Is Spider-Man Still Marvel's Flagship Superhero?

[NC_Yankee]

I never got this idea "I can succeed only when others fail". I mean that's true for Batman at DC where editorial constantly shafts and sabotages its other characters from getting any time in the sun.

At Marvel, Spider-Man came in when Fantastic Four was the top comic, and Fantastic Four wasn't ever the top comic after the '60s. It was the X-Men from the mid-70s to the mid-90s and Spider-Man was still super-popular in those decades. Even when Daredevil and others became popular.

It's more remarkable that Spider-Man has maintained high demand even when he has had competition than it would be if he was the only guy carrying the team.

You look at Superman, in the 1940s, Fawcett's Captain Marvel, outsold him and in response to that DC sued Fawcett into submission. In the 1950s, Superman was the top superhero comic...however that was also a decade when superheroes weren't the top comics because in that decade, Uncle Scrooge Comics and other non-superhero comics outsold Superman. So Superman's influence and popularity never did well when pressed by competition, barring some exceptions here and there. Batman was always a strong seller but he was always second banana to Superman until the late-70s when he emerged as DC's top selling and top earning hero.

The question then becomes why is Spider-Man ( Peter) still popular? 1: He is relatable. He is not a God, a mutant, a space alien, a billionaire or a 24/7 superhero. He is a guy who is like the rest of us: Struggling financially, having women problems, and trying to keep a balance in his life. He just has superpowers. 2: He has a great supporting cast and rogues gallery which offers up an opportunity to come up with different stories and scenarios ( even after 59 years). 3: He does not put himself over others. Most comic book characters are aloof and ( or) elites ( like The Avengers hanging out in their mansion when not working). Also think of all the mutants on one Island.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The question then becomes why is Spider-Man ( Peter) still popular?

He has a great costume and powers and skillset. That's all.

Remember Spider-Man is introduced to his biggest and earliest audience when they are babies and toddlers through stickers and toys. They come to know who Spider-Man is and what he does long before they find out he's Peter Parker or any other thing.

Of course once those kids grow up and they are introduced to so many other versions of the character, that build on that so it's a character you grow up with and get to know as you get to know yourself.

[CosmiComic]

Plus he's a solo guy who got his own show early on, and Marvel invested a lot into marketing him, at least to non-comic readers

[JTHM]

The Spider-Man game that was exclusive to one console* sold over 13 million units in about a year. Meanwhile the Avengers game that saw release on multiple consoles and PC is seen as a huge failure for its publisher.

The point is that the MCU is not the be-all, end-all of Marvel.

* Yes, it got a remaster on PS5 but that was well after the fact.

I mean. Maybe that was because the Spider-Man game rocked, and the Avengers game sucked? I know this is the Spider-Man subforum, but damn. What a bad faith argument.

[CosmiComic]

I mean. Maybe that was because the Spider-Man game rocked, and the Avengers game sucked? I know this is the Spider-Man subforum, but damn. What a bad faith argument.

Exactly. Spider-Man got a well made game. That doesn't mean Avengers can't also get one

[Castle]

It is not even a question. Of course he is still the number 1 flag ship hero. Not to disrespect Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and Hulk but Spiderman is one of the only 2 or 3 marvel IPs that has any presence outside of MCU movies. Also recent comic movies don't even impact legacy, especially when you think these movies we have now are not like the sam raimi style of films, instead their are just cooperate flicks no one cares about in a month after marvel has made their billions thanks to branding.

Spiderman has also had longevity and will forever be an icon. he has transcended every aspect of comic story telling from comics, to games to ya fiction.

LOL. Are people even asking this question? sure people know why many other people and more of them, dont like why he is portrayed as a mini tony stark in the mcu flms. we dont like that because that is not what we expect from the most iconic flag ship marvel character.

[Scott Taylor]

Yes, of course. And he is also their flagship "Deal with a Devil" maker. Sorry, Ghost Rider and Son of Satan, you're both out!

[cam18]

they have been pushing Ironman but he ain't it RDJr has star power but that is movies....Spiderman's lore,story's,villians etc are simply better and it will stand the true test of time spiderman is mega successful and I would argue personally is better without a major involvement in the avengers....he is marvel's most popular solo hero and might be there best (I have a personal fondness for Daredevil as well). Spiderman>Avengers and for a solo character that is impressive....need them to drop the Ironman Jr thing in the MCU so spiderman can feel like spiderman again he is great because of who he is not tying him to a lesser character.

[CosmiComic]

they have been pushing Ironman but he ain't it RDJr has star power but that is movies....Spiderman's lore,story's,villians etc are simply better and it will stand the true test of time spiderman is mega successful and I would argue personally is better without a major involvement in the avengers....he is marvel's most popular solo hero and might be there best (I have a personal fondness for Daredevil as well). Spiderman>Avengers and for a solo character that is impressive....need them to drop the Ironman Jr thing in the MCU so spiderman can feel like spiderman again he is great because of who he is not tying him to a lesser character.

Yeah, but isn't Spider-Man's lore bigger only because Marvel didn't make as much effort for other heroes?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yeah, but isn't Spider-Man's lore bigger only because Marvel didn't make as much effort for other heroes?

"Effort" is a word that is tricky and contestable.

Iron Man has been in continuous publication as an ongoing since the 1960s onwards. So Marvel certainly put effort on him which they didn't put behind Black Panther or Carol Danvers or any other female and POC heroes. In all that time, there's basically been just one or two major runs on Iron Man -- Michelinie/Layton's run from the late '70s and then their second run in the late-80s with Armor Wars, and Matt Fraction/Salvador Larocca's run on the character.

Iron Man is a classic example of how little "vote for your wallet" is observed in practice, where you have a white male superhero get endless second chances, endless chances for importance and no shortage of platforms even if he was largely seen as a mediocre character by comics readers for the majority of his publication history...all because Tony embodies a certain projection of a male fantasy -- rich playboy genius guy -- that creators/editors think has currency and value.

And even then -- nothing against Michelinie and Fraction -- but nobody would say that their runs on the character is on the same level as Frank Miller's Daredevil, Chris Claremont's X-Men, Walt Simonson's Thor, John Byrne's Fantastic Four, or all the great runs on Spider-Man (Lee/Ditko, Lee/Romita, Conway, Stern, Defalco, and of course Michelinie himself). Or to use more recent examples -- Grant Morrison's X-Men, JMS' Spider-Man, Bendis' Daredevil, Brubaker's Captain America, Fraction/Aja's Hawkeye. You take the best Iron Man story and it wouldn't be as good to qualify in the top-50 best Spider-Man stories, top-50 best X-Men stories...and that's just Marvel, let's not bring in the top 100 Batman and top 100 Superman stories.

So Iron Man embodies the principle that you can put all the effort in the world behind a character and still not put him over. Spider-Man's "lore" is bigger because his character design and concept is more universal and immediate, his character design and costume is simpler and effective and his original creator Steve Ditko created on his own an iconic rogues gallery that later writer/artists could cycle in and out easily.

Comics are tricky and alchemical. It's not a case that a writer can magically make a masterpiece out of anything. Concept, character, and powerset matter a great deal.

[CosmiComic]

"Effort" is a word that is tricky and contestable.

Iron Man has been in continuous publication as an ongoing since the 1960s onwards. So Marvel certainly put effort on him which they didn't put behind Black Panther or Carol Danvers or any other female and POC heroes. In all that time, there's basically been just one or two major runs on Iron Man -- Michelinie/Layton's run from the late '70s and then their second run in the late-80s with Armor Wars, and Matt Fraction/Salvador Larocca's run on the character.

Iron Man is a classic example of how little "vote for your wallet" is observed in practice, where you have a white male superhero get endless second chances, endless chances for importance and no shortage of platforms even if he was largely seen as a mediocre character by comics readers for the majority of his publication history...all because Tony embodies a certain projection of a male fantasy -- rich playboy genius guy -- that creators/editors think has currency and value.

And even then -- nothing against Michelinie and Fraction -- but nobody would say that their runs on the character is on the same level as Frank Miller's Daredevil, Chris Claremont's X-Men, Walt Simonson's Thor, John Byrne's Fantastic Four, or all the great runs on Spider-Man (Lee/Ditko, Lee/Romita, Conway, Stern, Defalco, and of course Michelinie himself). Or to use more recent examples -- Grant Morrison's X-Men, JMS' Spider-Man, Bendis' Daredevil, Brubaker's Captain America, Fraction/Aja's Hawkeye. You take the best Iron Man story and it wouldn't be as good to qualify in the top-50 best Spider-Man stories, top-50 best X-Men stories...and that's just Marvel, let's not bring in the top 100 Batman and top 100 Superman stories.

So Iron Man embodies the principle that you can put all the effort in the world behind a character and still not put him over. Spider-Man's "lore" is bigger because his character design and concept is more universal and immediate, his character design and costume is simpler and effective and his original creator Steve Ditko created on his own an iconic rogues gallery that later writer/artists could cycle in and out easily.

Comics are tricky and alchemical. It's not a case that a writer can magically make a masterpiece out of anything. Concept, character, and powerset matter a great deal.

I see what you mean. But I feel any of these characters could've been as big as Spider-Man had Marvel have them as good stories. I think it's especially true about minority heroes. I don't find Peter inherently more interesting than the rest. He just was given the best stories in the first place. Which seems a bit short sighted to me.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I see what you mean. But I feel any of these characters could've been as big as Spider-Man had Marvel have them as good stories.

There's a lot to unpack in this sentence, a lot of assumptions joined together.

-- "as big as Spider-Man" is a phrase that doesn't quite give due respect to how big Spider-Man is and how fast he became that big. Superman debuted in 1938, Batman in 1939. Spider-Man in 1962. In 1976, Spider-Man and Superman appeared in the crossover Superman vs. the Amazing Spider-Man, the first ever intercompany intercontinuity crossover, and the first time DC did that with another company. It was an acknowledgement on DC's part that Marvel wasn't a company they can buy or crush into dust like they did to Fawcett and Quality Comics, and it was also an acknowledgement that Spider-Man was Superman's equal in cultural importance and influence. And Spider-Man did that before hitting his 15th anniversary in publication. That's a case of a character becoming big and fast in a way nobody else has achieved before and since.

So the answer is that no...not anyone could have become as big as Spider-Man. If a character "becoming as big as Spider-Man" was something as simple and mechanical as "have them as good stories" then any character could be as "big as Spider-Man". And the fact is that no one is.

-- "Marvel have them as good stories" implies that characters didn't get good stories. The truth is that Iron Man had stories that are good, or at least written by talented writers who did well elsewhere. It's just that with Iron Man it never found the right expression or moment.

A lot of top talent worked on Iron Man over the decades, some have done better than others but none of them have delivered in Iron Man a story that's essential to comics the way BORN AGAIN is, THE DARK PHOENIX SAGA is, THE GALACTUS TRILOGY is, and so on. Even if you don't read or know Daredevil, X-Men, Fantastic Four, those stories are kinda essential to read because it had a powerful influence and legacy not just in their titles but across the media. Whereas with Iron Man you've never had that.

He just was given the best stories in the first place. Which seems a bit short sighted to me.

Again, I feel you are treating this as mechanical. The truth is that nobody knows or understands why Spider-Man succeeded the way he did. It's not something you predict or repeat in a laboratory.

[Spiderfan001]

There's a lot to unpack in this sentence, a lot of assumptions joined together.

-- "as big as Spider-Man" is a phrase that doesn't quite give due respect to how big Spider-Man is and how fast he became that big. Superman debuted in 1938, Batman in 1939. Spider-Man in 1962. In 1976, Spider-Man and Superman appeared in the crossover Superman vs. the Amazing Spider-Man, the first ever intercompany intercontinuity crossover, and the first time DC did that with another company. It was an acknowledgement on DC's part that Marvel wasn't a company they can buy or crush into dust like they did to Fawcett and Quality Comics, and it was also an acknowledgement that Spider-Man was Superman's equal in cultural importance and influence. And Spider-Man did that before hitting his 15th anniversary in publication. That's a case of a character becoming big and fast in a way nobody else has achieved before and since.

So the answer is that no...not anyone could have become as big as Spider-Man. If a character "becoming as big as Spider-Man" was something as simple and mechanical as "have them as good stories" then any character could be as "big as Spider-Man". And the fact is that no one is.

-- "Marvel have them as good stories" implies that characters didn't get good stories. The truth is that Iron Man had stories that are good, or at least written by talented writers who did well elsewhere. It's just that with Iron Man it never found the right expression or moment.

A lot of top talent worked on Iron Man over the decades, some have done better than others but none of them have delivered in Iron Man a story that's essential to comics the way BORN AGAIN is, THE DARK PHOENIX SAGA is, THE GALACTUS TRILOGY is, and so on. Even if you don't read or know Daredevil, X-Men, Fantastic Four, those stories are kinda essential to read because it had a powerful influence and legacy not just in their titles but across the media. Whereas with Iron Man you've never had that.



Again, I feel you are treating this as mechanical. The truth is that nobody knows or understands why Spider-Man succeeded the way he did. It's not something you predict or repeat in a laboratory.

This gut gets it.A few factors that I can think of were that he was a teen superhero(who was not a side-kick),he was likeable and had a great power set that was easily and transferred on paper.The spider-sense visual along with wall-crawling and webs made for a unique power-set.

[NC_Yankee]

Yeah, but isn't Spider-Man's lore bigger only because Marvel didn't make as much effort for other heroes?

I do not think that is it. It is just Spider-Man caught on with the public in a way other characters did not. Why? The reasons I said before. He is relatable. Peter is not a God, space alien, billionaire or something none of us will ever be. He has financial and female issues ( that is certainly something I can relate to). But I think more then anything else, Peter has kept his humanity and will not sacrifice that to be 24/7 Spider-Man. It is especially important in an era of comic book elitism ( a mutant only island for example), Peter still does not isolate himself from the average person.

[Spiderfan001]

I do not think that is it. It is just Spider-Man caught on with the public in a way other characters did not. Why? The reasons I said before. He is relatable. Peter is not a God, space alien, billionaire or something none of us will ever be. He has financial and female issues ( that is certainly something I can relate to). But I think more then anything else, Peter has kept his humanity and will not sacrifice that to be 24/7 Spider-Man. It is especially important in an era of comic book elitism ( a mutant only island for example), Peter still does not isolate himself from the average person.

Amen to that.Also the fact that he grew up.We see him evolve from a mostly nerdy kid to a semi-confident mature man.Of course people like Dan Slott and eras like BND(and arcs like SP) but the fact that People went through stuff like that and the clone saga shows how much of a strong following he has not just in number but in dedication and love for the characters.Sooner or later we always get back on track.Peter bounced after clone saga and now is bouncing back from Slott and BND as we speak.