Thread Drift: Bring back the Spectacular Spider-Man style B-title

[Mister Mets]

There may soon be a major argument for Spectacular Spider-Man as the title. Scuttlebutt is that it'll be the name of the next film.

http://www.slashfilm.com/drew-goddard-spider-man-movie/

[MajorHoy]

Talkin' about the wish for a companion Spider-Man book again:
Amazing Spider-Man 16.1

[Pav]

The days of my youth were filled with so many Spidey comics - Amazing, Spectacular, Web of... that became Sensational and adjective-less that became Peter Parker, not to mention Unlimited and Webspinners.

I especially liked how, after the Clone Saga, each title had its own distinct feel and tone. I loved being able to read more of a street-level story the same month as a story featuring universe-shaking events.

However, I just don't think such a scenario makes sense anymore from a business perspective. As much as people might crave another option - especially those unsatisfied with Amazing currently - it just doesn't make sense in terms of sales, and I think Mets has explained why extremely well.

It seems to me that the more Marvel can put out the Amazing title, the better off it and we would be, especially if they would assign two "head" writers; that way, they could switch off storylines, giving people who may not like one writer the opportunity to read Spidey tales from the other. Maybe a 6-months on, 6 months off kind of a deal.

And personally, I'd rather the Spidey-Office diversify the line, which does seem to be their current modus operandi. Instead of having four titles a month featuring Peter Parker, it's cool to get related titles - some of which would offer regular appearances from Spidey - but still giving other characters a chance to shine. Personally, instead of the influx of solos, I'd much rather see some Spidey titles featuring either a pair of headliners, or an actual full-fledged Spidey-related team. (You guys know I love Slingers already.)

I wonder if, after Secret Wars, we'll be getting a Spider-Men title, featuring both Peter and Miles.

-Pav, who thinks the days of "Team-Up" lasting more than twelve issues per run are long gone...

[Mister Mets]

Talkin' about the wish for a companion Spider-Man book again:
Amazing Spider-Man 16.1

Spiral does provide an interesting model for a satellite book: a larger focus on the stories of other characters. Tangled Web did that as an anthology, but it could also be done with a consistent creative team.

That way, major events in Peter's life could occur in Amazing Spider-Man. But there can still be exciting stories in another title with characters who give writers more flexibility. Conway would never convince the reader that Spider-Man's in mortal peril, or potentially going to cross an ethical line. But Wraith's a different story.

[Phantom Roxas]

The days of my youth were filled with so many Spidey comics - Amazing, Spectacular, Web of... that became Sensational and adjective-less that became Peter Parker, not to mention Unlimited and Webspinners.

I especially liked how, after the Clone Saga, each title had its own distinct feel and tone. I loved being able to read more of a street-level story the same month as a story featuring universe-shaking events.

However, I just don't think such a scenario makes sense anymore from a business perspective. As much as people might crave another option - especially those unsatisfied with Amazing currently - it just doesn't make sense in terms of sales, and I think Mets has explained why extremely well.

It seems to me that the more Marvel can put out the Amazing title, the better off it and we would be, especially if they would assign two "head" writers; that way, they could switch off storylines, giving people who may not like one writer the opportunity to read Spidey tales from the other. Maybe a 6-months on, 6 months off kind of a deal.

And personally, I'd rather the Spidey-Office diversify the line, which does seem to be their current modus operandi. Instead of having four titles a month featuring Peter Parker, it's cool to get related titles - some of which would offer regular appearances from Spidey - but still giving other characters a chance to shine. Personally, instead of the influx of solos, I'd much rather see some Spidey titles featuring either a pair of headliners, or an actual full-fledged Spidey-related team. (You guys know I love Slingers already.)

I wonder if, after Secret Wars, we'll be getting a Spider-Men title, featuring both Peter and Miles.

-Pav, who thinks the days of "Team-Up" lasting more than twelve issues per run are long gone...

I'm all for the idea of a pair of characters to headline a book. I'm interested in seeing where some of plotlines from books such as Venom or Scarlet Spider go, and while "Venom & Scarlet Spider" probably won't be what I'd go for, I could still see it, though they could also be paired with some other characters. For example, Venom could have something like "Venom: Guardian of the Galaxy", while Scarlet Spider could have "Scarlet Spider and the New Warriors", since then you're using the titles of both books to help one compliment the other.

I think Spider-Men 2 has been confirmed to be happening in the winter. Not sure if that means the end of this year or the beginning of the next one, though. We'll probably hear more news around the time Ultimate End #5 will be solicited. All-New Marvel is supposed to be in September, so either everything ends then so things can get going in October, which is when Marvel NOW! originally began, or they plan to end in August, which would suggest that they'll be double shipping in either July or August.

[Dr. Jay]

At this point, I'd love if they started a Marvel masterworks reprint series. We got two volumes of Team-up, we should get at least three of Spectacular Spider-man just to get past those awesome Carrion stories. I can only dream of a Masterworks reprint of those Al Milgrom stories.




(I know taking a shot at Al Milgrom--how classy)

[Mister Mets]

One question I've wondered is how multiple titles would handle different styles. The question would be whether to prioritize diversity or consistency.

There can be arguments for offering different styles for different customers (for example- a Bendis book and a Defalco book) so that more customers are happy with at least one title. On the other hand, branding can become an issue, so I could understand the writing equivalent of asking someone to stay on-model so that customers who enjoy the A-book might also find the B-book up their alley.

There may also be a third option, with certain projects going to writers and artists who aren't as divisive. Fans of Ed Brubaker might not care for a Chris Claremont book, which is a knock against Claremont (or Brubaker, if Claremont suddenly became a lot more popular). But fans of both writers could enjoy Peter David's work. So if Brubaker's writing Spider-Man, it could make sense to have Peter David writing other projects so fans of the Brubaker run have more material to pick up, and guys who didn't like Brubaker can get their Spider-Man fix.

I'm looking at this from a writing POV, since I'm less likely to reject a title for art. But the same could apply to art.