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

[WebLurker]

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.

An extreme example, sure, but I was taking it as an exaggerated comparison to get the point across.

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

[/quote]

That's the thing, thought; they didn't change the "accurate reflection," just once facet of a larger franchise that hasn't adopted the agenda. OMD is the outlier, the thing that is not the the others, if you will.

Obviously, at the end of the day, if Marvel only wants OMD comics, there's not a lot we can do about that. Still, the oddity of them being hellbent on maintaining an anti-brand status quo in what's ostensibly the source material and the question of what we can draw from the franchise as a whole ignoring it in favor of the version the Powers That Be have rejected remains.

(Also, I think as we've seen with stuff like the Michael Bay Transformers movies, profitable installments aren't automatically accurate ones.)

[Frontier]

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.

Can't that go both ways though for anyone who didn't have a problem with him being married?

[fjmac]

can't that go both ways though for anyone who didn't have a problem with him being married?

how dare you sir!

[charliehustle415]

That's the thing, thought; they didn't change the "accurate reflection," just once facet of a larger franchise that hasn't adopted the agenda. OMD is the outlier, the thing that is not the the others, if you will.

Obviously, at the end of the day, if Marvel only wants OMD comics, there's not a lot we can do about that. Still, the oddity of them being hellbent on maintaining an anti-brand status quo in what's ostensibly the source material and the question of what we can draw from the franchise as a whole ignoring it in favor of the version the Powers That Be have rejected remains.

(Also, I think as we've seen with stuff like the Michael Bay Transformers movies, profitable installments aren't automatically accurate ones.)

Fair enough, then the question is, "if the IP holders change the depiction and audiences do not like it, is the onus on the owners to acquiesce to said audiences?"

Which also begs the question of which audiences to listen to and what defines an audience member?

[Conn Seanery]

Folks, regardless of the Giant-Douche-vs.-Turd-Sandwich setup, if you can't discuss subject civilly don't post.

[WebLurker]

Fair enough, then the question is, "if the IP holders change the depiction and audiences do not like it, is the onus on the owners to acquiesce to said audiences?"

Which also begs the question of which audiences to listen to and what defines an audience member?

Don't think we have enough data to say for sure; Spider-Man sells, but what percentage is customers voting with their wallets vs. what stores buy, variant cover incentives, etc. (technically speaking, all Marvel needs to do is get enough stores to buy the comics to turn a profit). Understandably, Marvel isn't going to be telling us that and, while anecdotal accounts from comic book stores that the OMD issues don't sell might seem like sound evidence that Marvel is trying to make New Coke stick, at the end of the day, it's just anecdotal.

I guess I was just commenting on the bizarre situation of how the people making the comics insist that the thing Spider-Man needs to be is not reflective of the franchise as a whole and how that's going to work long-term beyond the short-term of OMD itself, if that makes any sense. (Put it another way, Marvel may be able to keep the comics in the black, but are they relevant in a day and age when the movies and video games are sticking with older status quo that OMD was designed to erase?)

[ARkadelphia]

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

But Aunt May hasn’t been mentioned in this one

[PCN24454]

Can't that go both ways though for anyone who didn't have a problem with him being married?

It can, but the point is that the pro-marriage arguments come off hypocritical because they don’t actually want progress. Just a different status quo.

[Kurus]

It can, but the point is that the pro-marriage arguments come off hypocritical because they don’t actually want progress. Just a different status quo.

Some people do want progress. I’ve seen more than a few people who’d like Peter to have a kid already, which to me would be progress.

[Morgoth]

It can, but the point is that the pro-marriage arguments come off hypocritical because they don’t actually want progress. Just a different status quo.

It's not a basic status-quo, so, yeah, it can be considered as progress.
In fact, that's what the whole problem is - in this industry, the basic status quo is sacred to many people (especially writers and editors with more old school mentality, Mark Waid is one of the most obvious examples), while many fans are annoyed by it. This is where all this lack of understanding lies.

[RJT]

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

I would point out that Chip Zdarsky said he would never write Amazing because of the fandom but is currently writing Batman, so there is something unique about his fandom. It’s basically the 21st century version of “H.E.A.T.”

[Yvonmukluk]

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.

I mean of course nobody had a problem with it before. It wasn’t a regression of his character before.

[Garlador]

I would point out that Chip Zdarsky said he would never write Amazing because of the fandom but is currently writing Batman, so there is something unique about his fandom. It’s basically the 21st century version of “H.E.A.T.”

As much as I love and respect Zdarsky, looking at the current backlash and whining amongst fans in the Batman corner makes me think this is hardly a Spider-Man-exclusive problem.

[Morgoth]

I'm pretty sure Zdarsky already regrets he took Batman book, lol.
At least if it's such a huge problem for him.

[godisawesome]

As much as I love and respect Zdarsky, looking at the current backlash and whining amongst fans in the Batman corner makes me think this is hardly a Spider-Man-exclusive problem.

Indeed; there is in fact a greater than normal collection of parallels between the Spider-Man books and the Bat Books right now - though, of course, not too many, lest we pretend the situations are exact parallels.

Both have some element of editorial being against a long term pairing and fueling bad writing to get it undone… but Spider-Man editorial has simply recruited writers who share their anti-marriage opinion and doesn’t hold them to much of a storytelling standard, while the Bat-books seem to have mildly annoyed writers carrying out editorial’s demands but without much oversight for making them line-up with each other.

Both have some key plot point dependent on “magical personality disorders” that doesn’t really do character agency very well, and comes off more like a fantastical excuse than character writing… but more overtly magical in the Spider-Man books and more pseudo-sciencey in the Bat-books.

Both have, regrettably, depended on using a very, very dumb writing style in the female love interest to try and inculcate conflict between her and the hero, which unfortunately isn’t that much worse than what the hero gets sometimes.

The biggest foundational difference is that the Batbooks have always loved having a huge Batfamily, while the Spider-books are famously cold on the subject of spin-off characters past a brief miniseries or two. And part of the rage among the Batfandom is seeing their other heroes get pulled into bad writing and another “Batfamily Break-up” that few people ever enjoy, while the Spider-Man books have a bit more of a unique situation because Slott has a pet-project he’s enthusiastic about in Spider-Boy that’s largely uninvolved with the current story.