The Problem With Spider-Man Comics Today

[WebLurker]

I'm not going to argue the number of views on twitter, this whole topic has got beyond the point of ridiculous if we are going to get into it. One of the posts had 1.9 million views nad over 54k likes on it, that is all. It may mean nothing to you and that's fine.

The problem with the numbers is that we don't know the percentage of the total audience that they're coming from, making it impossible to know for sure whether the million-some users are a majority, minority, or comparable to other factions in the audience who may disagree with them or not care about the issue at hand. (Same problem from the opposite end re. proving that the majority of fans don't care about the Peter/MJ relationship and/or marriage and/or prefer the OMD incarnation of the series vs. the pre-OMD).

Long story short; you may be right, but it's just blind speculation, based on the info we have.

[Lee]

Well, there were 1.9 million vies on a twitter post that was claming that the Spdierverse movie with Ben Reilly and Mayday were a middle finger to editorial, doesn't mean they all had that opinion. Bu the 54k thumbs up on it mean 54 thousand people took the time to vote that they liked it and not just ignore the post. It probably had a ton of views because these posts were related to the movie news so tons of people saw them, the amount of engagement on the likes was extremely high though which means 10s of thousands of people actually engaged to like multiple posts related to Peter Parker marriage/baby issue.

If 54k people think that Scarlet Spider and baby Mayday appearing in Across the Spider-Verse is some attack on the current run of Spider-Man comics and the people making them, then that's 54k people who lack critical thinking skills.

If Spider-Girl had 54k readers then it would never have been cancelled. An inflammatory tweet is useless.

[Vortex85]

The problem with the numbers is that we don't know the percentage of the total audience that they're coming from, making it impossible to know for sure whether the million-some users are a majority, minority, or comparable to other factions in the audience who may disagree with them or not care about the issue at hand. (Same problem from the opposite end re. proving that the majority of fans don't care about the Peter/MJ relationship and/or marriage and/or prefer the OMD incarnation of the series vs. the pre-OMD).

Long story short; you may be right, but it's just blind speculation, based on the info we have.

True, no way of knowing the distribution of likes on that post, was it a movie fan who thought it was funny, was it a comic fan in the know, was it a guy who saw a youtube video with OMD and was yeah, screw editorial just because everyone else is? Who knows. It's just people at the end of the day. People apparently into Spider-Man because they are looking at that content on the internet and reacting and engaging with it.

If 54k people think that Scarlet Spider and baby Mayday appearing in Across the Spider-Verse is some attack on the current run of Spider-Man comics and the people making them, then that's 54k people who lack critical thinking skills.

If Spider-Girl had 54k readers then it would never have been cancelled. An inflammatory tweet is useless.

Yeah, those characters being featured in the movie not an attack on editorial. I agree with that. But I still "liked" the comment on twitter knowing this, because it is still a way to show frustration or disagreement with the direction of editorial in the comics related to killing off baby May and saying Ben has no place in the comics. I suspect most people liking that post know those character being featured is not an editorial attack, but it is a cheeky way to voice disagreement with the editorial direction.

[Lee]

Yeah, those characters being featured in the movie not an attack on editorial. I agree with that. But I still "liked" the comment on twitter knowing this

Then you are encouraging bad behavior and fans being shitty towards comic creators for stupid made up reasons.

[Vortex85]

Then you are encouraging bad behavior and fans being shitty towards comic creators for stupid made up reasons.

No creator is personally being attacked by that post. It's just a fuzzy "editorial" they are attacking. When you say are against editorial, that is against a policy or direction for the character. It's not an attack on editors themselves. You do understand it's a joke post on a social medium about flipping the bird to editorial? If you think that is an attack of "bad behavior" then you are being way too sensitive for social media landscapes. These are fans on twitter you are talking about, not professional employees of a company with an image that needs to be maintained...cut them some slack.

In summary, the post represents a disagreement with a direction for the character. It's not people being "shitty" to anyone.

[Vortex85]

Further Lee, all your posts here behave like you have some personal held position or previous held position at Marvel or in the comics industry and that is all you seem to be invested in. It's very strange I never see you talk about reading comics or discuss what is happening in the stories or even be into Spider-Man much as you don't seem to talk about the character like other fans here. You have asked me why I post here, I am curious why you are here....?

Because it's very odd that you do not behave like a fan and your whole purpose here seems to be centered on defending comic creators as if you have some personal stake in it. Or you are protecting people you personally know or something.... or maybe have held a position as a creator or know what it's like to be a creator in the comics industry?

[Lee]

No creator is personally being attacked by that post. It's just a fuzzy "editorial" they are attacking.

How many people edit Amazing Spider-Man?

Look at the replies to that tweet. Look at the people using it to harass Nick Lowe. Look at the poster's other tweets. That is what you are encouraging. You are encouraging the very thing you said you weren't a part of in the other thread.

When you say are against editorial, that is against a policy or direction for the character. It's not an attack on editors themselves. You do understand it's a joke post on a social medium about flipping the bird to editorial? If you think that is an attack of "bad behavior" then you are being way too sensitive for social media landscapes.

Look at the poster's other tweets.

These are fans on twitter you are talking about, not professional employees of a company with an image that needs to be maintained...cut them some slack.

No. Basic human decency should be a bare minimum expectation for everyone.

[Vortex85]

How many people edit Amazing Spider-Man?

Look at the replies to that tweet. Look at the people using it to harass Nick Lowe. Look at the poster's other tweets. That is what you are encouraging. You are encouraging the very thing you said you weren't a part of in the other thread.



Look at the poster's other tweets.



No. Basic human decency should be a bare minimum expectation for everyone.

I liked the tweet for my own reason. I do not control what other people say and just because someone else says something in relation to something I liked that I disagree with doesn't mean I have to unlike it. You are trying to police me telling me what it's ok for me to do and what not to do which is getting a little annoying, frankly. I defended Nick Lowe many times from people who actually made personal attacks to him on his twitter, but that doesn't mean I'm going to withhold my ability to post my disagreement on editorial driven direction of the character when I can on a post that isn't naming names or saying anyone should be fired or anything malicious.

I am not attacking Nick Lowe or anyone at Marvel by liking that post. I am simply criticizing past decisions that have been made about the character that I would like to see changed.

[Lee]

The tweeter made shit up about the motivations and opinions of the people working on the Spider-Man movies and the Spider-Man comics. You liked the tweet despite knowing that it was made up bullshit, therefore validating that behavior. In the thread Dan made you said you don't engage in the behavior of ascribing negative made-up motivations to Spider-Man creators.

You are free to do what you want, but if you say you don't approve of online posts that ascribe made up motivations to people, but then admit to having approved of an online post that ascribes made up motivations to people, that's a contradiction.

[Alan2099]

No creator is personally being attacked by that post. It's just a fuzzy "editorial" they are attacking.

"Editorial" isn't actually real people? Who do you think works on Spider-man then? AIs? Trained circus bears?

[Vortex85]

You guys are ignoring what I said and just repeating the same false claim against me. I liked the tweet to show disagreement with an editorial decision - that is my i understanding of the tweet. I’m done with this conversation.

[Airtrap]

You guys are ignoring what I said. I liked the tweet to show disagreement with an editorial decision - that is my i understanding of the tweet. I’m done with this conversation.

As someone who really only lurks these forums, i have to say you are incredible toxic and unpleasant individual, of course you are constantly attacking creators. You started a whole threat that's attacking them. You represent everything wrong with the Spider-Man fandom.

It's obvious that Spider-Man comics don't bring you joy, you should really step back from them for your own mental health

[Vortex85]

As someone who really only lurks these forums, i have to say you are incredible toxic and unpleasant individual, of course you are constantly attacking creators. You started a whole threat that's attacking them. You represent everything wrong with the Spider-Man fandom.

It's obvious that Spider-Man comics don't bring you joy, you should really step back from them for your own mental health

I'm sorry, that is simply not true. I'm not attacking creators. The is a difference between attacking a person and attacking a decision about a character. I have never attacked the person. They are great people and doing their best with the belief they have. I just disagree with the beliefs they have about the character and am voicing that disagreement. Posting a thread about people complaining about their decisions that people have complained about for years is not a personal attack, it's a fandom belief that has been around since OMD happened.

[Airtrap]

I'm sorry, that is simply not true. I'm not attacking creators. The is a difference between attacking a person and attacking a decision about a character. I have never attacked the person. They are great people and doing their best with the belief they have. I just disagree with the beliefs they have about the character and am voicing that disagreement. Posting a thread about people complaining about their decisions that people have complained about for years is not a personal attack, it's a fandom belief that has been around since OMD happened.

See your intent doesn't matter here, you posted the thread and Dan Slott mentioned it as an example of an personal attack, therefore it's a personal attack and i agree with Dan here.

[Vortex85]

See your intent doesn't matter here, you posted the thread and Dan Slott mentioned it as an example of an personal attack, therefore it's a personal attack and i agree with Dan here.

Actually, Dan agreed with me that I did not personally attack creators by making that. We cleared the air. He in fact thought I was making the claim that creators hated fans, which I never claimed they did. When he realized I was taking about the fan hate of the editorial decision, then he said he understood what I meant and said that was reasonable and we ended the conversation on a good note. Perhaps you missed that part of his thread but he just simply misunderstood the topic title and thought I was making a claim I wasn't. We cleared that up: