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

[WebLurker]

While I'm sure you could find instances of "spite" or "hate" if you looked hard enough (certainly have seen comments from the Powers That Be in my lifetime that sure seemed to have a "why can't you get over the retcon and accept the 'real' thing?" tone to them), I think that "out of touch" is probably the real answer. All the pro-OMD arguments basically boil down to "the marriage was a mistake and the Spider-Man comics before that when Spider-Man had an array of interchangeable love interests was perfection." What doesn't really get addressed is how the franchise as a whole does not reflect that alleged "golden age," how Mary Jane is the Lois Lane of the franchise now, and how the parts of the franchise that reach the wider audience are more anti-OMD than not.

[wleakr]

You won’t escape this elsewhere though. This same feeling permeates conversations at Reddit, Discord, Twitter, Facebook, every other forum I visit, my local comic store, even my gaming channels. This isn’t locked to CBR[/B], by any means.

Man, I wish I had more time to go through all these other interweb places. If nothing else, just to see if a good portion of users are just the same folks making rounds with the same rhetoric in all these places!

[fjmac]

These forums are such a silo that this has basically just turned into the same thread, though.
“Is Marvel editorial evil or just stupid” isn’t the evenhanded take you seem to think it is.

Did I do something to you?

[Garlador]

Man, I wish I had more time to go through all these other interweb places. If nothing else, just to see if a good portion of users are just the same folks making rounds with the same rhetoric in all these places!

I vented a bit earlier on Twitter about how I’m feeling about this run.

It’s been viewed 155.7k times, Liked 4690 times, and Shared 445 times.

If it’s the same users, they certainly get around.

[fjmac]

Man, I wish I had more time to go through all these other interweb places. If nothing else, just to see if a good portion of users are just the same folks making rounds with the same rhetoric in all these places!

You seem to have an issue with people having opinions.

[ImOctavius]

You won’t escape this elsewhere though. This same feeling permeates conversations at Reddit, Discord, Twitter, Facebook, every other forum I visit, my local comic store, even my gaming channels. This isn’t locked to CBR, by any means.

And don't forget YouTube. There are a lot of people who create great videos criticizing Marvel and this run.

[wleakr]

You seem to have an issue with people having opinions.

Oh, don't be like that!

No issue at all with the "opinion" part of it.

But there are those that literally post the SAME opinion over AND over. Through multiple threads...good grief!

I only chime in occasionally, so my "issues" never impact the thread.

The only threads at the moment that interest me are the Superior, Spiderboy and the Marraige petition. The first 2 have more positive than negative (i.e. less of a debbie downer feel) and the petition, I'm genuinely interested if something like that can gain traction.

While I'm sidetracked, you know what really gave me a hoot?

Reading the thread that complained that the preview of Amazing 36 came out and there was no Amazing 35. The group here got all up in arms quick to bash...how DARE they not put out a preview for Amz 35!

Then the preview comes out for Amz 35 and, like clockwork, the group goes "THIS SUCKS!"

Sometimes I can get just as much entertainment out you guys crtiques than the enjoyment I get reading the book!

Sometimes. LOL!

[charliehustle415]

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

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

LMAO

Come on folks, I feel like I see threads like these every time a new Spidey preview comes out.

Go out and touch grass.

Further, we will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER know the thought process of anyone that is involved in the funny books we love and to assume otherwise is fanatical.

We shouldn't ever ascribe motive to people we do not know, this is how cringe youtube channels are created.

[fjmac]

One thing the internet is rife with is people who are convinced they can tell when another person has not touched grass. Astonishing. It's like reading something somebody else wrote and going "I'm sure that guy has never put chimichurri on a rib-eye steak".

[MrParkersSubstitute]

Maybe I’m old, or just well-read, but I’m familiar with the term.

And a random misogynistic slur might be “excusable” in context or isolation, but it’s compounded by a substantial amount of problematic and questionable writing choices regarding multiple women throughout this run. This wasn’t remotely a one-off criticism, as it’s just something else that exacerbated an already bad impression. Far from the first or last time as well.

I’m familiar with the phrase and is origins as well, but my general point is on this specific issue is that it’s use is in no way an endorsement, and that despite my familiarity with the term, it has not been an actively used term for literally centuries, as indicated by being dubbed “outdated” in English language dictionaries, and it isn’t a fair comparison to judge it as if it were a slur that is still used to insult people today.

And the post ‪‪I responded to initially referred to the phrase as proof in and of itself of the “obvious intentions” of Wells, there is no mention of, or frankly allowance for anything else to inform the opinion as presented, because the phrase was literally proof alone.

‪‪I absolutely agree that there are things to criticize in this run, that’s without question, but ‪‪I don’t think it’s a defensible position, or really within the bounds of the rules of this forum, to continually claim to know the mind and hearts of writers, and imply or outright state fairly heavy accusations because of a story they are not enjoying.

‪‪I think there’s a big difference between “is this material misogynistic?” and “this creator is definitely misogynistic,” and literary criticism of someone’s collaborative, corporate driven work of fiction isn’t always a straight line for grounds to judge them as a human being.

Further, we will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER know the thought process of anyone that is involved in the funny books we love and to assume otherwise is fanatical.

We shouldn't ever ascribe motive to people we do not know, this is how cringe youtube channels are created.

Well said.

[Huntsman Spider]

One thing the internet is rife with is people who are convinced they can tell when another person has not touched grass. Astonishing. It's like reading something somebody else wrote and going "I'm sure that guy has never put chimichurri on a rib-eye steak".

While touching grass is generally a good idea, I would strongly argue against using that as a glib dismissal of understandable, if not justifiable, grievances people have with this run. That said, the Internet is operated and used by people, so if you're saying to avoid the Internet as a way to avoid human toxicity, if not plain and stark inhumanity . . .

[fjmac]

Further, we will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER know the thought process of anyone that is involved in the funny books we love and to assume otherwise is fanatical.

We shouldn't ever ascribe motive to people we do not know, this is how cringe youtube channels are created.

Well said.

I feel compelled to point out that the title of the thread is a question, and the original post is written in a clearly speculative tone. So far I've seen a lot of criticism towards the fact the the thread exists, not of the points made. If I may, I believe that touching grass may be a better alternative to criticize the existence of a thread than it is to creating it.

[charliehustle415]

I feel compelled to point out that the title of the thread is a question, and the original post is written in a clearly speculative tone. So far I've seen a lot of criticism towards the fact the the thread exists, not of the points made. If I may, I believe that touching grass may be a better alternative to criticize the existence of a thread than it is to creating it.

the existence of said thread is why said grass should be touched.

in other words, you're too invested in a fictional character's depiction that you (and all fans) have no ownership of.

the owners of IP hired the editorial who hired the people to write stories with different goals in mind.

those goals we will never know, just because we spend money on a character doesn't give us ownership nor does it give us a right to dictate their depiction.

you want to ask the question, sure go ahead, but don't get defensive when you're called out on asking the question.

it's borderline conspiratorial like, "I'm just questioning why the government puts fluoride in the water?"

[fjmac]

the existence of said thread is why said grass should be touched.

Ad hominem and straw man all bundled into one.

in other words, you're too invested in a fictional character's depiction that you (and all fans) have no ownership of.

You have 0 idea of how invested I am in anything.

the owners of IP hired the editorial who hired the people to write stories with different goals in mind.

I know. And?

those goals we will never know, just because we spend money on a character doesn't give us ownership nor does it give us a right to dictate their depiction.

Ownership and right I never claimed, by the way.

you want to ask the question, sure go ahead, but don't get defensive when you're called out on asking the question.

Why should asking a question be grounds for one to be called out on it? And by the way, I don't get defensive because of you "calling me out", if that's what you think you're doing, but because of you insulting me.

it's borderline conspiratorial like, "I'm just questioning why the government puts fluoride in the water?"

Speaking of insults...

Really dude, I think what I think about some things and sometimes I post it on boards dedicated to that thing. What makes me so deserving of your derision?

[Mister Mets]

They're not doing this out of spite, or because they're out of touch.

They're doing this because they think it's the right direction for the series. If they wanted to torch the series, they wouldn't hire John Romita Jr as an artist.

And the main indications are that the book is selling pretty well compared to the rest of the comics market. Which would reinforce the idea that this is the right direction for the series.