The Short Term vs the Long Term and ASM

[Matt14teg]

Gah! I'm dying to read it. Couldja drop some...paragraphs? Pretty pretty please?



I genuinely believe OMD, thru time and infamy, has risen to the same vaulted position as Emerald Twilight, House of M and Crisis on Infinite Worlds. A story of such magnitude it recontextuaizes a character for a new role. A new reader HAS to reckon with it; an argument for it being a top 10 most important story is not hard to make.

Someone picking up a Spidey book in 2023 will know Peter as the man who has agreed to surrender his marriage.

Idk if sarcasm but it got a free trial so.

If there’s one person that seems to be viewed as the main character in this tough time, it’s C.B. Cebulski. Marvel’s Editor-in-Chief is entering his sixth year at the head of the publishing line, and while he has faced major headwinds — the pandemic, distribution changes, the Isaac Perlmutter/Disney drama, etc. — and certainly isn’t alone in guiding the ship, it’s undeniable that his time leading the way for Marvel editorial has been uneven, at best. That’s reflected in the fact that if you asked me for a defining characteristic to his reign, it’s that there is no defining characteristic.

There’s a real feeling of experimentation without purpose. Marvel’s line just seems like guesswork, as if everyone is throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Some of it does. Much of it falls right off, though. The San Diego Comic Con announcements I mentioned earlier reflect that. Only three of the six take place in the current era, and only one seems consequential in the slightest. That’s important because all superhero comics are an exercise in maintaining the kayfabe that these stories “matter,” to some degree. The Cebulski Era has sent some of its readers headfirst into an existential crisis, one that calls into question the importance and merit of Marvel’s own product.

Again, it’s impossible to tell what’s fueling these decisions. Disney is said to have significant financial expectations Marvel has to live up to, no matter what. The pandemic forced the publisher to tear the entire line down and rebuild it in the face of a new reality. They started anew with a first time direct market distributor learning on the job. We have very little idea as to what the Perlmutter dismissal and Marvel’s folding into the Disney mothership meant for the line. These are all massive challenges with equally massive implications on decision making. Any one is a lot to deal for someone to negotiate. All of them happening over the same short period? That’s even more arduous.

But Marvel’s comic division feels as if it’s at a crossroads. While its problems in the direct market reflect the larger issues within it, it’s like I noted in the open: Marvel’s situation both creates and accelerates those troubles. Where its line goes, the market follows. And right now, it’s a struggle.

[clonegeek]

Idk if sarcasm but it got a free trial so.

If there’s one person that seems to be viewed as the main character in this tough time, it’s C.B. Cebulski. Marvel’s Editor-in-Chief is entering his sixth year at the head of the publishing line, and while he has faced major headwinds — the pandemic, distribution changes, the Isaac Perlmutter/Disney drama, etc. — and certainly isn’t alone in guiding the ship, it’s undeniable that his time leading the way for Marvel editorial has been uneven, at best. That’s reflected in the fact that if you asked me for a defining characteristic to his reign, it’s that there is no defining characteristic.

There’s a real feeling of experimentation without purpose. Marvel’s line just seems like guesswork, as if everyone is throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Some of it does. Much of it falls right off, though. The San Diego Comic Con announcements I mentioned earlier reflect that. Only three of the six take place in the current era, and only one seems consequential in the slightest. That’s important because all superhero comics are an exercise in maintaining the kayfabe that these stories “matter,” to some degree. The Cebulski Era has sent some of its readers headfirst into an existential crisis, one that calls into question the importance and merit of Marvel’s own product.

Again, it’s impossible to tell what’s fueling these decisions. Disney is said to have significant financial expectations Marvel has to live up to, no matter what. The pandemic forced the publisher to tear the entire line down and rebuild it in the face of a new reality. They started anew with a first time direct market distributor learning on the job. We have very little idea as to what the Perlmutter dismissal and Marvel’s folding into the Disney mothership meant for the line. These are all massive challenges with equally massive implications on decision making. Any one is a lot to deal for someone to negotiate. All of them happening over the same short period? That’s even more arduous.

But Marvel’s comic division feels as if it’s at a crossroads. While its problems in the direct market reflect the larger issues within it, it’s like I noted in the open: Marvel’s situation both creates and accelerates those troubles. Where its line goes, the market follows. And right now, it’s a struggle.

Marvel feels direction less right now.

[TinkerSpider]

Gah! I'm dying to read it. Couldja drop some...paragraphs? Pretty pretty please?

There’s a free seven day trial and one month subscription is half the price of ASM 31 and a much more intelligent and worthwhile investment for your brain as well as your dollars.

[Alex_Of_X]

Idk if sarcasm but it got a free trial so.

If there’s one person that seems to be viewed as the main character in this tough time, it’s C.B. Cebulski. Marvel’s Editor-in-Chief is entering his sixth year at the head of the publishing line, and while he has faced major headwinds — the pandemic, distribution changes, the Isaac Perlmutter/Disney drama, etc. — and certainly isn’t alone in guiding the ship, it’s undeniable that his time leading the way for Marvel editorial has been uneven, at best. That’s reflected in the fact that if you asked me for a defining characteristic to his reign, it’s that there is no defining characteristic.

There’s a real feeling of experimentation without purpose. Marvel’s line just seems like guesswork, as if everyone is throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Some of it does. Much of it falls right off, though. The San Diego Comic Con announcements I mentioned earlier reflect that. Only three of the six take place in the current era, and only one seems consequential in the slightest. That’s important because all superhero comics are an exercise in maintaining the kayfabe that these stories “matter,” to some degree. The Cebulski Era has sent some of its readers headfirst into an existential crisis, one that calls into question the importance and merit of Marvel’s own product.

Again, it’s impossible to tell what’s fueling these decisions. Disney is said to have significant financial expectations Marvel has to live up to, no matter what. The pandemic forced the publisher to tear the entire line down and rebuild it in the face of a new reality. They started anew with a first time direct market distributor learning on the job. We have very little idea as to what the Perlmutter dismissal and Marvel’s folding into the Disney mothership meant for the line. These are all massive challenges with equally massive implications on decision making. Any one is a lot to deal for someone to negotiate. All of them happening over the same short period? That’s even more arduous.

But Marvel’s comic division feels as if it’s at a crossroads. While its problems in the direct market reflect the larger issues within it, it’s like I noted in the open: Marvel’s situation both creates and accelerates those troubles. Where its line goes, the market follows. And right now, it’s a struggle.

No sarcasm in the slightest, Matt. Thanks! I owe you one

Harper seems to have landed pretty much where I have, in my Fresh Start Retrospective:

SKTCHD: "That’s reflected in the fact that if you asked me for a defining characteristic to his reign, it’s that there is no defining characteristic.

There’s a real feeling of experimentation without purpose. Marvel’s line just seems like guesswork, as if everyone is throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Some of it does. Much of it falls right off, though. The San Diego Comic Con announcements I mentioned earlier reflect that. Only three of the six take place in the current era, and only one seems consequential in the slightest. That’s important because all superhero comics are an exercise in maintaining the kayfabe that these stories “matter,” to some degree. The Cebulski Era has sent some of its readers headfirst into an existential crisis, one that calls into question the importance and merit of Marvel’s own product."

MOI: "Where Quesada and to a lesser extent Alonso offered a singular vision, C.B. seems to favor a lighter hand. The various offices freely spin their respective stories. A book for everyone, rather than "Civil War happens to your fave book, whether you want it or not...If anything it's the most commercial age in a while. "Whatever, so long as it sells." Gone are Alonso-like big risks like the Inhumans push, "Riri Williams will lead Tony's ongoing, damn the sales!" or "Sam Wilson is the sole Captain America, cope!" The classics and the oddballs and the nostalgia-ware share the rack. Neither too prominent, neither the too dim."

It's a fair thing to state, tho I don't see it as a net negative. One man's "Directionless" is another's "Something for everyone." A world divided, politically, calls for diverse entertainment; not everything is going to Top Gun Maverick-it and appeal to everyone.

Does that make Zeb's run the BARBIE of Marvel Comics? You decide, true believers!

Who knows if in ten years OMD will still matter

Wanda's atoned for that like 3 times already, and here we are, still remembering it

Some stuff sticks to ya forever, is all

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Wanda was like Hank Pym. A semi-blank slate for fans, a full blank slate for general audiences.

Everyone already made up their minds on what is "in" and "out" of character for characters like Peter Parker, and that was long before OMD.

[TinkerSpider]

No sarcasm in the slightest, Matt. Thanks! I owe you one

Harper seems to have landed pretty much where I have, in my Fresh Start Retrospective:

The piece is much longer than this. It also dovetails with talks he’s held with retailers and readers, pieces that are also available if you decide to pay people what they ask in order to access their hard work.

Does that make Zeb's run the BARBIE of Marvel Comics? You decide, true believers!

You haven’t seen Barbie, have you.

[DT Winslow]

Marvel's biggest problem right now is most of their A List talent has moved on to purely creator owned work. I'd say 90%. And the up and coming talent isn't up to snuff. Individual taste notwithstanding, very few of these new(er) creators are making a big splash in the market.

[Alex_Of_X]

The piece is much longer than this. It also dovetails with talks he’s held with retailers and readers, pieces that are also available if you decide to pay people what they ask in order to access their hard work.

Touche, mr. Seven-day-free-trial, touche. What a world it would be where people cooperated and shared resources? The horror!

You haven’t seen Barbie, have you.

Not yet, actually, but not for lack of trying! Grr! Maybe in a week or so

[godisawesome]

So many of the classic runs of Post Lee/Ditko/Romita Sr. eras of Spider-Man are this. And if the internet existed back then (not the far more flexible/easy going letter writers of yesterday-- I'm talking the instantaneously snarky/angry internet posters of today), I'm sure they'd be making the same comments they're making now, but leveled at those wonderful runs.

That's not what I'm saying.

I think those runs are phenomenal.

But *if* the hardcore posters of today existed back then-- along with a rapid response system like the internet-- those phenomenal runs would *also* be shredded for "lack of progression" and other message board talking points.

While I think that you, Mr. Slott, are correct to note that there would be a different reception between the “monthly grind” stories and the more ambitious dynamic story arcs, I think you’re both somewhat mislabeling those runs as lacking ambitious dynamism on one hand to try and sort-of portray dynamism and change as somehow exclusive from monthly writing, and massively mis-describing how “adventure of the week” stories that lack change get evaluated and discussed both when released and afterwards.

I mean, those post-Lee/Ditko/Romita Sr. stories include Harry’s Goblin run and first death, Peter and MJ’s marriage, Venom, and other major “changes” or additions to the story were part of the monthly grind at the time - they simply had editors who weren’t going to either obsessively demand regression to a hallowed status quo each time a writer is turn at the helm ended (the thing behind The Clone Saga and the OMD era), or allow a writer to completely reject character consistency and prior developments to generate marketing hype.

And of course, if a monthly grind comic run *doesn’t* have any particularly notable changes to the status quo, it didn’t and doesn’t get shredded in discussion - it just sort of hovers between “solid, readable run” and “obscure, skippable content if you’re not a completionist.”

No one complains about or complained about Interchangeable Lizard Story #11 if it was just competently written, and modern posters wouldn’t complain about it being that either - they would just be equally unlikely to heal praises on it either. If a story isn’t notable for some major event within it, than it’s just going to be evaluated on how good it is as a one-off, which affords no advantages or disadvantages. The big, ambitious stories are riskier, but also far more rewarding - you can have a mediocre execution on a major ambitious event and it can have a far greater impact than a well-done but unambitious story.

The reason The Clone Saga, OMD, and the current run catch a lot fo crap is because they rely on an inherently arbitrary and often half-blind imposition of an editor’s idea of a hallowed status quo on starts and stops - so obvious moves like giving Ben Reilly his own solo after The Clone Saga to expand the brand, keeping the marriage, or perhaps having Superior Spider-Man eventually just spins-off as well aren’t done, but crazy, sloppy and “parasitic” stories like the current Wells run get through.

[clonegeek]

While I think that you, Mr. Slott, are correct to note that there would be a different reception between the “monthly grind” stories and the more ambitious dynamic story arcs, I think you’re both somewhat mislabeling those runs as lacking ambitious dynamism on one hand to try and sort-of portray dynamism and change as somehow exclusive from monthly writing, and massively mis-describing how “adventure of the week” stories that lack change get evaluated and discussed both when released and afterwards.

I mean, those post-Lee/Ditko/Romita Sr. stories include Harry’s Goblin run and first death, Peter and MJ’s marriage, Venom, and other major “changes” or additions to the story were part of the monthly grind at the time - they simply had editors who weren’t going to either obsessively demand regression to a hallowed status quo each time a writer is turn at the helm ended (the thing behind The Clone Saga and the OMD era), or allow a writer to completely reject character consistency and prior developments to generate marketing hype.

And of course, if a monthly grind comic run *doesn’t* have any particularly notable changes to the status quo, it didn’t and doesn’t get shredded in discussion - it just sort of hovers between “solid, readable run” and “obscure, skippable content if you’re not a completionist.”

No one complains about or complained about Interchangeable Lizard Story #11 if it was just competently written, and modern posters wouldn’t complain about it being that either - they would just be equally unlikely to heal praises on it either. If a story isn’t notable for some major event within it, than it’s just going to be evaluated on how good it is as a one-off, which affords no advantages or disadvantages. The big, ambitious stories are riskier, but also far more rewarding - you can have a mediocre execution on a major ambitious event and it can have a far greater impact than a well-done but unambitious story.

The reason The Clone Saga, OMD, and the current run catch a lot fo crap is because they rely on an inherently arbitrary and often half-blind imposition of an editor’s idea of a hallowed status quo on starts and stops - so obvious moves like giving Ben Reilly his own solo after The Clone Saga to expand the brand, keeping the marriage, or perhaps having Superior Spider-Man eventually just spins-off as well aren’t done, but crazy, sloppy and “parasitic” stories like the current Wells run get through.

I do miss the days when Peter's supporting cast of heroes were characters like Cardiac and Silver Sable. Not Spider-theamed characters

[Matt14teg]

Touche, mr. Seven-day-free-trial, touche. What a world it would be where people cooperated and shared resources? The horror!



Not yet, actually, but not for lack of trying! Grr! Maybe in a week or so

You better watch it soon.

[Jman27]

I do miss the days when Peter's supporting cast of heroes were characters like Cardiac and Silver Sable. Not Spider-theamed characters

when was the last time you even saw a spider-theme hero other than peter in this book?

[Matt14teg]

https://www.cbr.com/marvels-comics-l...dc-indie-hits/

I swear to god sometimes CBR is stalking forums.

[Jman27]

https://www.cbr.com/marvels-comics-l...dc-indie-hits/

I swear to god sometimes CBR is stalking forums.

why would that be so hard to believe? its apart of the same website

[Matt14teg]

why would that be so hard to believe? its apart of the same website

Wouldnt be just kind of funny how we talked about a similar article today.