers had all the advantages to be Marvel's big flagship team. The Fantastic Four were falling by the side, the X-Men were cancelled and went into reprints. And yet, Len Wein, Chris Claremont, Dave Cockrum, and John Byrne took Marvel's lowest-selling title and made into the biggest in comics, not just Marvel, but comics. In a fair fight, the Avengers lost to the X-Men, just like they lost to the Fantastic Four whenever a decent writing team got their act together there, just like now they are losing again to Dawn of X.

Likewise, Iron Man and Daredevil in the 70s and 80s had a similar trajectory (solo male superhero who wasn't Spider-Man and whose title wasn't the best and most inviting) and Iron Man had more advantages than Daredevil in a lot of respects, and yet it was Daredevil and not Iron Man which became the second biggest solo hero for Marvel in the '80s, all thanks to Frank Miller.

Think about the fact that when David Michelinie who wrote Iron Man went into Spider-Man he didn't actually do anything to tie Peter and Tony Stark in that run. It was basically an open shot to the goal, and he didn't do that.

My two cents.

Worth more than that, raised to the...Powers of Ten, I would say.

[Inversed]

In fairness, Marvel did kneecap the X-Men (and the Fantastic Four) by not allowing them in Marvel media such as animated series, merchandise, video games and what-not, and I know the X-Men haven't played a pivotal role in a Marvel wide event in a long time. It's telling that as soon as the buyout became a thing, this ended, with Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 featuring them. Likewise, the Fantastic Four were cancelled and remained so for three years, and didn't return until the buyout was imminent.

So while the X-Men were a thing in the comics, they were just getting by. Sure, we had X-Men stories, both in their titles and mutants did appear in the General MU, but to deny that NOTHING was happening over this is absurd. I've seen people who don't even know the X-Men share the same universe with the Avengers in the comics, and that's criminal. As is acting like the Avengers are the core of Marvel and the X-Men exist outside of it. When the X-Men and the Avengers crossed over, it was the X-Men who were treated as the stars and the Avengers as second fiddle. Again, see Onslaught.

How much this applies to the comics landscape is debatable, but Marvel definitely had an interest in promoting the characters they had the film rights to at the time. Same with the Inhumans getting promoted suspiciously similar to the X-Men, because Perlmutter wanted an equivalent for the MCU, not anticipating the buyout. When the X-Men film rights returned, notice how the Inhumans basically vanished.

It was not just "Marvel was developing properties besides X-Men and Spider-Man", it was "Marvel was promoting their biggest properties for the MCU, at the expense of what wasn't available for movies (X-Men and Fantastic Four)". Spider-Man will always remain an exception due to being Marvel's mascot, and a huge cash cow even without the film rights. I'm not saying they totally built this up in the comics, but I can see how it would happen. I personally think it was a process of multiple factors. The Avengers getting pushed to the heart of the universe may have been to give Marvel their own Justice League, but when the MCU rolled around they went in with it at full force, while downplaying the X-Men in the process.

My two cents.

The problem is the timing of all of this that he is assuming. He is claiming that all of this changing up and diminishing of characters like the X-Men and FF was happening in the mid-2000s, which is factually false.

It was in 2012, after the release and success of the Avengers, in which the X-Men and FF started being diminished and removed in other pieces of media and properties, most likely because now that they knew they had a success, they could get away with only focusing on their properties. Which on the comic side led to the Inhumans making the start of their prominence in 2014, and FF cancelled in 2015.

So while yes they did have their issues in regards to promoting certain properties over the ones they didn't know, it has nothing to do with the arguments he kept bringing up, which are just conspiracy theories in his mind.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The problem is the timing of all of this that he is assuming. He is claiming that all of this changing up and diminishing of characters like the X-Men and FF was happening in the mid-2000s, which is factually false.

Quesada passed a moratorium on creating new mutants after House of M. I gave a link to that. I have born the burden of proof and successfully given testimonies showing that X-Men as a continuity was editorially fenced in. You have all offered no retort or reproof to that. I

So you might well say they that Quesada is being factually false when he gave that moratorium. Might as well say, as some here are, that Chris Claremont is being factually false.

And the proof is also there when you compare stuff before and after. Pre-2004 Quesada didn't always have such views.
-- Like he got Grant Morrison, one of the biggest names in comics to work on New X-Men, which was the main Marvel title that he was interested in. This was when he just took over EIC.
-- Quesada and Bill Jemas worked with Paul Jenkins to create Origin which gave Logan a name. The impetus for that was that Fox was making Wolverine the star of the movies and they wanted to deal with his origins, since "having a vague past he'll never know" is fine for a Han Solo-type supporting character but not when you are making that guy your lead to follow.
-- Likewise when the X-Men Evolution cartoon introduced X23, Wolverine's legacy character, Quesada incorporated that into the comics. He also co-wrote the Marvel origin and made her, a teenage girl in the original cartoon into a Latina prostitute (Because that's how you get people to read comics, make a character intended for young girls as their version of the badass lone-wolf archetype into a sex worker, such is the wisdom of Joey Q).
-- Joss Whedon likewise signed on to do Astonishing X-Men.

Before Quesada treated X-Men respectfully as a major brand and title worthy of respect as an EIC. And he played ball with Fox and other licensees. Then after 2004, there was a definite change. And the reason was definitely Marvel Corporate deciding to focus on licenses they fully own, and Quesada as EIC had to deliver that.

It was in 2012, after the release and success of the Avengers, in which the X-Men and FF started being diminished and removed in other pieces of media and properties, most likely because now that they knew they had a success, they could get away with only focusing on their properties.

The set-up for that was well established before in the comics as a prep. This really isn't anything new.
--For example, Revenge of the Green Goblin, plotted by Roger Stern and written by Paul Jenkins. Stern admitted in a podcast that was a commission to do a Goblin story because he was going to appear in Spider-Man 1 and there needed to be a book that reminded comics readers at the time why Goblin was so scary, insane, and dangerous. That came out in 2000, two years before Spider-Man 1 (2002).
-- Dazzler was set up as a promotion for the movie that never got made.

I mean they have done this before, it's standard practice. Why are people thinking that somehow pure motives exist in the case of Iron Man and the Avengers?


The main thing that the movies changed was validate ideas and sentiments they already had allowing them to fully go ahead. Had IM-1 failed, all that buildup would have been rolled back at once. Civil War status-quo and House of M would have been undone right away.

[Prof. Warren]

You are actively denying the stated opinions and public statements issued by Quesada, Hickman, Claremont, Jordan White, and others who worked on the title.

No, I'm directly addressing them.

Unlike you, I don't read people's word through a mental filter where I imagine that they're saying something they're not and denying what's right in front of me.

Why didn't Quesada return Daredevil to his roots then you know the character who created his own identical twin brother and passed time in San Franscisco? The answer is that Daredevil is only worth anything because of Frank Miller's run.

"Daredevil is only worth anything because of Frank Miller's run?"

No, that would be false - as important as Frank's run is.

And Marvel did return DD to his earlier, swashbuckling roots when Waid had his run.

And he went to San Francisco. And I believe Mike Murdock even showed up. If not with Waid, he certainly did in Soule's run.

So clearly Marvel recognizes that Daredevil did not begin with Miller.

So obviously he had enough sense and awareness as the history of the X-Men and why you can't return that title to the roots. I mean it's the job of the Editor-In-Chief to know the character history, title, and continuity after all.

Daredevil and The X-Men are two different franchises. And no EIC has the 100% ability to know what direction every title should take.

You can know the character's history, title and continuity and still make a misstep with a book.

That's because they weren't allowed to. Many writers openly said that they weren't allowed to do a lot with the stories and editorial restricted what they could do.

If anyone came up with the ideas that Hickman did years earlier and Marvel shot them down, then you'd have a point. They didn't, and you don't.

Are there events in Spider-Man continuity that can be referred to in the same way they were written down originally. Since the answer to that is no, then obviously the continuity is unwieldy. You can't address the stuff in the Clone Saga - Peter accepting Jackal's offer to genocide humans/Peter hitting a pregnant MJ/MJ being pregnant and her missing "baby" even if they happened in continuity. You can't address OMD. Or Sins' Past.

So obviously the continuity is unwieldy.

It really isn't. Not even close to the level of the X-Men.

Next.

Obviously a way to get X-Men and Spider-Man readers to give two s--ts about Avengers and make them think that being an Avenger is some kind of big deal.

Being an Avenger is a big deal. It always has been.

You are, you are insulting Chris Claremont by claiming that his opinions don't count.

I'm claiming his opinions are not facts. This is not complicated.

It absolutely is. It's saying that Claremont has no conviction, and that he would repeat anything fans tell him, and that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's saying that there's a common opinion floating around and that Claremont's is in agreement with it. But that doesn't make it any more right.

I'm sure Claremont would agree that he is simply speculating and does not have corroborating evidence.

Since you don't work for Marvel, since you have never written for superhero stories, and certainly not for so many years, you are absolutely not in any position to judge Chris Claremont or call him a liar or paranoiac.

Chris Claremont will always know more about comics and the state of business than you or me or anyone here ever will.

He is certainly free to speculate, just as anyone else is.

The fact that he was a great writer doesn't mean that his every opinion is based on first hand knowledge.

And he is perfectly capable of being wrong or misinformed.

[The Kid]

So the Avengers push is responsible for One More Day now? Good lord..

[Prof. Warren]

Quesada passed a moratorium on creating new mutants after House of M. I gave a link to that. I have born the burden of proof and successfully given testimonies showing that X-Men as a continuity was editorially fenced in. You have all offered no retort or reproof to that.

You proved that Quesada wanted a moratorium on new mutants.

Which makes sense seeing as House of M was about reducing the number of mutants in the MU.

You concocting a conspiratorial rationale behind Quesada's directive is the problem and that's what you have no proof of.

Jonathan Hickman has also said he doesn't want to create new mutants and instead work with existing characters. Is he being "fenced in?"

No, of course not.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The fact that he was a great writer doesn't mean that his every opinion is based on first hand knowledge.

And he is perfectly capable of being wrong or misinformed.

What makes you so certain that he is, and you are not? After all you don't have any insider's insight to know if a rumor or concern is true or not. You don't really know anything from the inside after all. Unlike me, you cite no sources or testimonials.

And in any case, when Claremont said that, that wasn't a widely known view among Marvel fans at the time. I first heard of the rights issues affecting stories from Claremont's statement.

[Snoop Dogg]

Ya'll think Tony has a Mephisto armor?

[Inversed]

Before Quesada treated X-Men respectfully as a major brand and title worthy of respect as an EIC. And he played ball with Fox and other licensees. Then after 2004, there was a definite change. And the reason was definitely Marvel Corporate deciding to focus on licenses they fully own, and Quesada as EIC had to deliver that.

Then why did X-Men keep getting major and prominent books, keep showing up in other media such as television series and video games all throughout this era? And why was it 2012, after Avengers released, when they decided to actually stop doing all of this?

So the Avengers push is responsible for One More Day now? Good lord..

^ Also comments like this is why it's hard to take so many of the points seriously at all.

Ya'll think Tony has a Mephisto armor?

Shh that's Iron Man 2020 spoilers!

[Prof. Warren]

What makes you so certain that he is, and you are not?

I have no way of knowing for certain which of us is right. It's not really important, in the end.

There is no way to know the full truth of the situation so it's proper to regard all of it as speculation and not fact.

After all you don't have any insider's insight to know if a rumor or concern is true or not. You don't really know anything from the inside after all. Unlike me, you cite no sources or testimonials.

You cite a lot of sources and testimonials but choose to apply your own meaning to them.

Jordan White observing that HoX/PoX was a creative sea change that got the X-line out from under the cloud of M-Day, for example, is not the same as him saying that M-Day was a deliberate hit job on the X-line and that mutants were purposely kept down by editorial mandate afterward for years and now creators working on the books have been newly permitted to do their best work.

And in any case, when Claremont said that, that wasn't a widely known view among Marvel fans at the time. I first heard of the rights issues affecting stories from Claremont's statement.

Wasn't the first I heard of it.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Then why did X-Men keep getting major and prominent books, keep showing up in other media such as television series and video games all throughout this era?

Because they weren’t. The only cartoon after that was Wolverine and the Xmen which has one season. In 2000-2010 there was not a single animated Xmen cartoon on air, which considering the stuff Marvel Animation has done might be for the best, tbh.

No major AAA title though marvel didn’t invest much in games anyway.

And aside from Wolverine and the Xmen by Aaron and a few excellent miniseries here and there there weren’t many prominent titles.

[Huntsman Spider]

Because they weren’t. The only cartoon after that was Wolverine and the Xmen which has one season. In 2000-2010 there was not a single animated Xmen cartoon on air, which considering the stuff Marvel Animation has done might be for the best, tbh.

No major AAA title though marvel didn’t invest much in games anyway.

And aside from Wolverine and the Xmen by Aaron and a few excellent miniseries here and there there weren’t many prominent titles.

There was the X-Men 12-episode anime from 2011, part of Marvel's partnership with the anime studio Madhouse to produce four series based on their characters. The other three were based on solo heroes like Iron Man and Blade, plus Wolverine from the X-Men.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

There was the X-Men 12-episode anime from 2011, part of Marvel's partnership with the anime studio Madhouse to produce four series based on their characters. The other three were based on solo heroes like Iron Man and Blade, plus Wolverine from the X-Men.

Didn't know about this but Marvel restricting X-Men to such a niche offering still confirms my point that they were shuffled out of the spotlight.

The X-Men not having a major cartoon series in the 2010s is definitely neglectful because it has had proven success on that front for two decades. The 90s had the Fox X-Men, the 2000s had X-Men Evolution (which is my favorite) and X-Men Evolution introduced X23 who became the emotional center of LOGAN. Both of them lasted for five and four seasons respectively. Wolverine and the X-Men which adapted parts of Morrison's run went into production before the Disney-Marvel buyout and deal was signed for broadcasting the first season so by the time it came for a second season, Disney simply canceled it. The same thing happened to Weisman's Spectacular Spider-Man where the Disney-Marvel purchase led to the animation rights being renegotiated and so on, and that axed Weisman's show.

[Prof. Warren]

Didn't know about this but Marvel restricting X-Men to such a niche offering still confirms my point that they were shuffled out of the spotlight.

No, it actually doesn't confirm that at all.