The Short Term vs the Long Term and ASM

[clonegeek]

Zeb Wells’ ASM run is a sign of Marvel focusing on the short term and not the long term. Within the last 10 years, ASM has been relaunched 4 times. This shows that Marvel isn’t thinking in the long run with the book, they are focused on the now of the stories. What stories will sell floppies now, shocking events that are easily undone? They want the instant gratification of selling the issues without regard to the long-term market for these books.The long-term market as defined as the trade market and the like.

You know part of the reason why the marriage hasn’t come back yet? Because that would mean that Marvel would have to commit to the storyline for the time being. They want stories that are easy to undo.

The fact that there isn’t a constant satellite title for Spider-Man is a sign that there is a lack of a long term plan for the line.

The Well’s run isn’t going to wind up as an evergreen story for Marvel for as wisely phrased by some dude on this forum, its the clickbait of comics.

[Tuck]

Within the last 10 years, ASM has been relaunched 4 times.

I imagine this is more because first issues sell more copies.

And make readers think it's a good jumping on point.

[MaydayStan]

I've said for a while that the constant reboots are a sign of laziness on the parts of writers. People don't want to have to actually know things about whom they're writing. About events that happened that might contradict what they have in mind for a story. If you are writing a title with 60 years worth of history, then maybe you should know a good chunk of that history if you're to even be considered for the title. Perhaps I'm biased in that I come from a history-focused background education wise and to me, there's never an excuse for not putting in the effort to actually make sure you're right in saying something.

Short-term stories are fine, but they're that; short-term. They're not meant for success. Part of why ASM Vol. 1 worked as well as it did was that it had depth to it; the stories were all part of the same long-time frame. Things would get referenced, no matter how far back. It's a type of story-telling that I fear is really dead in this era of things. As you OP said, Marvel as a company seems to only care about the now, rather than telling stories that will having last impact such as Kraven's Last Hunt. That book is still talked about and homaged to constantly. Can we really say anything from 2010 on will be the same way in the next fifty-years?

[Jman27]

I've said for a while that the constant reboots are a sign of laziness on the parts of writers. People don't want to have to actually know things about whom they're writing. About events that happened that might contradict what they have in mind for a story. If you are writing a title with 60 years worth of history, then maybe you should know a good chunk of that history if you're to even be considered for the title. Perhaps I'm biased in that I come from a history-focused background education wise and to me, there's never an excuse for not putting in the effort to actually make sure you're right in saying something.

Short-term stories are fine, but they're that; short-term. They're not meant for success. Part of why ASM Vol. 1 worked as well as it did was that it had depth to it; the stories were all part of the same long-time frame. Things would get referenced, no matter how far back. It's a type of story-telling that I fear is really dead in this era of things. As you OP said, Marvel as a company seems to only care about the now, rather than telling stories that will having last impact such as Kraven's Last Hunt. That book is still talked about and homaged to constantly. Can we really say anything from 2010 on will be the same way in the next fifty-years?

superior spider-man im guessing but its not like I will care about that in 50 yrs instead I will probably be done with ASM once I realized Peter is still doing the same things he doing now

[Garlador]

Ultimately, it's hard to predict what will resonate with people and stick around years after the fact. Some of the comics we call classics today were only modest hits at the time, and some of the biggest event comics of their time we all collective agree aren't worth our time or energy today.

I'm not an expert in comic book business, but I AM a businessman by trade, and I know that there is a careful balance of risk and reliability any business needs to take to grow and thrive. An unfortunate truth is that Spider-Man is "reliable" in a way that they can do pretty much anything at this point - good or bad - and the book chugs along, with even the worst stories sliding off it like teflon. Almost no other hero is that damage-proof, and the bad stories Spider-Man has had over the years would have absolutely buried a far less popular character, or at least knocked the book off its pedestal. But Spider-Man is iconic, and Marvel's decision to put him in "zombie Simpsons" status - the old reliable standby that can't break out of the mold because they're paralyzed with fear at losing the "kid appeal" and want him frozen in amber... it's a decision I understand, see the benefits of, but also believe is the absolute death of long-term interest and viability - at least on the comic front.

The comic medium will shift and change and be challenged and adapt. Ultimately, there may be a point where this small division of Marvel just folds and comics as we know them exist only as old tomes used as reference for future adaptations, reiterated upon endlessly. Maybe Marvel will reboot. Maybe they'll strike the zeitgeist in a way like never before and the whole industry will shift again. Maybe Jackpot will be the breakout hero of a generation. Maybe Spider-Man will one day lose the interest of the kids gobbling up anime and manga. Who knows?

Stan Lee once said that all he tried to do at Marvel early on was "keep the lights on" and do whatever stories were necessary to pay the bills and keep the machine running. He advocated that the only way to do that was to write stories that connected with people, and they didn't have the luxury of relying on established, well-known IPs to keep their coffers full.

Marvel banks on 60+ years of Spider-Man love, but even that love isn't infinite. If Spider-Man truly does have a future - 15, 20, 50 years from now - it'll need to be based on his true roots; not "a miserable single teenage kid stuck in limbo", but on the principles that it's a book that connects with people, young and old alike.

[ARkadelphia]

I've said for a while that the constant reboots are a sign of laziness on the parts of writers. People don't want to have to actually know things about whom they're writing. About events that happened that might contradict what they have in mind for a story. If you are writing a title with 60 years worth of history, then maybe you should know a good chunk of that history if you're to even be considered for the title. Perhaps I'm biased in that I come from a history-focused background education wise and to me, there's never an excuse for not putting in the effort to actually make sure you're right in saying something.

Short-term stories are fine, but they're that; short-term. They're not meant for success. Part of why ASM Vol. 1 worked as well as it did was that it had depth to it; the stories were all part of the same long-time frame. Things would get referenced, no matter how far back. It's a type of story-telling that I fear is really dead in this era of things. As you OP said, Marvel as a company seems to only care about the now, rather than telling stories that will having last impact such as Kraven's Last Hunt. That book is still talked about and homaged to constantly. Can we really say anything from 2010 on will be the same way in the next fifty-years?

Ooo. So close. But it’s not laziness on the writer’s part. It’s laziness on the reader’s part. For all the reasons you mention.

[ARkadelphia]

Zeb Wells’ ASM run is a sign of Marvel focusing on the short term and not the long term. Within the last 10 years, ASM has been relaunched 4 times. This shows that Marvel isn’t thinking in the long run with the book, they are focused on the now of the stories. What stories will sell floppies now, shocking events that are easily undone? They want the instant gratification of selling the issues without regard to the long-term market for these books.The long-term market as defined as the trade market and the like.

You know part of the reason why the marriage hasn’t come back yet? Because that would mean that Marvel would have to commit to the storyline for the time being. They want stories that are easy to undo.

The fact that there isn’t a constant satellite title for Spider-Man is a sign that there is a lack of a long term plan for the line.

The Well’s run isn’t going to wind up as an evergreen story for Marvel for as wisely phrased by some dude on this forum, its the clickbait of comics.

There very well may not be a long term for comic book writers unless higher sales are generated in the short term.

[dornwolf]

Ooo. So close. But it’s not laziness on the writer’s part. It’s laziness on the reader’s part. For all the reasons you mention.

That is a worthy point.

Also,

The argument of “good jumping on points for new readers” needs to die same as being scared of characters history. Otherwise why try to sell me on a digital subscription with all the back issues or big collections of runs. That’s where I go to jump on. If I read your book and you mention that such and such has come back and you make that so interesting that I want to learn about why such and such is a big deal I will go spend the money.

[DT Winslow]

There very well may not be a long term for comic book writers unless higher sales are generated in the short term.

You’re a smart man, twice over.

All said, Marvel is looking at the long term. That’s why there’s market studies and focus groups and new digital formats and attempts to break in to new markets. We’re not privy to it all but that’s because we don’t work there.

[Matt14teg]

You’re a smart man, twice over.

All said, Marvel is looking at the long term. That’s why there’s market studies and focus groups and new digital formats and attempts to break in to new markets. We’re not privy to it all but that’s because we don’t work there.

Ehh short term sales I can agree but idk about the long term effects there has been retailers who arent fans of marvels total direction but that's their words.

[DT Winslow]

Ehh short term sales I can agree but idk about the long term effects there has been retailers who arent fans of marvels total direction but that's their words.

That’s about as short term as it gets. There’s some trees in that forest, as they say.

[MaydayStan]

Ooo. So close. But it’s not laziness on the writer’s part. It’s laziness on the reader’s part. For all the reasons you mention.

Or rather, it's both. There are some writers just as guilty of not wanting to spend a few moments looking something up as a reader not wanting to look something up in what they're reading.

[Matt14teg]

That’s about as short term as it gets. There’s some trees in that forest, as they say.

Well tbh there's probably a million problems with direct distribution market and retailers, withholding any kind if big 2 issues. Idk I guess we can definely agree it won't be even remotely the same industry in 5 years from now.

[Mister Mets]

The long term plan is essentially to avoid long-term commitments so the character can be reset to basically what he was at the end of Roger Stern's run (unmarried grad school dropout.)

[Garlador]

That is a worthy point.

Also,

The argument of “good jumping on points for new readers” needs to die same as being scared of characters history. Otherwise why try to sell me on a digital subscription with all the back issues or big collections of runs. That’s where I go to jump on. If I read your book and you mention that such and such has come back and you make that so interesting that I want to learn about why such and such is a big deal I will go spend the money.

I’m reminded of a meme I saw awhile back that was something like “people are always asking where to start with comics? They get told to check out books like Watchmen or The Dark Knight Returns, which are often deconstructions and Elseworlds. The reality is most of us started with a random issue of X-Men #3xx, Part 4 of 5, with a cool cover of Wolverine on it who may or may not have a role in the story.”

That’s probably the more accurate truth for most of us. Sure, we’ll pick up a shiny #1 from time to time, but I didn’t get into Nightwing until issue #79, my first Spider-Man book was Spectacular #101, I think. Flash was a random 80s issue and he became my favorite at DC for years based off that. Etc.