Is the Zeb Wells run on Amazing Spider-Man the worst run in the history of ASM?

[Alan2099]

I think calling it the worst is recency bias and a real reflection can only be made once it's over and we've had a bit of distance, but it's certainly going to be a contender. I stopped buying, then stopped even reading the book, which has only happened twice before in eras I utterly despise.

Reading the comments here, it feels like every single run is "the worst ever!!!!"... at least until the next one starts.

[Garlador]

Change is coming, it may not happen for a while.

This is my belief.

I’m old. I’ve seen every hero I’ve loved poorly handled. Every beloved relationship ruined.

And I’ve seen new blood always come in and start rebuilding until the next jerk breaks it down again in a never-ending cycle.

A few years ago, Superman and Lois had no marriage and hated each other. Now they’re back to being married with kids.

A few years ago, Wally West had his marriage erased. He and his wife had their third kid this year.

I’ve seen garbage stories like Identity Crisis rape and murder a pregnant Sue Dibny. She’s alive and well with her husband.

I’ve seen them murder children like Lian Harper. She’s back.

At one point a decade ago, I had a list of all my favorite heroes, and half of them were DEAD. Most of them were brought back recently.

Spider-Man editorial is still the same braintrust that did One More Day. That hated story is still the foundation of every story that came after, so why would anyone expect they’d change their minds now?

Things will change! They WILL. But only after new blood comes onboard.

I mean, just looking having a brief look at the Spider-Man boards, half of the threads are essentially about the same topic.
It's tiring.

My observation is it’s actually dozens of different topics, but they all share the same root problem.

The problems won’t go away until the book gets a completely new editorial refresh, because it all traces back to that source.

Until then, the healthy thing would be to express your concerns, drop the book, and find a better alternative. I’ve been recommending a lot of books that feel more “Spider-Man” than Spider-Man these days. Wally West job-hunting to pay the bills and keep his family secure while balancing heroics, annoying his villains, attending parent-teacher meetings, having date nights, and exploring personal hobbies is exactly the kind of tone that once made Spider-Man thrive.

Reading the comments here, it feels like every single run is "the worst ever!!!!"... at least until the next one starts.

This is the run that made me come back to vent after years of hiatus.

The last time was ONE MORE DAY.

[Coop]

Reading the comments here, it feels like every single run is "the worst ever!!!!"... at least until the next one starts.

I remember the Spencer run being very well received until he ran out his goodwill by dragging out the Kindred's reveal and then left the title

[DT Winslow]

Who are you talking about when you say 'the same braintrust that did One More Day?' OMD was spearheaded by Joe Quesada, who is no longer with the company. Steve Wacker was the editor of BND, and he is no longer with the company. Nick Lowe came on board at the tail end of Superior. Maybe a little earlier. But he became the full editor of the book around Superior Venom. Tom Brevoort is still at the company but has never had direct oversight on Spider-Man. Yes, he is the SVP of Publishing, so I guess he counts.

But the Editor on the book and the Asst Editor on the book and the EiC of Marvel are all different. So who is this 'braintrust?'

[clonegeek]

Who are you talking about when you say 'the same braintrust that did One More Day?' OMD was spearheaded by Joe Quesada, who is no longer with the company. Steve Wacker was the editor of BND, and he is no longer with the company. Nick Lowe came on board at the tail end of Superior. Maybe a little earlier. But he became the full editor of the book around Superior Venom. Tom Brevoort is still at the company but has never had direct oversight on Spider-Man. Yes, he is the SVP of Publishing, so I guess he counts.

But the Editor on the book and the Asst Editor on the book and the EiC of Marvel are all different. So who is this 'braintrust?'

But Nick Lowe was also around at Marvel during the Quesada years

[DT Winslow]

But Nick Lowe was also around at Marvel during the Quesada years

I'm gonna need a through line here. Guilt by association?

[Mister Mets]

But another part of the argument is how she is treating Peter, which is unarguably heartless or selfish, considering she intentionally threw responsibility in his face when she didn't really feel any responsibility towards their relationship or even apologetic to what she was effectively doing to Peter(revealing she effective "cheated" and then was revealed that she knew Paul helped Rabin kill a world and then Paul killed his Rabin), its almost as if she never loved Peter at all(there no guilt for moving on or giving up on him or even empathy considering for him it was merely months, its almost as if her love for Peter was completely erased from her mind). What was selfish or heartless was also not telling him about Paul is the son of the villain/party to global genocide. I'm honestly hoping its revealed that it wasn't a romantic relationship with Paul because its vaguely sickening the whole trapped with one adult honestly removes the idea of choice(making it seem both creepy and a little on the side of manipulative).

There seems to be stuff that happened off-panel, including the main conversation right after MJ gets back to her dimension where she tells Peter what happened.

So I have no reason to assume she handled this with an uncharacteristic lack of tact.

Let's assume that you are a new comic fan or you're not much interested in comics beyond Spider-man or so on. You may be vaguely aware that Ms Marvel is a character and you've looked her up on the internet. Why do you care that this particular character has died trying to save someone? Even if the writer assumes that the readers do care about Kamala already, they should still reinforce that. They should give Kamala some character moments in the run, show her making dramatic decisions, and so on. They should show her interacting with her friends and family. The reader may already care about Kamala, but it's just good writing to remind them why they care. And it's lazy and cynical writing to just take it for granted that they do care.

(One of the best comic deaths ever is the first death of Jean Grey. That may actually work as well as it does just because the death was forced on the script at the last second by Shooter. Claremont had been writing it on the assumption that Scott and Jean would retire together, which meant he was setting that up as the happy ending. Claremont works to show that he's as apparently invested in the characters as he wants the readers to be.)

The whole bait-and-switch with Mary Jane is also poorly judged. This is a Spider-man comic and Mary Jane is probably the most popular female character in this comic. No matter how popular Kamala is with fandom as a whole, it's reasonable to suppose that in the Amazing Spider-man Mary Jane is the more popular character. So if you do a bait-and-switch as they did, at some level the readers are going to be relieved that it wasn't MJ, and that runs counter to the emotional weight of Kamala's death.

If you wanted it to look like a cynical and lazy stunt for the shock value, rather than like a carefully crafted story trying to evoke pathos or tragedy, you'd write it like they did.

There was the Devil's Reign mini-series, but I get your point. From the perspective of a new reader, Kamala Khan existed mainly as a supporting character who got killed off. She's like Frederick Foswell or Don Lamanze. People die in a series that's about dangerous things.

I think it's interesting to make readers think one character is going to die, and then kill off someone else. It puts them in an uncomfortable position of being happy about something tragic.

Obviously Kamala Khan's coming back. So that part of the story isn't done, just like the Human Torch's story in Hickman's run didn't end when he got killed off. I get the idea that deaths & resurrections are played out in superhero comics, but this is a drop in the bucket.

Please don’t reduce the craft of writing to something like that. It’s not just writing a snappy dialogue or managing to present a plot that seems intentional. It’s pacing, execution, structure, managing expectations.

Look at Kamala’s death. Just because the action sequence was ok or that she didn’t say anything horrendously out of character while dying doesn’t make it an example of good writing.

You have your opinions of the run that’s fine but don’t try to paint it as a purely subjective matter. The run is riddled with bad writing, the subjective matter is if one is bothered by it or not.

If we're having a discussion about objective standards of art, it is going to be reduced to elements like how someone writes action sequences and conversations. Pacing and execution are part of that. Managing expectations is a bit different since this allows readers to blame writers for things for their own problems; obviously there can be cases where writers mislead readers but any time we're criticizing specific human beings we should strive to avoid being the toxic combination of obnoxious and wrong.

These arguments get very granular because it should be about things that can be objectively explained. You have also set a high bar, because it's not about whether you enjoy something but the idea is that no one should enjoy it.

If we want to have discussions about art, we should be able to differentiate what is subjective and what is not. We shouldn't pretend that something that is competently made is objectively bad, or that something that is riddled with bad writing is objectively good.

Although I'll note that we're going to be significantly more likely to criticize good work than to defend bad work. If something is poorly made, the people who would be predisposed to like it should still recognize it sucks. Maybe it connects with them, but it's a different discussion where they're usually aware is that something is an acquired taste.

If something is well made, the people who are predisposed to not like it (because they have a different vision for the series) would still often hate it.

[Garlador]

Who are you talking about when you say 'the same braintrust that did One More Day?' OMD was spearheaded by Joe Quesada, who is no longer with the company. Steve Wacker was the editor of BND, and he is no longer with the company. Nick Lowe came on board at the tail end of Superior. Maybe a little earlier. But he became the full editor of the book around Superior Venom. Tom Brevoort is still at the company but has never had direct oversight on Spider-Man. Yes, he is the SVP of Publishing, so I guess he counts.

But the Editor on the book and the Asst Editor on the book and the EiC of Marvel are all different. So who is this 'braintrust?'

I mean that guys who pushed for One More Day also hired and promoted the current editorial that agreed with the direction of the book. For years after, every major creative editor and writer is on-record saying they believed that One More Day was necessary and good for the title - from Brevoort to Lowe to Slott to Cebulski, etc. It’s been an echo chamber there for over a decade and everyone who has disagreed with that mandate did not stick around or had their work heavily altered.

There seems to be stuff that happened off-panel, including the main conversation right after MJ gets back to her dimension where she tells Peter what happened.

So I have no reason to assume she handled this with an uncharacteristic lack of tact.

We can only judge a story and character by what they show us. Until new information or retcons are presented, we have only what is shown in the book, which is what they felt was the more important bits of characterization to show. If a more important conversation happened off-panel, that’s bad writing.

[DT Winslow]

I mean that guys who pushed for One More Day also hired and promoted the current editorial that agreed with the direction of the book. For years after, every major creative editor and writer is on-record saying they believed that One More Day was necessary and good for the title - from Brevoort to Lowe to Slott to Cebulski, etc. It’s been an echo chamber there for over a decade and everyone who has disagreed with that mandate did not stick around or had their work heavily altered.

Reminds me of this place.

[FFJamie94]

This is my belief.

I’m old. I’ve seen every hero I’ve loved poorly handled. Every beloved relationship ruined.

And I’ve seen new blood always come in and start rebuilding until the next jerk breaks it down again in a never-ending cycle.

A few years ago, Superman and Lois had no marriage and hated each other. Now they’re back to being married with kids.

A few years ago, Wally West had his marriage erased. He and his wife had their third kid this year.

I’ve seen garbage stories like Identity Crisis rape and murder a pregnant Sue Dibny. She’s alive and well with her husband.

I’ve seen them murder children like Lian Harper. She’s back.

At one point a decade ago, I had a list of all my favorite heroes, and half of them were DEAD. Most of them were brought back recently.

Spider-Man editorial is still the same braintrust that did One More Day. That hated story is still the foundation of every story that came after, so why would anyone expect they’d change their minds now?

Things will change! They WILL. But only after new blood comes onboard.


My observation is it’s actually dozens of different topics, but they all share the same root problem.

The problems won’t go away until the book gets a completely new editorial refresh, because it all traces back to that source.

Until then, the healthy thing would be to express your concerns, drop the book, and find a better alternative. I’ve been recommending a lot of books that feel more “Spider-Man” than Spider-Man these days. Wally West job-hunting to pay the bills and keep his family secure while balancing heroics, annoying his villains, attending parent-teacher meetings, having date nights, and exploring personal hobbies is exactly the kind of tone that once made Spider-Man thrive.


This is the run that made me come back to vent after years of hiatus.

The last time was ONE MORE DAY.

Yeah, I do think the issue simply lays at the fact that it's still the same People making the choices from BND doing the current run.
Spider-man isn't progressing because the People at the heart of that progression are simply stuck in 2006.

I don't think any of them set out to make a bad comic, I believe the death of Kamela Khan may have genuinely come from an honest place, but the People at the centre lack the forefront to make that story work.

What needs to happen is that Marvel needs to make ASM more appetising for writers. I read that the reason why Wells got the ASM gig is because no other writer was willing to work on that book, this speaks levels on how hostile the editorial and book is for People.

Even if these ideas were the fault of Wells, it should be noted that no one on an editorial level shot it down, or that there was no one else to write this book. Wells being the only Person left and this is what he is giving us says more about the editorial level and management of this book.
It's annoying as the art is great, and there's a lot of things I like about the book.
I just think it needs someone who can go into the book with a "back to basics" approach. Not try to "fix" Spider-Man or try to "shock" the audience. But instead gives us stories about how a man, kind of down on his luck deals with being a Super hero.
It needs to focus in on his supporting cast and give us a handful of characters who are there to bring out the best in Spider-Man.
It needs to shift away from the big, "clever" plots and just try to tell good stories.

While I don't think we would get there by #1000, I think we would get there by #1100.

[Garlador]

Reminds me of this place.

I’m not “from” this place.

This is what I’m seeing on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Slack, my local comic shop… I’m seeing it EVERYWHERE. Earlier I posted a list of dozens of publications calling out Marvel for how it’s handled the book, from CBR to Yahoo News to NBC News to Vogue.

I didn’t hear about this nonsense from this forums. I came back to see if others were as bothered by recent events as I was experiencing them and found it was a prevalent opinion in every corner I looked.

[DT Winslow]

I’m not “from” this place.

This is what I’m seeing on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Slack, my local comic shop… I’m seeing it EVERYWHERE. Earlier I posted a list of dozens of publications calling out Marvel for how it’s handled the book, from CBR to Yahoo News to NBC News to Vogue.

I didn’t hear about this nonsense from this forums. I came back to see if others were as bothered by recent events as I was experiencing them and found it was a prevalent opinion in every corner I looked.

The internet hates something?! I'm shocked and appalled!

[Garlador]

The internet hates something?! I'm shocked and appalled!

And yet I see such positivity in countless other books right now. Moon Knight, Daredevil, The Flash, World’s Finest, Superman, etc.

[DT Winslow]

And yet I see such positivity in countless other books right now. Moon Knight, Daredevil, The Flash, World’s Finest, Superman, etc.

Are you routinely posting on their boards/threads about how much you love them?

[clonegeek]

And yet I see such positivity in countless other books right now. Moon Knight, Daredevil, The Flash, World’s Finest, Superman, etc.

These are the books that are legit well loved in the fanbases. I think Doctor Strange might get there soon, Shazam with a few more issues under its belt will be there as well