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

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I certainly agree with most of what you said, interesting way to look at the way Marvel's trends evolved at the time. As for the quote above, you may also be right in theory, but I remember that JQ's proposition was HEAVILY resisted. He spent something like two or three years complaining about the marriage and talking about his intentions to undo it, mostly using Wizard (for which Quesada could do no wrong) as a loudspeaker, while everybody else was losing their throats telling him to drop that shit.

I mean, I still don't think it could have worked, just that I can kinda sorta see why he thought he could get away with it.

With Quesada there was like a 5% chance fans could accept it, with Wells/Lowe it was always zero lol.

I don't see why you think Brubaker's Captain America run has little mention of previous continuity? it seems to me that it tried to feature just about everyone who'd ever been a major supporting character. It feels like it's going so in service to an overarching vision, rather than because it has no ideas beyond a Greatest Hits compilation, but it is very much about a character with a lot of continuity behind him.

Well, maybe not Brubaker's run. (Tbh I got into Marvel in the 2000s and felt like every run then was easy to get into, so maybe I'm biased). But I think it's true at least for 2000s Spider-Man, X-Men (no ongoing 16 year+ continuity like with Claremont), and Avengers (Bendis relaunch).

[WebLurker]

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.

So, writing something that's anti-brand is the "right direction?"

[Morgoth]

So, writing something that's anti-brand is the "right direction?"

The only thing they care about is sales. It's selling. So, from their point of view it's the right direction.
They don't care about feedback, moreover, they actually prefer negative, because they think it sells better. Brevoort openly talked about that, and, for example, DC had DiDio, who had exactly the same mentality about comics. And even after he and his team (which had the same opinion) were kicked out, part of this mentality still remained in case of Batman, another huge seller.

[Digifiend]

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

Isn't that Batman?

[Lee]

This thread title is a J. Jonah Jameson headline: SPIDER-MAN - THREAT OR MENACE?

The current run of Amazing Spider-Man has consistently been one of the American comic industry's very best sellers. Many of the satellite series (Spider-Man, Venom, and so on) have also been amongst the American comic industry's best sellers.

It's also true that the American comic industry as a whole has been struggling as of late.

It's tough times, but Amazing Spider-Man is the best performer across the board.

It would be incredibly naive to suggest that all of the American comic industry's current struggles are entirely due to the story content of the comics. But if that is the argument being made, then every other American comic on the shelves right now must have story content that's even more "out of touch", because the overwhelming majority of them don't manage to sell as well as Amazing Spider-Man does.

The repetitive complaint on this board is "The Spider-Man comics staff aren't doing their jobs well". A more honest complaint would be "The Spider-Man comics staff are doing their jobs well, but I personally dislike the comics".

For some of the loudest voices in online fandom it's not enough to simply like or dislike a comic and express that opinion for what it is, they need to try to convince people that the comics they dislike are failing and the human beings making them are failing at their jobs.

[fjmac]

This thread title is a J. Jonah Jameson headline: SPIDER-MAN - THREAT OR MENACE?

The current run of Amazing Spider-Man has consistently been one of the American comic industry's very best sellers. Many of the satellite series (Spider-Man, Venom, and so on) have also been amongst the American comic industry's best sellers.

It's also true that the American comic industry as a whole has been struggling as of late.

It's tough times, but Amazing Spider-Man is the best performer across the board.

It would be incredibly naive to suggest that all of the American comic industry's current struggles are entirely due to the story content of the comics. But if that is the argument being made, then every other American comic on the shelves right now must have story content that's even more "out of touch", because the overwhelming majority of them don't manage to sell as well as Amazing Spider-Man does.

The repetitive complaint on this board is "The Spider-Man comics staff aren't doing their jobs well". A more honest complaint would be "The Spider-Man comics staff are doing their jobs well, but I personally dislike the comics".

Bit easy when you intently twist and misinterpret the points being made, to fit the tone you already wanted your reply to have when you were halfway through reading the title of the thread. That tone being "derisive admonishing", of course. The explicit speculative nature of the post? Not important. The points about how changes in the world may affect audiences preferences and whether comics (or any other medium) do adapt, or even if they should? Nah.

The amount of openly adversarial reactions to this thread has been nothing short of insane. Some people more or less agreed and added their points, and the rest just went for the throat. I thought we (the ones who don't like this run) were the toxic ones and you guys were the reasonable, sensible, grass-touching ones. I am yet to see somebody openly disagree and address the ACTUAL points I've made. Let alone in a civil manner.

For some of the loudest voices in online fandom it's not enough to simply like or dislike a comic and express that opinion for what it is, they need to try to convince people that the comics they dislike are failing and the human beings making them are failing at their jobs.

Yeah, yeah, "some of the loudest voices in online fandom", we hear that one often. Because online fandoms are still the same as in the early 00's, vocal minorities (that term aged well, didn't it?) organizing concerted attacks on books and titles we don't like. The world keeps changing faster and faster, except for the aspects based on which I once was able to sustain my narrative.

[Mister Mets]

So, writing something that's anti-brand is the "right direction?"

They don't think it's anti-brand.

Sales would reinforce that idea.

Romita Jr has been known for his Spider-Man work for 40+ years. Wells has been working on the character for 20 years. This is not McGuiness or Gleason's first rodeo. And you can find plenty of precedent in the old Spider-Man comics for all the things some fans are complaining about.

This thread title is a J. Jonah Jameson headline: SPIDER-MAN - THREAT OR MENACE?

The current run of Amazing Spider-Man has consistently been one of the American comic industry's very best sellers. Many of the satellite series (Spider-Man, Venom, and so on) have also been amongst the American comic industry's best sellers.

It's also true that the American comic industry as a whole has been struggling as of late.

It's tough times, but Amazing Spider-Man is the best performer across the board.

It would be incredibly naive to suggest that all of the American comic industry's current struggles are entirely due to the story content of the comics. But if that is the argument being made, then every other American comic on the shelves right now must have story content that's even more "out of touch", because the overwhelming majority of them don't manage to sell as well as Amazing Spider-Man does.

The repetitive complaint on this board is "The Spider-Man comics staff aren't doing their jobs well". A more honest complaint would be "The Spider-Man comics staff are doing their jobs well, but I personally dislike the comics".

For some of the loudest voices in online fandom it's not enough to simply like or dislike a comic and express that opinion for what it is, they need to try to convince people that the comics they dislike are failing and the human beings making them are failing at their jobs.

Yeah, when someone dismisses sales because they think things suck in the industry, it doesn't stand to reason that the book on the top is the one that needs fixing.

[Mister Mets]

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

But it does stand to reason that pretty much every other title is in need of big, bold changes.

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?

In fairness, that one was about fan attitudes.

[Lee]

The thread title and the content of the original post is a "SPIDER-MAN: THREAT OR MENACE?" article. Or as another poster put it:

“Is Marvel editorial evil or just stupid” isn’t the evenhanded take you seem to think it is.

The original post begins with the premise that Spider-Man comics are failing and the human beings making them are fucking up their jobs, then proceeds to ask whether it's because they're spiteful assholes or just stupid idiots who are out of touch. The original post snipes at comic creators and ends with "Message to comic pros: we are right and you are wrong."

In my book that is entitled and toxic fan behavior.

[Alan2099]

The thread title and the content of the original post is a "SPIDER-MAN: THREAT OR MENACE?" article. Or as another poster put it:



The original post begins with the premise that Spider-Man comics are failing and the human beings making them are fucking up their jobs, then proceeds to ask whether it's because they're spiteful assholes or just stupid idiots who are out of touch. The original post snipes at comic creators and ends with "Message to comic pros: we are right and you are wrong."

In my book that is entitled and toxic fan behavior.

Spider-Man fans ... Toxic or just jerks?

[Garlador]

The only thing they care about is sales. It's selling. So, from their point of view it's the right direction.
They don't care about feedback, moreover, they actually prefer negative, because they think it sells better. Brevoort openly talked about that, and, for example, DC had DiDio, who had exactly the same mentality about comics. And even after he and his team (which had the same opinion) were kicked out, part of this mentality still remained in case of Batman, another huge seller.

I'm a salesman by trade, and this is very true, but also not fully justifiable.

Spider-Man has always sold well. ALWAYS. Even when Marvel was going bankrupt, Spidey was still one of its top-sellers. "Sins Past" sold well. "One More Day" sold well.

The worst Spider-Man comic will outsell the best-written Hawkeye, She-Hulk, and Daredevil comic, because he's SPIDER-MAN.


As a salesman, I would also look to external factors as well for any sales boosts. Did he have a hugely popular new hit movie this year? Yes. Does have have a massively popular video game sequel coming out this year? Also yes. Media sales synergy is always a key factor, for the same reason Moon Knight and Loki got a big boost in sales once their Disney+ shows hit, even if the books were wildly different than the other media projects.

But the other thing is that "is it making money?" absolution is a shortsighted goal, and a dangerous one, because it presumes that the sales of today are creating success for the future, when the reality could be that the sales boom could be built on a shaky foundation that could collapse. The gimmicks and bubble economy of the 90s collapsed because so many were caught up in "we're making money!" without care for how much damage was being done along the way, so that when the bubble burst those foundations collapsed.

And, obviously, "success" isn't always good... or ethical... in the long-term. "Won the battle, lost the war", as they say. For more extreme examples, I was part of a church once that was very good - strong loving doctrine, lots of kind outreach, positive and accepting. However, leadership changed and they started catering to extremist views and the messaging changed - more political, more fear-mongering, more judgmental, more intolerant - and the church started attracting a LOT more people who thought like THAT, getting bigger donations, political favors, extremist speakers, etc. That church is now richer than ever, with a bigger congregation than ever, spreading messages of hatred and bigotry and intolerance. It's "succeeding" more than it ever did with the last pastor. I left that church, and I hate seeing how their anti-Christian theology is succeeding, and they justify their wealth and support as a sign it's the "right direction".

Spider-Man isn't THAT far gone yet... but I've read a lot of questionable moments lately that give me concern.

[WebLurker]

They don't think it's anti-brand.

A lot of those people also think that Spider-Man's main theme is "youth," not "responsibility."

Sales would reinforce that idea.

Injustice has been a profitable franchise, but it's hardly an accurate reflection on who Superman is.

Romita Jr has been known for his Spider-Man work for 40+ years. Wells has been working on the character for 20 years. This is not McGuiness or Gleason's first rodeo. And you can find plenty of precedent in the old Spider-Man comics for all the things some fans are complaining about.

I'd argue that part of the problem with OMD is its based on certain creators wanting wanting Spider-Man to be something he was years ago (or at least their idealized memories of that era), not who the character has become. OMD is is akin to if X-Men writers decided it was a mistake to make Rogue a hero and that she should've remained a supervillain, or Avengers deciding that Black Widow's reforming destroyed the character, etc.

[phonogram12]

Spider-Man fans ... Toxic or just jerks?

TBF, this is most fandom. I would love to say that Spider-Man fans are wholly unique in this aspect, but alas...

[charliehustle415]

Injustice has been a profitable franchise, but it's hardly an accurate reflection on who Superman is.

This may not be a good example, because for years they've been pushing a fascist Supes, I mean that was Snyder's endgame (a billion dollar, multi year, multi film franchise that ultimately failed). So in this example the IP owners changed what is an accurate reflection of Superman.

Just like how Spidey's owners changed what is an accurate reflection for him vis-à-vis: UNMARRIED, DOWN & OUT, ALWAYS WITH THE PARKER LUCK

[Alan2099]

This may not be a good example, because for years they've been pushing a fascist Supes, I mean that was Snyder's endgame (a billion dollar, multi year, multi film franchise that ultimately failed). So in this example the IP owners changed what is an accurate reflection of Superman.

Just like how Spidey's owners changed what is an accurate reflection for him vis-à-vis: UNMARRIED, DOWN & OUT, ALWAYS WITH THE PARKER LUCK

The difference of course being that Snyder was making Superman into something he wasn't, while Marvel was just putting Spider-man back into an older status quo that nobody had a problem with before.