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

[CrazyOldHermit]

Not really . . . back in the day, there were several monthly Spider-Man titles (remember when we had Amazing, Spectacular, Web of, and adjectiveless-Spider-Man, not to mention the quarterly Unlimited?), so he doesn't have to be limited to just two issues a month.

It just depends on how they're handled.

He's talking about adding a B title, not C and D and quarterly E titles.

[Mister Mets]

He's talking about adding a B title, not C and D and quarterly E titles.

We could consider the merits and drawbacks of both.

I would love for this title to come back and feature the original title logo:



My choice to write it: Jason Aaron

I think the only B-title that could sell about as well as ASM at this point would be (Adjectiveless) Spider-Man. It has a bit of a history, as the name used for the first films, and with a debut issue that was the best-selling Spider-Man issue of all time.

[Phantom Roxas]

(Insert obligatory "Bring back Web of Spider-Man!" comment)

[RockyBanks]

Although I don't share the OP's distaste for Slott's ASM, I do agree that it would be great to have a tight-plotted, character-focused, continuity-light B-title. (Like Detective Comics or Batman and Robin to Snyder's flagship Batman.)

I'd also like to go on record as recommending Gerry Conway as writer.

[Coal Tiger]

Yes, put me down as someone who would love to read an ongoing Spider-Man comic written by someone other than Dan Slott.

[MajorHoy]

It would always be good to have options . . . an adjective-other-than-Amazing Spider-Man companion title starring Peter would be a nice alternative for people who aren't fond of Slot's writing, but could also be a pleasant bonus for people who enjoy Slott's AS-M.

[Mister Mets]

It might be tough to reintroduce companion titles, given the reader's impression that it's disposable, an impression borne out by the last decade and a half of the comics.

Towards the end of his run JMS's Amazing Spider-Man got its best sales, while FNSM and SSM were struggling to get into the Top 40. The last seven years have seen a thrice-monthly and twice-monthly flagship title (be it ASM or Superior Spider-Man) which reinforces the idea that if an adjective-other-than-Amazing Spider-Man series were launched events in it aren't that important.

There might still be advantages to the book. It could give an alternative for Spider-Man fans who don't care for Slott's sensibility. And it might sell well enough to justify its existence.

It seems to me that multiple titles can work under three circumstances. The first is if the status quo is very consistent. The marriage helped with that, since it meant that there was at least one character Peter could interact with often, discussing events in other titles, and making those seem more important. But his job at the Daily Bugle was also fairly secure.

The second is if the norm is for stories to be short. It's pretty easy to shuffle between events in various titles, when stories are usually between 1-3 issues. Things won't change that much in the two Amazing Spider-Man issues that shipped between a three issue arc of Web. A disadvantage here is that fans often like longer stories, which are also evergreen sellers for Marvel as reprint collections (Kraven's Last Hunt, Return of the Sinister Six, and Torment still make the company money.)

The final way is to when there's not much of a difference between having multiple monthly titles or having one book that comes out several times a month. This occurs when there are a lot of crossovers (The Clone Saga), or when one guy is writing multiple titles (the Mackie relaunch). I haven't seen anyone support this.

[Darthfury78]

It might be tough to reintroduce companion titles, given the reader's impression that it's disposable, an impression borne out by the last decade and a half of the comics.

Towards the end of his run JMS's Amazing Spider-Man got its best sales, while FNSM and SSM were struggling to get into the Top 40. The last seven years have seen a thrice-monthly and twice-monthly flagship title (be it ASM or Superior Spider-Man) which reinforces the idea that if an adjective-other-than-Amazing Spider-Man series were launched events in it aren't that important.

There might still be advantages to the book. It could give an alternative for Spider-Man fans who don't care for Slott's sensibility. And it might sell well enough to justify its existence.

It seems to me that multiple titles can work under three circumstances. The first is if the status quo is very consistent. The marriage helped with that, since it meant that there was at least one character Peter could interact with often, discussing events in other titles, and making those seem more important. But his job at the Daily Bugle was also fairly secure.

The second is if the norm is for stories to be short. It's pretty easy to shuffle between events in various titles, when stories are usually between 1-3 issues. Things won't change that much in the two Amazing Spider-Man issues that shipped between a three issue arc of Web. A disadvantage here is that fans often like longer stories, which are also evergreen sellers for Marvel as reprint collections (Kraven's Last Hunt, Return of the Sinister Six, and Torment still make the company money.)

The final way is to when there's not much of a difference between having multiple monthly titles or having one book that comes out several times a month. This occurs when there are a lot of crossovers (The Clone Saga), or when one guy is writing multiple titles (the Mackie relaunch). I haven't seen anyone support this.

This is why Marvel should bring back The Avenging Spider-Man as a team-up series once again as a book that would allow guest writers to write a 2-4 part team-up adventure, as well as a testing ground for Marvel to pick the next Spider-Man successor to Dan Slott as it would give the writers(who have not had the opportunity to write a Spider-Man story before). This could give the fans an opportunity for them to rate their favorite writers. I do not think that a Spider-Man team-up adventure should have a permanent writer. Rather it should be modeled after DC Comics Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight series where it had different guest writers instead of a permanent writer.

[Phantom Roxas]

How would it allow the audience to rate the different writers? If the arcs are short, then Marvel could just assume that the appeal is that it's a Spider-Man book. They'd also be aiming the book towards new audiences, so there would be people unfamiliar with the writers, which makes them unable to rate them.

[MajorHoy]

How would it allow the audience to rate the different writers? If the arcs are short, then Marvel could just assume that the appeal is that it's a Spider-Man book. They'd also be aiming the book towards new audiences, so there would be people unfamiliar with the writers, which makes them unable to rate them.

"Sales" are king when it comes to ratings. And "sales" are often heavily weighted by what comic book shops order and either expect to sell or are willing to carry in inventory.

[Phantom Roxas]

I get that, but I think that the message Marvel would take away from that would be that they want more of that series, rather than more from that writer.

[Aruran.]

I would rather replace the writer then insert a new series. Spider-Man works best when you get the all the different natures of story-telling into one book, that way each story arc can have the different feel about them. And considering that some of the better stories during the multiple titles occurred in the side series and not Amazing, I'd rather remove the writer.

It is a production based industry, if Writer B gives a better story then existing Writer A, you let B take the job.

[Mister Mets]

This is why Marvel should bring back The Avenging Spider-Man as a team-up series once again as a book that would allow guest writers to write a 2-4 part team-up adventure, as well as a testing ground for Marvel to pick the next Spider-Man successor to Dan Slott as it would give the writers(who have not had the opportunity to write a Spider-Man story before). This could give the fans an opportunity for them to rate their favorite writers. I do not think that a Spider-Man team-up adventure should have a permanent writer. Rather it should be modeled after DC Comics Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight series where it had different guest writers instead of a permanent writer.

Anthologies are a mixed bag. These don't sell very well.

However, it's always in Marvel's interests to have self-contained accessible Spider-Man material available for new readers. Legends of the Dark Knight ensures that there are quite a few TPBs available for Batman newcomers. Digital reprints also mean that Marvel doesn't have to worry about having enough material for a trade.

"Sales" are king when it comes to ratings. And "sales" are often heavily weighted by what comic book shops order and either expect to sell or are willing to carry in inventory.

Sales wouldn't necessarily work on an anthology, especially a team-up book. A Spider-Man & the Avengers three-parter by one writer will likely outsell a Spider-Man & Sleepwalker two-parter by another. By the time readers make decisions based on the comics they read, there will likely be a new creatibe team.

If a book sold out that would indicate fan interest, but that's quite rare.

It would still provide opportunities for writers and artists to impress editors, so there is that.

[RD!]

We haven't had a "grounded" Spider-Man story since ASM675 back in 2011. It's 2015 now. Since then it's major event after major event, world enders, big corporations, time travel, body swaps, alternate universes and Parker Industries. Think about that for a moment. A lot of it has been fun, but it's so far removed from when Peter's boat tour is attacked by the Tarantula or he's got some undergrad papers to mark, but someone is stalking Flash Thompson while the Vulture is attacking a museum downtown. In the same issue, a mob war is slowly brewing.

I guess what I'm saying is that things used to have more of a slow burn, focus on character over exhibition, and Spider-Man felt like a street level, relatable hero.

If there are no plans to tone Amazing down anytime soon, I think the least we could get is another, more grounded title for some old fashioned Spider-Man fun. AND MAKE IT TEAM UP FREE. I'd get Zeb Wells back for the initial arc at least, because this series would be right up his alley. Then I'd put a new talent on the book, or Fraction, if he wants it.

[Mister Mets]

We haven't had a "grounded" Spider-Man story since ASM675 back in 2011. It's 2015 now. Since then it's major event after major event, world enders, big corporations, time travel, body swaps, alternate universes and Parker Industries. Think about that for a moment. A lot of it has been fun, but it's so far removed from when Peter's boat tour is attacked by the Tarantula or he's got some undergrad papers to mark, but someone is stalking Flash Thompson while the Vulture is attacking a museum downtown. In the same issue, a mob war is slowly brewing.

I guess what I'm saying is that things used to have more of a slow burn, focus on character over exhibition, and Spider-Man felt like a street level, relatable hero.

If there are no plans to tone Amazing down anytime soon, I think the least we could get is another, more grounded title for some old fashioned Spider-Man fun. AND MAKE IT TEAM UP FREE. I'd get Zeb Wells back for the initial arc at least, because this series would be right up his alley. Then I'd put a new talent on the book, or Fraction, if he wants it.

Slott's opening arc was all over the place, but it had a fight with the White Rabbit, and was essentially about Electro teaming up with Black Cat. These aren't really major events. The Ms. Marvel team-up was relatively grounded as was the annual.