Spider-Offices Kremlinology

[Kaitou D. Kid]

No one outside of Marvel knows how Amazing is selling right now.

That's why I said "it seems like". (I don't know either.)

[RJT]

That's why I said "it seems like". (I don't know either.)

Actually, since Wells' run is continuing and Marvel has decided to highlight it by promoting it with their FCBD offering this year, all evidence would point to it "seeming like" it's selling well.

I've been losing interest in the Batman titles for the past couple of years--it seems like every storyline involves a Batman villain targeting Gotham specifically to get at Batman--and while most of these stories have been well-written and usually beautifully drawn, I just can't muster much enthusiasm for them. It seems like it's the same story over and over again. I'd love to read a Batman comic where he is solving mysteries and foiling crimes that have nothing to do with some secret cabal that has been working behind the scenes for years or whatever.

But all evidence suggests that most readers are fine with those storylines. DC's publishing slate is rife with Batman stories, so all evidence suggests that he is selling well.

Likewise, these boards are filled with people who hate the current Spider-Man run (some of you have hated the past 15 years of Spider-Man comics) and you are extrapolating beyond that--from your personal opinion--to a reality that supports that.

Marvel has continued publishing multiple Spider-Man comics a month for the past fifteen years. There are really two possibilities a) they are selling horribly, and Marvel is only continuing to publish them as a face-saving measure so they won't have to admit they've made a mistake, or b) they are selling fine, and Marvel sees no need to drastically revert the title to the status quo of a generation ago. Occam's razor would suggest the latter, but everyone here operates as though the former is a given.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

No Batman run in recent decades ever received as much hate as Wells' current run. Not even close and not even Tom King.

Even Slott's run didn't get this much hate. Slott at least has a cult following, which the same can't be said for Wells.

Wells' Spider-Man run is an anomaly. Potentially only matched by the hate for OMD/OMIT and the Clone Saga/90's Byrne era.

[Huntsman Spider]

No Batman run in recent decades ever received as much hate as Wells' current run. Not even close and not even Tom King.

Even Slott's run didn't get this much hate. Slott at least has a cult following, which the same can't be said for Wells.

Wells' Spider-Man run is an anomaly. Potentially only matched by the hate for OMD/OMIT and the Clone Saga/90's Byrne era.

And even the Clone Saga had its redeeming aspects or moments before going on for too long because the marketers and execs were loving how it was selling and wanted to keep it going just for that.

[Lee]

Actually, since Wells' run is continuing and Marvel has decided to highlight it by promoting it with their FCBD offering this year, all evidence would point to it "seeming like" it's selling well.

I've been losing interest in the Batman titles for the past couple of years--it seems like every storyline involves a Batman villain targeting Gotham specifically to get at Batman--and while most of these stories have been well-written and usually beautifully drawn, I just can't muster much enthusiasm for them. It seems like it's the same story over and over again. I'd love to read a Batman comic where he is solving mysteries and foiling crimes that have nothing to do with some secret cabal that has been working behind the scenes for years or whatever.

But all evidence suggests that most readers are fine with those storylines. DC's publishing slate is rife with Batman stories, so all evidence suggests that he is selling well.

Likewise, these boards are filled with people who hate the current Spider-Man run (some of you have hated the past 15 years of Spider-Man comics) and you are extrapolating beyond that--from your personal opinion--to a reality that supports that.

Marvel has continued publishing multiple Spider-Man comics a month for the past fifteen years. There are really two possibilities a) they are selling horribly, and Marvel is only continuing to publish them as a face-saving measure so they won't have to admit they've made a mistake, or b) they are selling fine, and Marvel sees no need to drastically revert the title to the status quo of a generation ago. Occam's razor would suggest the latter, but everyone here operates as though the former is a given.

Agreed. I feel the exact same way about Batman. I like the characters a lot, but haven't cared for the directions the series has gone in in a long long time. Every so often there'll be a mini-series or something that aligns with my tastes, and I'll read that.

I can do this without making up stories about how the book is failing or that the writers and editors are liars and bad people who intentionally make bad comics because they hate their readers.

on the other end of the spectrum you have guys like Slott (they don't want Peter and MJ getting married and they don't like MJ)

Slott likes MJ. He's said he likes MJ. He pitched and wrote the Renew Your Vows mini-series because married Spider-Man was the one big thing he couldn't do in the mainstream continuity.

You just don't like how he wrote MJ. That doesn't mean he dislikes MJ.

There's no conspiracy. He wrote some comics. You didn't like them. That's it. There's nothing deeper to it than that.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

And even the Clone Saga had its redeeming aspects or moments before going on for too long because the marketers and execs were loving how it was selling and wanted to keep it going just for that.

I never read it, and avoided it like the plague, but I hear the first year of The Clone Saga is good. (It drops around the reveal that Ben is the "real" Spider-Man.) I mean, the same can't be said for Wells' first year.

Also, the Clone Saga at least added some cool characters to the mythos (Ben, Kaine, Mayday). Wells added no one (Chasm is hated, and Rek-Rap & Paul are complete afterthoughts.)

[Mister Mets]

I disagree 100%. Fans know who owns Spider-Man and the characters involved. One MAJOR problem is the constant game playing and teasing from the Spider Office ( remember the BND issue in the Spencer Run?). If Marvel does not want MJ in Peter’s life, then fine. Just delete her from the book, movies and everything else ( AU’s included) and call it a day. But they do not because they lack the balls necessary to do it.

They want to keep the character, but they don't want her in a particular role. The editorial team may like Doctor Octopus as a character, but believe that Spider-man should fight other enemies.

To be fair, we've only had Slott, Wells, and Spencer under this regime. Not too much to draw a pattern from. Those sausages could be totally on Slott and Wells and their own personal tastes/impressions. We know how Slott felt as he was quite vocal about it. The fact that Spencer took a starkly different tone suggests that it's not editorially driven. The only editorial consistency between these runs is the inconsistency.

There are plenty of people on other titles with an understanding of how the sausage is made who could spill tea if we wanted.

People would have similar experiences on major franchises.

I think it helps to establish what we know before we just to conclusions.

First thing we know: Pro-OMD people at Marvel lie on a spectrum and don't think the same. On one end of the spectrum you have guys like Conway (who like the pairing but don't want to see them reach mid 20's and get married), and on the other end of the spectrum you have guys like Slott (they don't want Peter and MJ getting married and they don't like MJ). They're a bit like Corporate Democrats and Republicans. Bith are defenders of a horrible status quo, but there is a clear lesser evil.

Now, the next question is how much power do the MJ haters in this group have? Honestly, it seems that those who think like Conway (the lesser evil option) are the ones with actual Editorial power. Quesada and Brevoort don't seem to hate MJ per se, they judt don't want Peter married to anyone. In fact, we know Quesada has no problem with it because he told Spencer he can pair them. And the fact Lowe allowed Spencer to write them together for 3 years leads me to believe he is more of a Conway type than a Slott type.

So I don't think Editorial or anyone with power at Marvel hates MJ. Make no mistake, they're all MJ hater enablers - Quesada gave the keys to the kingdom to genuine MJ haters just because they agreed with OMD - but at the end of the day, the MJ haters/Slott types are kept on a leash by the Quesada/Conway types. Maybe that changed with Quesada's departure and will Cebulski... but as of now, there is no proof that the MJ-hating wing of the Pro-OMD team has any more Editorial power than pre-2022.

As for whether or not Wells is trying to ruin MJ... I get the sense he is disconnected from his work and doesn't see it as much of a priority. In other words, he is too apathethic to care about something like that. And based on past interviews, he knows the next writer will do his own thing. Also, he clearly prefers Felicia, but he has written her terribly too. That goes to show that apathy towards good characterization (and to the book in general) is a bigger factors affecting the book than any supposed MJ hate.

Those are my two cents.

So are you saying that liking OMD is bipartisan, and the critics are the equivalent of the fringe of the political party the reader likes least (these would be the people complaining about Corporate Democrats and Republicans.) Or is the fringe more like looney third-party types?

Actually, since Wells' run is continuing and Marvel has decided to highlight it by promoting it with their FCBD offering this year, all evidence would point to it "seeming like" it's selling well.

I've been losing interest in the Batman titles for the past couple of years--it seems like every storyline involves a Batman villain targeting Gotham specifically to get at Batman--and while most of these stories have been well-written and usually beautifully drawn, I just can't muster much enthusiasm for them. It seems like it's the same story over and over again. I'd love to read a Batman comic where he is solving mysteries and foiling crimes that have nothing to do with some secret cabal that has been working behind the scenes for years or whatever.

But all evidence suggests that most readers are fine with those storylines. DC's publishing slate is rife with Batman stories, so all evidence suggests that he is selling well.

Likewise, these boards are filled with people who hate the current Spider-Man run (some of you have hated the past 15 years of Spider-Man comics) and you are extrapolating beyond that--from your personal opinion--to a reality that supports that.

Marvel has continued publishing multiple Spider-Man comics a month for the past fifteen years. There are really two possibilities a) they are selling horribly, and Marvel is only continuing to publish them as a face-saving measure so they won't have to admit they've made a mistake, or b) they are selling fine, and Marvel sees no need to drastically revert the title to the status quo of a generation ago. Occam's razor would suggest the latter, but everyone here operates as though the former is a given.

To be fair, there may be an explanation beyond the binary of Spider-Man books selling great and needing no change, or Spider-Man books selling terribly and requiring a new direction and team.

Sales will often fall in a gray area of okay in context. Under those circumstances, there could be passionate arguments about whether a radical change is called for.

[Mister Mets]

So Marvel released the solicits for the last two issues of the What Peter Did Story. Their claim was ""This May, Zeb Wells and John Romita Jr.'s run of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN reaches a startling unexpected climax and conclusion of its first year! Don't miss two over-sized, monumental AMAZING SPIDER-MAN issues with #25 and the heartbreaking #26!""

https://bleedingcool.com/comics/marv...of-gwen-stacy/

They're keeping John Romita Jr, one of the most in-demand artists in comics, on this storyline. They're calling it the end of the first year of Wells and Romita Jr's run.

This doesn't seem like they're giving Wells two issues to tie up loose ends, before someone else sets the series on a new direction.

In contrast, the final issues of Nick Spencer's Amazing Spider-Man had 3-6 artists each.

[TinkerSpider]

So Marvel released the solicits for the last two issues of the What Peter Did Story. Their claim was ""This May, Zeb Wells and John Romita Jr.'s run of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN reaches a startling unexpected climax and conclusion of its first year! Don't miss two over-sized, monumental AMAZING SPIDER-MAN issues with #25 and the heartbreaking #26!""

https://bleedingcool.com/comics/marv...of-gwen-stacy/

They're keeping John Romita Jr, one of the most in-demand artists in comics, on this storyline. They're calling it the end of the first year of Wells and Romita Jr's run.

This doesn't seem like they're giving Wells two issues to tie up loose ends, before someone else sets the series on a new direction.

In contrast, the final issues of Nick Spencer's Amazing Spider-Man had 3-6 artists each.

I never really thought Wells was leaving - unless his MCU commitments got too onerous, which a person can hope - he made it clear in a podcast released in August that it was alway his plan to end his first year with this story and then start his second year with the characters and the readers on the same page.

But I will say not to read too much into the Spencer situation. We knew that was unusual and Spencer left before he thought he was leaving. And it was still the pandemic to some extent, and there were - still are, I think - printer capacity and paper shortages that meant books had to finished further ahead of time - which would mean pushing the artists’ schedules - to secure places at the printers, and then they made some of Spencer’s last issues bigger to accommodate as much of the story as possible.

They seems to have figured out the operational flow now.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I never expected Wells to leave right after "What Peter Did". His contract would realistically grant minimum 2 years. At the very least, they would need some time to find a new writer. So Wells was going to stay on (at least) until mid-to-late 2023.

It's all fine by me. It just means the book and Editorial are due for more humiliation. Reminder that as strong as the hate right now is, it will be nothing compared to when the book has to compete with ATSV and Insomniac's game. Both of those being not only significantly better written, but fundamental rejections of Wells' vision.

[The Negative Zone]

I don't think the Spider-Man writers hate MJ, if anything they probably hate not having much to do with her. They can't marry Peter and MJ because of editorial and getting them back together might be seen as futile since someone will just break them up. Or maybe they just prefer to attempt to write in other love interests. Keyword: attempt.

[Spider-Tiger]

It's all fine by me. It just means the book and Editorial are due for more humiliation. Reminder that as strong as the hate right now is, it will be nothing compared to when the book has to compete with ATSV and Insomniac's game. Both of those being not only significantly better written, but fundamental rejections of Wells' vision.

Unfortunately those two things might artificially inflate sales. At least by then editorial should have a very clear picture as to whether or not this direction was successful.

[TinkerSpider]

T
To be fair, there may be an explanation beyond the binary of Spider-Man books selling great and needing no change, or Spider-Man books selling terribly and requiring a new direction and team.

Sales will often fall in a gray area of okay in context. Under those circumstances, there could be passionate arguments about whether a radical change is called for.

We don't know what Marvel's internal targets and metrics are for ASM. So none of us can say if the book is selling "great" or "poorly." ASM could be the top selling title at 100K/month but if Marvel has a target of 115K/month and they've planned their budgets around hitting that number, then the book could be seen internally as a failure. By the same token, a book like Gold Goblin could be well down the sales charts and selling 40K/month. But if the estimates were 30K/month, then the book could be deemed a success.

I don't think the Spider-Man writers hate MJ, if anything they probably hate not having much to do with her. They can't marry Peter and MJ because of editorial and getting them back together might be seen as futile since someone will just break them up. Or maybe they just prefer to attempt to write in other love interests. Keyword: attempt.

I dunno. If writing Mary Jane as too stupid and vacuous to understand Peter's and Carlie's dialogue while her dialogue goes over their heads as being too shallow, or depicting MJ passively sitting in fire just waiting for rescue and not doing a single thing to self rescue herself, are examples of how a writer depicts a character for whom they have respect and regard: gods save the characters the writer doesn't enjoy writing.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Unfortunately those two things might artificially inflate sales. At least by then editorial should have a very clear picture as to whether or not this direction was successful.

We'll see. Typically movies and games don't lead to an influx of sales from non-comic readers. And those that read comics already know or heard how bad this run is. I'm not too worried about a major rise in sales.

Quality-wise (assuming Lord & Miller and Insomniac still "got it"), it's bound to humiliate BND 2.0 even more.

[Mister Mets]

We don't know what Marvel's internal targets and metrics are for ASM. So none of us can say if the book is selling "great" or "poorly." ASM could be the top selling title at 100K/month but if Marvel has a target of 115K/month and they've planned their budgets around hitting that number, then the book could be seen internally as a failure. By the same token, a book like Gold Goblin could be well down the sales charts and selling 40K/month. But if the estimates were 30K/month, then the book could be deemed a success.



I dunno. If writing Mary Jane as too stupid and vacuous to understand Peter's and Carlie's dialogue while her dialogue goes over their heads as being too shallow, or depicting MJ passively sitting in fire just waiting for rescue and not doing a single thing to self rescue herself, are examples of how a writer depicts a character for whom they have respect and regard: gods save the characters the writer doesn't enjoy writing.

There are some titles that are obviously hits, and some titles that are obviously flops.

A lot of books fall in the middle, where it's simultaneously possible to argue that it's currently profitable, and that it would benefit from a major change.

For fans trying to figure out what's going on at Marvel, this ambiguity is a further complication. That assumes they have an accurate understanding of the available data.