Spidertalk podcast interview with Tom Brevoort

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Don't act like comic book pros making cameos is some new thing or huge act of ego.

I was talking specifically about editors making cameos in adaptations including characters who they either didn't create or do major runs on as writer/artist.

And in this case, I am talking about Joe Quesada voicing an avuncular coffee shop owner named Joe, who occasionally gives Teen Peter advice in that cartoon. That's Quesada casting himself in the mould of Lee who often did that or does that in his cameos.

Stan Lee cameod' in Deadpool, a character he didn't create, he cameo's also in Wolverine movies, even if he didn't create Wolverine. But everyone agrees that as the creator of Marvel, and Marvel's greatest EIC, he counts as an exception. No other EIC did that until Quesada is what I am saying.

[Lee]

Quesada said multiple times that he saw the marriage was a mistake. He also said that the Wedding Annual was a bad issue...which again the writer of OMD and especially OMIT is not in any position to judge. I mean the art and writing of the Wedding Annual spliced in OMIT is by far the best part of the comic, because otherwise you have Quesada's typical limited faces and proportions, his love for campy chiaroscuro and amber lighting and of course his utterly risible writing. Next to that Paul Ryan's understated classicism looks divine. This idea that the OMD and BND weren't implicitly and explicitly slagging the marriage era is revisionist. They openly told people multiple times that the marriage was a mistake and that it didn't have good stories. Tom Brevoort referred once to OMD as "medicine" that was bitter but made you better, which, while not explicit, equates the marriage to a kind of sickness. I don't know why people pretend that Quesada and others aren't actively insisting that their take on the character be lasting, going forward.

Why do this? Didn't you apologise for doing this earlier?

Every Marvel EIC makes the decisions they think are best for the comics, the characters, the brand. Every Marvel EIC has opinions on what worked and didn't work in the past and what could be done differently.

This is not a moral failing like you're making it out to be.

And in this case, I am talking about Joe Quesada voicing an avuncular coffee shop owner named Joe, who occasionally gives Teen Peter advice in that cartoon. That's Quesada casting himself in the mould of Lee who often did that or does that in his cameos.

Do you have any evidence that this was all his idea, to satisfy his ego, and not just a fun thing the show's creative staff came up with and offered to him?

Why assume the absolute worst about everyone who makes Spider-Man stories you don't like?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Why do this? Didn't you apologise for doing this earlier?

I apologized for my rhetoric that Brevoort and Quesada didn't act out of the belief that they were doing what's best for the comic. I can see why people got that. And that was wrong. Quesada and Brevoort acted out of what they believed was correct.

At the same time, I can still criticize them for their actions. Stuff like saying that the marriage was a mistake, which they did say multiple times, that is an action. Making a cameo in a cartoon when no EIC other than Stan did before, that too is an action.

Calling OMD a "medicine" and so on, that too is an action.

[Prof. Warren]

Quesada said multiple times that he saw the marriage was a mistake.

Ok. But so what? It's not as though he's the only person to hold that point of view.

He also said that the Wedding Annual was a bad issue...which again the writer of OMD and especially OMIT is not in any position to judge.

Can't they all be bad?

And can't a person have the right to hold whatever opinion?

There are directors who's every film isn't a masterpiece who can still openly criticize another film as being bad without someone saying "what gives you the right?!"

This idea that the OMD and BND weren't implicitly and explicitly slagging the marriage era is revisionist. They openly told people multiple times that the marriage was a mistake and that it didn't have good stories. Tom Brevoort referred once to OMD as "medicine" that was bitter but made you better, which, while not explicit, equates the marriage to a kind of sickness. I don't know why people pretend that Quesada and others aren't actively insisting that their take on the character be lasting, going forward.

Saying the marriage was a mistake and saying that there weren't any good stories during the marriage era are two different things.

I don't believe anyone has ever said that no good Spider-Man stories were told with a married Spider-Man.

And yes, of course, Quesada and others believe their take on the character will be lasting.

It would surely not be the best strategy on their part to say that it isn't or that it shouldn't be.

Quesada has definitely gone out of his way to associate his personal brand with Spider-Man. Like in the 2017 Marvel Spider-Man cartoon currently on Disney, he even voices a character and appears regularly (he plays a coffee-shop owner called Joe). This is the first time any editor other than Stan Lee cameo'd in Spider-Man, not once did Shooter and Defalco ever do that. Nor Roy Thomas. Even Kevin Feige doesn't do cameos or appearances like that in the MCU movies.

Quesada is clearly trying to mold himself into a Stan Lee type of figure, the friendly, avuncular face of Marvel.

That's something he feels comfortable doing while others, like Feige, do not. I don't think there's anything inherently right or wrong with either approach.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

And can't a person have the right to hold whatever opinion?

Sure. They also have the right to the consequences of that opinion. If as an editor-in-chief, you openly say that a status-quo that brought in and attracted a lot of readers and fans and which visibly renewed its popularity with multiple generations (both those who liked the marriage in '87 and the ones who came in later) is a mistake or bad, then nobody can be blamed for thinking that they are asserting their subjective taste as superior to readers. If you admit, tacitly, that the means for doing so is a terrible story but it doesn't matter because they got the ends they wanted, you are conveying openly that as an editor you support a sub-par product so long as the result after that is okay with the editor. In other words, "the ends justify the means" (the default attitude of a number of Marvel villains, and comics villains in general). The attitude that conveys, directly or indirectly is that, "we can do what we want because we are in charge and you have to deal it". That attitude, to paraphrase an old quote, "might help one attain power, but never glory".

There are directors who's every film isn't a masterpiece who can still openly criticize another film as being bad without someone saying "what gives you the right?!"

Directors, writers, and actors have shot their mouth off each other, and a certain candidness has its charm. But again that doesn't mean you don't face consequences for that. John Byrne for instance has, to my knowledge, never said a kind word about any of his contemporaries. None of that is going to change his lasting achievements as a creator and artist of course, but he has faced consequences for that, certainly. He's gotten a reputation for being a crank for one and that has made many people who might have been fans or enjoyed his work reticent from diving in. Whereas Roger Stern's generosity and warm attitude has made many people fans of his, even ones who disagree with his views.

And in any case, an editor does not have the same privileges as a writer. You have to be aware of your audience, including the ones who don't agree with your tastes. Telling them that the version of Spider-Man they like is a mistake isn't doing anything to change that. Saying that the marriage is a mistake or that it shouldn't have happened insults the predecessors. Mark Ginocchio one of the co-hosts of this podcast pointed this out in his review of One Moment In Time.

Quesada is clearly trying to mold himself into a Stan Lee type of figure, the friendly, avuncular face of Marvel.

And to paraphrase "might help one attain power, but never glory", one can take issue with an editor as controversial as Quesada doing that, or questioning if he has the prestige to do that.

[Lee]

At the same time, I can still criticize them for their actions. Stuff like saying that the marriage was a mistake, which they did say multiple times, that is an action.

That's an opinion on a comic book.

It's not a moral failing.

If you don't want any behind the scenes details, to hear the thoughts and opinions of the people making the comics, then don't seek them out. No harm is being committed.

[Prof. Warren]

Sure. They also have the right to the consequences of that opinion.

Haha, I hate to break the news to you but Quesada isn't suffering any consequences.

He's totally aware that OMD was unpopular with some fans and continues to be so.

But he accomplished what he wanted to, is surely pleased with the results, and that's it.

And to paraphrase "might help one attain power, but never glory", one can take issue with an editor as controversial as Quesada doing that, or questioning if he has the prestige to do that.

The prestige to do, say, a voice over or cameo in a cartoon?

You actually think he believes he is attaining "glory" through that, rather than, you know, just having some fun?

If you don't want any behind the scenes details, to hear the thoughts and opinions of the people making the comics, then don't seek them out.

That would be his best move, for sure.

Don't read about what editors and creators say if you can't help but interpret their every word as having an aggressive, mean-spirited, deceptive meaning to it.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Haha, I hate to break the news to you but Quesada isn't suffering any consequences.

He's totally aware that OMD was unpopular with some fans and continues to be so.

But he accomplished what he wanted to, is surely pleased with the results, and that's it.

Among Spider-Man creators and artists there's a group of names who are respected, admired, even loved -- Lee yes, Ditko too, Romita Sr. Andru, Romita Jr, Conway, Stern, DeMatteis, Defalco, Ron Frenz, and I suppose you can add Bendis, at least among younger and more recent fans who see him rightly as the most influential writer on Spider-Man in the 21st Century. These figures are admired and respected by a wide consensus across the entire fandom. By consensus, I mean that it can be said of them that their version of Spider-Man, and their writing on the character is "represents all things to all people". There are people I admire and respect like JMS, who don't have that consensus, just to make clear that i am not playing favorites. Sure JMS' run is liked by a lot, and his stories show up on best-of lists, but stuff like "Sins' Past, The Other" and also the Spider-Totem in general are divisive concepts.

Will Quesada ever have that kind of consensus among the Spider-Man fandom? I think the answer to that is no. Quesada has made as important a mark on Spider-Man, in some case more important than some of the people on that list (more than Stern certainly), but his view on the character, and his reputation as an editor/writer/artist will never be consensual. Nor will his reputation and prestige ever rise to that level. That extends likewise to Tom Brevoort, to BND, and to Dan Slott. They will never be consensual figures in the Spider-Man fandom.

Their version of Spider-Man will never be accepted as all things to all people.

[WebSlingWonder]

Among Spider-Man creators and artists there's a group of names who are respected, admired, even loved -- Lee yes, Ditko too, Romita Sr. Andru, Romita Jr, Conway, Stern, DeMatteis, Defalco, Ron Frenz, and I suppose you can add Bendis, at least among younger and more recent fans who see him rightly as the most influential writer on Spider-Man in the 21st Century. These figures are admired and respected by a wide consensus across the entire fandom. By consensus, I mean that it can be said of them that their version of Spider-Man, and their writing on the character is "represents all things to all people". There are people I admire and respect like JMS, who don't have that consensus, just to make clear that i am not playing favorites. Sure JMS' run is liked by a lot, and his stories show up on best-of lists, but stuff like "Sins' Past, The Other" and also the Spider-Totem in general are divisive concepts.

Will Quesada ever have that kind of consensus among the Spider-Man fandom? I think the answer to that is no. Quesada has made as important a mark on Spider-Man, in some case more important than some of the people on that list (more than Stern certainly), but his view on the character, and his reputation as an editor/writer/artist will never be consensual. Nor will his reputation and prestige ever rise to that level. That extends likewise to Tom Brevoort, to BND, and to Dan Slott. They will never be consensual figures in the Spider-Man fandom.

Their version of Spider-Man will never be accepted as all things to all people.

Jack, it really isn't that deep, man. You gotta stop taking the Spider-Man mythos as gospel.

[Alan2099]

Their version of Spider-Man will never be accepted as all things to all people.

Nobody's version will be accepted as all things to all people. Even Stan and Steve disagreed on aspects of Spider-man.

You need to stop reading creators statements as strict federal law or religious declarations and just come to accept them as neat little behind the scenes things. What matters is what makes it onto the page, not what they were thinking when they wrote it.

[Spidey_62]

No. He is not and never will be portrayed as being 30.

He's hovering around there at this point. He was 25 at the start of BND, forget where they made a point of establishing that but it was established at some point. Dan Slott said he was 28 at some point during his run, whether that was explicitly stated I don't remember, or if it was a case of doing the math.

[WebSlingWonder]

He's hovering around there at this point. He was 25 at the start of BND, forget where they made a point of establishing that but it was established at some point. Dan Slott said he was 28 at some point during his run, whether that was explicitly stated I don't remember, or if it was a case of doing the math.

But in issue #8 of the new series, MJ says that Peter is mid-20s. So unless he got de-aged again, someone forgot he was supposed to be 28-29

[Spidey_62]

But in issue #8 of the new series, MJ says that Peter is mid-20s. So unless he got de-aged again, someone forgot he was supposed to be 28-29

Nice, yeah I imagine he'll be hovering around the nebulous mid to late 20s range forever now.