Is the Spider-Man editorial approach out of touch instead of just spiteful?

[fjmac]

There is this other thread about Spider-Man editorial hate towards readers. I don't mean to invalidate that argument, because a strong case can be made for it, but it's still a hypothesis. I'm thinking the main problem with Spider-Man editorial (and many other editorial offices) is just a matter of being out of touch with current sensibilities. Joe Quesada certainly started this by callously bulldozing Spider-Man back to the status he himself enjoyed when he was a kid. Pretty much like Geoff Johns and Dan Didio did in DC with their Bronze Age fanfics.

After OMD, the policy was to go back to happy go lucky lovable goofball screwball single Peter Parker, while the OMD wound was not just open (as it remains and will remain for as long as Marvel exists) but it was actually oozing. And since then, there seems to be a displacement between what editorial policies impose and the audience's current zeitgeist (cue Dan Slott mentioning sales figures, when we all know things are way more complex than that, him included, but anyway).

The obvious case study is the current ASM run. It really reads as something Zeb Wells would have liked to do had he been given the chance of a proper ASM run when he was young (around the time he wrote Shed and the original Wayep story). A story like the current one would still have caused stirs and groans but it wouldn't have felt so jarring set during the era of The Initiative or Dark Reign. Those were dark and edgy times. Take Wells and Nick Lowe, young guys then, now middle-aged and in position to decide where the story would go. Of course they'll go back to what they would have done fifteen years ago if they were calling the shots.

The problem is that the audience changes constantly. The stories we wanted to tell a few years ago will not work now. They can complain about people having shorter attention spans, but it is what it is. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Or is it just a real thing? People having less resistance to drama and abrasive status quos? Same logic. The world is getting uglier, and fast.

• Climate change: even the most defiant deniers, even the ones who think it's a natural phenomena, we all feel it in our bones. That's a lot of unaddressed existential dread.
• Democracies all over the world failing, autocracies rising. Like it or not, most of the western world has been taking the benefits of civilized democracies for granted for a few generations now. Nos it feels as if it could all go away anytime.
• Corporate culture seeping into all aspects of our lives: our jobs, entertainment, consumer experience. The quality of everything degrades when corporate culture takes over.
• Traditionalist jerks furiously resisting the push of many minorities for more and better representation. That fight got ugly fast.

We could go on. But whatever the case, ****'s getting bad and people are getting increasingly sensitive. And lots of media forms are catching up to that. Comic creators can complain about not being given room to cook and audiences being more sensitive and impatient, but I don't think that's the answer. There's always room to tell the stories you want to tell if you try to zero in on the zeitgeist. Want to use decompressed storytelling? Tough ****, it no longer works. Publish your story as a 96 page graphic novel and leave monthlies alone. Long, winding stories that drag on with escalation after escalation? Yeah, no. That worked in the 90's and 00's. By the 10's we started getting tired of it. You had a good run with it, it no longer works, move on. Aggressive status quo? OK, but get to the fucking point quick. Mystery boxes? Same.

ASM is failing at almost everything current audiences prefer, while professionals complain about toxic fandoms, news sites only produce press releases and the occasional fluff piece, and notable comic book analysts/podcasters/reporters complain on Twitter about audiences having those preferences. Sorry. Not liking what happens in a story is as good a reason as any to dislike the story.

I'm not young, but I try to see what young people want and sync with it. Message to comic pros: we are right and you are wrong.

[RJT]

I'm not young, but I try to see what young people want and sync with it. Message to comic pros: we are right and you are wrong.

Imagine the hubris of saying this to the creators of the best-selling monthly comic in America.

[Garlador]

Here’s my stance:

The people making Spider-Man comics love “Spider-Man” just as much as the rest of us. They do. They adore him. They want to make good stories that people will remember and appreciate for decades to come.

But fundamentally they seem to like “Spider-Man” for entirely different reasons than many other people do. They insist upon a version of the character that is more “eternal” and frozen, more corporate and stagnant, and it’s at odds with a great many fans. I’ve said before, the Peter Parker and Mary Jane pre-One More Day and post-One More Day are written as entirely different people. The couple we had before is effectively dead and killed off, replaced with versions that Marvel feels are superior.

Clearly, I disagree, but they aren’t wholly doing it out of spite. The book still sells, I’m confident it always will, and they seem unconcerned that they’ve alienated so many fans so long as they have enough ride-or-die buyers to do what they want.

But it’s not some unified front. We’ve seen other writers and editors disagree. DeFalco is on record saying he feels Spider-Man should be about “responsibility” first and foremost, and that marriage and family are natural evolutions of this maxim. Stan Lee had called modern Peter “not the traditional” Spider-Man we knew and loved, feeling that they’d get back on track “sooner or later, if they haven’t already”. We know plenty that don’t agree with the current book’s direction.

But it’s not done out of spite. Zeb Wells and Nick Lowe want to put out a book that is good. Whatever is happening behind the scene, I guarantee you they never wanted dozens of headlines saying “fans call recent Spider-Man comic sexist and racist” this year.

I don’t know how they’re feeling. I’m miserable following the book, I know that much. I WANT to love the book and character again, but editorial and fans like myself are at an impasse.

What many fans want just clearly isn’t what Spidey Office is interested in providing.

I just think that’s a loss for everyone.

[Kurus]

Imagine the hubris of saying this to the creators of the best-selling monthly comic in America.

That’s like bragging about being the top producer of Pet rocks. It’s technically true, but nothing to write home about.

[RJT]

That’s like bragging about being the top producer of Pet rocks. It’s technically true, but nothing to write home about.

People on this site should write home more often. Spend this energy reconnecting with loved ones instead of making outsized,Churchillian speeches against...(checks notes) the editor of Spider-Man comics

[Alan2099]

Here’s my stance:

The people making Spider-Man comics love “Spider-Man” just as much as the rest of us. They do. They adore him. They want to make good stories that people will remember and appreciate for decades to come.

But fundamentally they seem to like “Spider-Man” for entirely different reasons than many other people do. They insist upon a version of the character that is more “eternal” and frozen, more corporate and stagnant, and it’s at odds with a great many fans. I’ve said before, the Peter Parker and Mary Jane pre-One More Day and post-One More Day are written as entirely different people. The couple we had before is effectively dead and killed off, replaced with versions that Marvel feels are superior.

Clearly, I disagree, but they aren’t wholly doing it out of spite. The book still sells, I’m confident it always will, and they seem unconcerned that they’ve alienated so many fans so long as they have enough ride-or-die buyers to do what they want.

But it’s not some unified front. We’ve seen other writers and editors disagree. DeFalco is on record saying he feels Spider-Man should be about “responsibility” first and foremost, and that marriage and family are natural evolutions of this maxim. Stan Lee had called modern Peter “not the traditional” Spider-Man we knew and loved, feeling that they’d get back on track “sooner or later, if they haven’t already”. We know plenty that don’t agree with the current book’s direction.

But it’s not done out of spite. Zeb Wells and Nick Lowe want to put out a book that is good. Whatever is happening behind the scene, I guarantee you they never wanted dozens of headlines saying “fans call recent Spider-Man comic sexist and racist” this year.

I don’t know how they’re feeling. I’m miserable following the book, I know that much. I WANT to love the book and character again, but editorial and fans like myself are at an impasse.

What many fans want just clearly isn’t what Spidey Office is interested in providing.

I just think that’s a loss for everyone.

Posts like this always ignore one critical aspect.

There are Spider-man fans that like the current status quo and don't want Peter old and married. It's always brought up that "the fans" want this or that, but the fans aren't one unified body either. This may be skewed a little because "MARVEL FANS ACTUALLY LIKE SPIDER-MAN! isn't exactly a headline grabber, a good clickbait title, and won't get you noticed on social media. People are far more likely to complain when they're faced with something they hate rather than something they like.

And to be quite honest, half the time when I come into this section of the forum anymore, I just want to start slapping the hell out of people for being so damned annoying, insulting, and closeminded. I'm sure I'm not the only one driven away by the constant negativity and the feel that they're no longer welcome. I don't want to have to write an essay about how it's okay to like the books everytime I come here to justify my stance.

[Frontier]

Keep the personal comments towards other posters and creators down please.

[Garlador]

Posts like this always ignore one critical aspect.

There are Spider-man fans that like the current status quo and don't want Peter old and married. It's always brought up that "the fans" want this or that, but the fans aren't one unified body either. This may be skewed a little because "MARVEL FANS ACTUALLY LIKE SPIDER-MAN! isn't exactly a headline grabber, a good clickbait title, and won't get you noticed on social media. People are far more likely to complain when they're faced with something they hate rather than something they like.

And to be quite honest, half the time when I come into this section of the forum anymore, I just want to start slapping the hell out of people for being so damned annoying, insulting, and closeminded. I'm sure I'm not the only one driven away by the constant negativity and the feel that they're no longer welcome. I don't want to have to write an essay about how it's okay to like the books everytime I come here to justify my stance.

It’s a good thing I repeatedly mentioned this as “many fans” and not “all fans”.

Everything has a fanbase, including works widely considered as subpar and offensive. Few will argue that The Room or Twilight are masterful (or even competent) works of cinema, but they have a sizable fanbase. “Sins Past” has fans. “Heroes in Crisis” has fans. “Holy Terror” has fans. “All-Star Batman & Robin” has fans. Heck, I openly like a lot of unpopular or critically savaged movies and books too.

But I don’t think it’s some controversial take that the current run is widely divisive and unpopular with a sizable portion of fans. I’m not some starry eyed naive reader; whining and complaining is typical of any popular franchise that gets too big or lasts too long.

But from the outside looking in, I haven’t seen Spider-Man fans this upset with a story in YEARS. I posted a collection of nearly three dozen headlines and news reports talking about the recent backlash. There’s traditional disgruntled fans, and then there’s THAT. When NBC News is talking about how the current comic is engendering complaints of sexism and racism, that’s beyond a few whiners on CBR.

We’re beyond general fanboy nagging. The book has fundamental issues that should be talked about and addressed. And the kicker here is you can still like the book and AGREE with a lot of the complaints. It’s not always a zero-sum critique. I’ve defended this run at times too and given it the benefit of the doubt, and I will continually and vehemently deflect from personally attacking those involved. They’ve done good work before; nobody is perfect.

The death of creativity is the refusal to learn, grow, and improve. I demand higher standards from even books and writers I’m fond of at times too.

[Morgoth]

Wasn't there already a thread about this? And not even one or two, lol.
Marvel editorial has their own specific vision of Spider-Man, they believe that it's the only right one, and sales are good despite all negative, so Marvel doesn't see any reason to make any changes, especially thoses they don't really want to make. In the case of Wells' run specifically, yeah, I think it's indeed one big ''f*ck you'' to a part of the fanbase, which Spider-Man editors and writers have had a huge problem with since OMD, and to be fair, given the whole story, it's not really surprising, that relationship between Spider-Office and fans looks like this these days and impacts comics.
Nothing will change now, if you don't like the comics about the character, they're just not worth reading. Maybe the next creative team's take on Spider-Man will be more acceptable for you, and maybe the whole editorial will be replaced at some point in the future, and there will be some drastic changes, like it happened with DC. I hate this run and I just dropped it, and I'm fine.

[fjmac]

People on this site should write home more often. Spend this energy reconnecting with loved ones instead of making outsized,Churchillian speeches against...(checks notes) the editor of Spider-Man comics

They should also stop making uneducated guesses about other people's lives. Or telling other people what they can or cannot say to whom and in what tone.

[wleakr]

Wow. The "HAS THE SPIDER-MAN EDITORIAL HATE EVER BEEN THIS LARGE AND TRANSPARENT?" thread wasn't large enough to get your debbie downer on?

[fjmac]

Here’s my stance:

The people making Spider-Man comics love “Spider-Man” just as much as the rest of us. They do. They adore him. They want to make good stories that people will remember and appreciate for decades to come.

But fundamentally they seem to like “Spider-Man” for entirely different reasons than many other people do. They insist upon a version of the character that is more “eternal” and frozen, more corporate and stagnant, and it’s at odds with a great many fans. I’ve said before, the Peter Parker and Mary Jane pre-One More Day and post-One More Day are written as entirely different people. The couple we had before is effectively dead and killed off, replaced with versions that Marvel feels are superior.

Clearly, I disagree, but they aren’t wholly doing it out of spite. The book still sells, I’m confident it always will, and they seem unconcerned that they’ve alienated so many fans so long as they have enough ride-or-die buyers to do what they want.

But it’s not some unified front. We’ve seen other writers and editors disagree. DeFalco is on record saying he feels Spider-Man should be about “responsibility” first and foremost, and that marriage and family are natural evolutions of this maxim. Stan Lee had called modern Peter “not the traditional” Spider-Man we knew and loved, feeling that they’d get back on track “sooner or later, if they haven’t already”. We know plenty that don’t agree with the current book’s direction.

But it’s not done out of spite. Zeb Wells and Nick Lowe want to put out a book that is good. Whatever is happening behind the scene, I guarantee you they never wanted dozens of headlines saying “fans call recent Spider-Man comic sexist and racist” this year.

I don’t know how they’re feeling. I’m miserable following the book, I know that much. I WANT to love the book and character again, but editorial and fans like myself are at an impasse.

What many fans want just clearly isn’t what Spidey Office is interested in providing.

I just think that’s a loss for everyone.

Yep, I mostly agree. Wells and Lowe want to produce the best Spider-Man they can, and I'm sure they are able to do it, they just fumbled it this time (and if I have to read the sales argument again when it comes to the main book of the most popular character in comics ever, I'll scream).

The refusal to course-correct is baffling, because in a book like ASM it's so easy to have the cake and eat it too, it's so talked about that with a little web-scraping you can get a clear picture of what "parts" of the property are more important to most people, how many people are invested in one possibility or the other, and so on. It's not even about knowing the comic book market, it's just statistics. For each decision made (or potential) you can easily tell how many people are/would be happy, how many unhappy and how many are fine either way. Of course, they'd need to get off the long dead high horses of "the internet doesn't matter" and "loud minority versus silent majority" and so on.

As for the stagnation thing, I'm not so sure. Take Dick Grayson. Somehow, DC managed to make the character evolve constantly during decades, hundreds of writers and thousands of stories, and still keep him a corporate property, always recognizable and marketable. At the same time, Batman has been a toys-back-in-the-box property for the same duration. I can't really say which one is preferable, maybe Dick was lightning in a bottle and the Batman (or Spider-Man) way is the sensible one. That's a whole rabbit hole in itself, but the point is I don't know if some degree of stagnation is necessarily bad (or good).

I just wish our guy Peter could get a win every now and then and at least some occasional minor changes for the better to stick. And Paul gone.

[fjmac]

Wow. The "HAS THE SPIDER-MAN EDITORIAL HATE EVER BEEN THIS LARGE AND TRANSPARENT?" thread wasn't large enough to get your debbie downer on?

The first sentence in the post addresses the very point you are attempting to use to mock me. But you do you.

[wleakr]

The first sentence in the post addresses the very point you are attempting to use to mock me. But you do you.

Maybe that thread can be the "ToMAYto" thread and this one can be the "ToMAHto" thread?

[fjmac]

I'd like to think some mods are having a look at certain users and posts on this thread as they (correctly) have done with me in the past.