Editorial and the Public Opinion Court of Spiderman comics?

[Garlador]

Ideally, as readers, we should take it all as it is, not as we want it to be. I understand the emotion overwhelms that. Don’t get me started on Legion of Superheroes, for example. Spider-Man isn’t where some people want it to be. The healthy decision would be to drop the book and try it again with another writer. Especially if it is damaging someone’s mental health.

I advocate the same. And full admission, I haven’t purchase a Spider-Man comic since One More Day, with the only exceptions being Renew Your Vows and Lost Hunt (two marriage-focused stories).

I told DC the same. I stopped buying Superman and The Flash until someone came along and restored their relationships. True to my word, I support and enjoy those books again now.

Though, clearly, I strongly advocate for Spider-Man to get the same treatment.

The Simpsons model is probably a bad approach as well, given how we’re in the “zombie Simpsons” era just existing without real passion begins the wheel.

[Alan2099]

If they fired Editorial every time a group of people online started saying they didn't like the books you'd never have an editorial team that lasted more than 2 issues.

[Garlador]

If they fired Editorial every time a group of people online started saying they didn't like the books you'd never have an editorial team that lasted more than 2 issues.

You keep saying this like public news sites didn’t run headlines saying “current Spider-Man comic derided as sexist and racist”.

This run is bad. Spencer wasn’t making headlines like THAT.

How do you think I heard about this trashfire in the first place?

And having caught up on the story, oof, yeah, it’s made some really awful, sexist, racist decisions I’m dumbfounded to have seen in 2023. I believe the outrage justified.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Yeah, I don't see how anyone can call this your ordinary online hate when it literally made mainstream news for empowering ComicsGaters. This is not "business as usual" hate. Even Slott's run never dropped the ball like that or got this much hate.

[exile001]

I have been saying for years that Lowe is a problem and is ill equipped to pivot at an inconvenience let alone an actual problem (like Spencer's exit), he's a guy who puts shipping on time ahead of quality every single time. For example, he'll realise an artist is running late and just grab whoever, without putting consideration into whether the styles will clash, which often happened and leads to a disjointed issue. That was the story for the art through the entire second half of Spencer's run after Ottley left.

He apparently has no vision for Spider-Man and lets writers lead him, regardless of what it means for the overall mythos of Spider-Man, and seems to prioritise short-term cash grabs over ensuring Spider-Man's (or any attached character) long term future.

His flaws have grown exponentially over the years to the point that we have this disaster of a run, which is still incoherent with the spin-offs tying into it or Slott's Spider-Man.

It almost makes me want a two-pronged editorial approach, one for creative and the other for handing getting the book out on time because if there's nothing else he does mostly ship on time.

[exile001]

DC listened and fixed a lot of problems people had with Superman, Nightwing, The Flash, Starfire, etc. They didn’t act obstinate and tell readers to swallow the bad medicine.

Once the fans had a status quo they liked, writers could then actually move FORWARD instead of always being held back by badly-received stories that defy the history and nature of their big heroes.

I don't know if you're new to DC, but that's very recent. DiDio was the exact opposite, for better or worse, during his almost 20 years running the ship.

Even now they're only delivering on maybe half their titles, with big name fan favourites lacking books or even visibility.

I am largely positive in DC's direction but I think it'll be a few years before we can really tell if they've really changed.

[Garlador]

I don't know if you're new to DC, but that's very recent. DiDio was the exact opposite, for better or worse, during his almost 20 years running the ship.

Even now they're only delivering on maybe half their titles, with big name fan favourites lacking books or even visibility.

I am largely positive in DC's direction but I think it'll be a few years before we can really tell if they've really changed.

Yes, mostly calling out the swift improvements since DiDio left.

Not perfect, but there was over a dozen good DC titles I’ve been catching up on since.

[exile001]

Yes, mostly calling out the swift improvements since DiDio left.

Not perfect, but there was over a dozen good DC titles I’ve been catching up on since.

Oh yeah, the shift towards the better is seismic already!

Can you imagine if 5G had gone ahead? I think he actually might have killed DC.

[Mister Mets]

Exactly.

That’s why you can’t blame one thing. It’s a variety of things.

She-Hulk gets a bad run and sales dip. Is it because people don’t like the current story? Is it because the art changed? Is it due to a new writer? An unfavorable retcon? A national recession? General apathy or waning interest? Not sexy enough? A tonal shift? A crossover or event book threw the book pacing out of whack? Etc.

If something was successful for over 20 years, I’d be very skeptical of anyone saying “it’s that darn marriage hurting sales!” when there are likely countless other factors at play.

Heck, I love Scarlet Spider, but didn’t like his last book. Marvel concluded “well, guess readers don’t want Scarlet Spider!”

You seem to be responding to an argument that wasn't being made. The decision to get rid of the marriage was about long-term health rather than short term sales.

You keep saying this like public news sites didn’t run headlines saying “current Spider-Man comic derided as sexist and racist”.

This run is bad. Spencer wasn’t making headlines like THAT.

How do you think I heard about this trashfire in the first place?

And having caught up on the story, oof, yeah, it’s made some really awful, sexist, racist decisions I’m dumbfounded to have seen in 2023. I believe the outrage justified.

The important question is whether the story is sexist and racist. If it isn't, the headlines don't mean much.

[Jekyll]

I have been saying for years that Lowe is a problem and is ill equipped to pivot at an inconvenience let alone an actual problem (like Spencer's exit), he's a guy who puts shipping on time ahead of quality every single time. For example, he'll realise an artist is running late and just grab whoever, without putting consideration into whether the styles will clash, which often happened and leads to a disjointed issue. That was the story for the art through the entire second half of Spencer's run after Ottley left.

He apparently has no vision for Spider-Man and lets writers lead him, regardless of what it means for the overall mythos of Spider-Man, and seems to prioritise short-term cash grabs over ensuring Spider-Man's (or any attached character) long term future.

His flaws have grown exponentially over the years to the point that we have this disaster of a run, which is still incoherent with the spin-offs tying into it or Slott's Spider-Man.

It almost makes me want a two-pronged editorial approach, one for creative and the other for handing getting the book out on time because if there's nothing else he does mostly ship on time.

100% this and any time we get a new writer it's usually the same folks who have worked in that corner of the Marvel offices. So the book is just spinning its wheels with constant retreads. Spencer was the notably exception and his run was a breath of fresh air.............until editorial got in the way.

[Garlador]

You seem to be responding to an argument that wasn't being made. The decision to get rid of the marriage was about long-term health rather than short term sales.

That’s absolutely part of the argument, because 16 years later we’re seeing the book is more divisive and contentious than ever. Their “long-term health” is now making headlines for all the wrong reasons, resorting to outrage and shock value stunts, fan backlash is louder than it’s been in over a decade, and it’s relying hard on a historic number of variants and Speculator outreach that is causing many to worry about the long-term health of the book. Historically, this isn’t a smart or sustainable approach to longevity, and it’s a status quo that is what they claimed would do the opposite.

The important question is whether the story is sexist and racist. If it isn't, the headlines don't mean much.

Let me unequivocally and strongly state that I have found recent story decisions sexist and racist, and I do not say that lightly. And I am one of many saying so, rationally and articulately.

[Spider-Tiger]

I have been saying for years that Lowe is a problem and is ill equipped to pivot at an inconvenience let alone an actual problem (like Spencer's exit), he's a guy who puts shipping on time ahead of quality every single time. For example, he'll realise an artist is running late and just grab whoever, without putting consideration into whether the styles will clash, which often happened and leads to a disjointed issue. That was the story for the art through the entire second half of Spencer's run after Ottley left.

He apparently has no vision for Spider-Man and lets writers lead him, regardless of what it means for the overall mythos of Spider-Man, and seems to prioritise short-term cash grabs over ensuring Spider-Man's (or any attached character) long term future.

His flaws have grown exponentially over the years to the point that we have this disaster of a run, which is still incoherent with the spin-offs tying into it or Slott's Spider-Man.

It almost makes me want a two-pronged editorial approach, one for creative and the other for handing getting the book out on time because if there's nothing else he does mostly ship on time.

I think this is probably closest to the reality of the situation. It makes sense considering the many errors we've seen as well as the inconsistencies in creative direction between runs. Lowe is a numbers guy who probably doesn't have particularly strong opinions about creative direction (He isnt a Quesada or Brevoort type), and this run is a product of editorial creative underreach as opposed to overreach. Most of the creative ideas probably fall squarely on Wells (makes sense considering he has repurposed a bunch of BND concepts which would have been before Lowe's time on the book.)

[WebLurker]

You seem to be responding to an argument that wasn't being made. The decision to get rid of the marriage was about long-term health rather than short term sales.

The decision to get rid of it was about the biases of the people working on the comics. (Also, seeing how anti-brand and out of step the OMD status quo is with the franchise as a whole, it's only a liability for the comic's long-term health.)

The important question is whether the story is sexist and racist. If it isn't, the headlines don't mean much.

If we're talking about the fridging of Ms. Marvel, the boot does fit.

[Matt14teg]

I have been saying for years that Lowe is a problem and is ill equipped to pivot at an inconvenience let alone an actual problem (like Spencer's exit), he's a guy who puts shipping on time ahead of quality every single time. For example, he'll realise an artist is running late and just grab whoever, without putting consideration into whether the styles will clash, which often happened and leads to a disjointed issue. That was the story for the art through the entire second half of Spencer's run after Ottley left.

He apparently has no vision for Spider-Man and lets writers lead him, regardless of what it means for the overall mythos of Spider-Man, and seems to prioritise short-term cash grabs over ensuring Spider-Man's (or any attached character) long term future.

His flaws have grown exponentially over the years to the point that we have this disaster of a run, which is still incoherent with the spin-offs tying into it or Slott's Spider-Man.

It almost makes me want a two-pronged editorial approach, one for creative and the other for handing getting the book out on time because if there's nothing else he does mostly ship on time.

This is the exact solution I believe would help, editorial either just doesn't care much about Spiderman's direction or is of a singular mind/body in 1 wholly message. More bodies of differing opinions are for sure a much better solution then getting rid of them or them changing a direction. Plus the reputation of the current team is almost hitting the low floor; new blood could make people excited in engaging with someone other than nick lowe.

[Alex_Of_X]

It is indeed evident that recent changes to Spider-Man's status quo have left the editorial teams in significant hot waters amongst certain fans. Controversies surrounding Zeb Wells' run and discussions about "One More Day" (OMD) are among the negative factors that have spilled over to new titles such as Spider-Boy and Jackpot. While it remains to be seen whether this is simply a passing storm for the Spider-Man editorial team, there is no denying that the online presence of Spider-Man comics has shifted toward a more negative sentiment.

Regarding the editorial team's stance on fan criticism, they have previously expressed a lack of concern for it. It is unclear whether they will hold firm to this statement or decide to change course based on the recent backlash. It is important to note that despite the negativity, there are still fans who enjoy the current run. However, a vocal group (whether it represents the majority or minority is uncertain) has made their dissatisfaction known.

What might the editorial team or other writers do to restore some semblance of public love for Spider-Man comics, if that is indeed necessary?

"Amongst certain fans" doing a lot there, m'dude

Gut/Fire them all. We need new blood, and new blood that will actually listen to what fans want, rather than what *they* want.

oy vey