Controversial Opinions Thread Drift #1: How many writers/ titles should there be?

[Aruran.]

Marvel ruins Spider-Man every time they have multiple ongoing books released, set in the same universe at the same time. Each writer is limited creatively for every story, which becomes problematic. Spider-Man works best when 1 person is writing him, that way there is no difference in his actions for each story. BND had the same problem, because multiple people were writing him yet couldn't be creative without putting the next writer in a bind.

[The Amazing Spider-Man]

Marvel ruins Spider-Man every time they have multiple ongoing books released, set in the same universe at the same time. Each writer is limited creatively for every story, which becomes problematic. Spider-Man works best when 1 person is writing him, that way there is no difference in his actions for each story. BND had the same problem, because multiple people were writing him yet couldn't be creative without putting the next writer in a bind.

I could not agree more.

[Beacon]

I love the idea of multiple writers. If I don’t like one person’s vision of Spider-Man then you can just read the other Spider-Man comics that do appeal to you. BND was a mess in that regard; it didn’t really feel like anyone was writing “their” Spider-Man since they were coordinating with everyone else.

I liked it better when I could just read Spectacular Spider-Man or whatever if I didn’t like whatever was going on in Amazing.

[Dexy]

Controversial Opinion: The Goblin King would have been more interesting if it had been Liz manipulating everyone to ensure that Normie never wants for anything. That makes a lot more sense than her being in league with the man who ruined her ex-husband’s life.

I had it in my head that Ock had implanted a copy of his mind into Norman's body as a backup plan and was fighting himself. Either that or Pete was driving Norman. Kinda disappointed it was just Norman all along.

Marvel ruins Spider-Man every time they have multiple ongoing books released, set in the same universe at the same time. Each writer is limited creatively for every story, which becomes problematic. Spider-Man works best when 1 person is writing him, that way there is no difference in his actions for each story. BND had the same problem, because multiple people were writing him yet couldn't be creative without putting the next writer in a bind.

Totally the opposite for me. Amazing, Peter Parker and Web Of Spidey worked well for me and I really miss having all three. Just sucked when they had so many crossovers.

[Aruran.]

I love the idea of multiple writers. If I don’t like one person’s vision of Spider-Man then you can just read the other Spider-Man comics that do appeal to you. BND was a mess in that regard; it didn’t really feel like anyone was writing “their” Spider-Man since they were coordinating with everyone else.

I liked it better when I could just read Spectacular Spider-Man or whatever if I didn’t like whatever was going on in Amazing.

Totally the opposite for me. Amazing, Peter Parker and Web Of Spidey worked well for me and I really miss having all three. Just sucked when they had so many crossovers.

The problem with multiple titles is that it doesn't last long-term. Way too many times a cross over has to occur, and it gets really messy as a result. But I do like how different stories can occur in the multiple titles. Marvel Knights, along with Death in the Family are some of my favourite stories that occurred outside of the Amazing Spider-Man series.

The other thing is that whatever characters are used in one of the side series, they are stuck in that side series. In 2000 Norman appeared in the side titles more times than in Amazing, and that is really weird.

[Mister Mets]

The problem with multiple titles is that it doesn't last long-term. Way too many times a cross over has to occur, and it gets really messy as a result. But I do like how different stories can occur in the multiple titles. Marvel Knights, along with Death in the Family are some of my favourite stories that occurred outside of the Amazing Spider-Man series.

The other thing is that whatever characters are used in one of the side series, they are stuck in that side series. In 2000 Norman appeared in the side titles more times than in Amazing, and that is really weird.

I don't think multiple titles work that well. There are some good stories in the satellite books, but it's difficult to balance all the material, or to reflect the changes, big and small, in other titles. That could also be complicated by differing arc lengths.

It was a bit easier during the marriage, since Peter always had MJ to talk about events in other titles. But I think the Spider-Man comics need one title for the major events in Peter Parker's life.

[Aruran.]

It was a bit easier during the marriage, since Peter always had MJ to talk about events in other titles. But I think the Spider-Man comics need one title for the major events in Peter Parker's life.

I actually think that the marriage hurt the multiple titles, making it even harder to write the side series. It became harder to differ in what happened in each story if MJ appeared in all of the titles. Same goes other characters, but MJ had to appear since her and Peter were married.

Spider-Man works best with 1 title. The only exception is Marvel Team-Up.

[Beacon]

I’d even go so far to say that Spider-Man NEEDS multiple books.

When I think about my favorite Spider-Man comics in the 2000s, I don’t think about the Byrne/Mackie reboot or the JMS run. I do think of a handful of post-OMD Amazing stories but it is really ONLY a handful.

Mostly I think about Paul Jenkins on Peter Parker, Peter David on Tangled Web, Yost on Scarlet Spider, Defalco on Spider-Girl, Jeff Parker and company on the Adventures line, the better arcs in Webspinners and Tangled Web, Spencer’s Superior Foes, a few standout stories from Unlimited, and the occasional quality mini or guest appearance.

Spider-Island and Superior were great and everything but if “Amazing” were the only game in town then I would have given up on the character long before I had a chance to read them.

Another Controversial Opinion: I’d like Anna Maria to stick around for a while. Sure a relationship seems doomed to fail but it’d be fun to see them try.

Speaking of love interests, I’m kind of surprised they never revisited Betty in the OMD era. It was the first time in forever that they’d both been single and that’s always been the thing keeping them apart. Well that and that MJ was going to be the one he ended up with but they’ve thrown that away.

[saul_on_the_road_to_damascus]

No one needs multiple books. Not even bats.

[Mister Mets]

Batman can support multiple titles more easily. Bruce Wayne's subplots are not as important to the series as Peter Parker's story is to the Spider-Man comics. He has the combination of constants (Alfred, the Robins, Commissioner Gordon, etc.), and a story engine that allows for the introduction of new characters who will lead to new adventures for Batman that don't have to be referenced in any other title.

While it's better to have Spider-Man in one book (with Marvel Team-Up as a possible satellite since that one doesn't require an emphasis on Peter Parker's private life) I don't think we can expect to have only one writer on the book. Many writers like working on multiple titles, and it can be restrictive to only have one voice on Marvel's top character.

[oldschool]

Marvel ruins Spider-Man every time they have multiple ongoing books released, set in the same universe at the same time. Each writer is limited creatively for every story, which becomes problematic. Spider-Man works best when 1 person is writing him, that way there is no difference in his actions for each story. BND had the same problem, because multiple people were writing him yet couldn't be creative without putting the next writer in a bind.

I have to disagree here. I think Spidey's true "Golden Age" was the 1980's when we had Stern writing ASM, Peter David writing Spectacular and JM DeMatteis on Marvel Team-Up. The argument that it is more difficult to weave major plot beats throughout all the titles may be true but this era showed that you can deal with them peripherally; sometimes, you don't have to address them at all if it is explained that a story takes place prior to certain events or, if Marvel wants to go this way, just publish an out-of-continuity anthology title. I know those types of books have their detractors and historically don't sell all that well but I still consider the early 00's titles "Tangled Web" and "Webspinners" to be the best Spidey titles of that era and stories from them still show up on many best-of lists so I think it is worth considering again.

[Peter Parker]

It really depends on the editor(s) if this can work or not. I remember when we had Amazing twice a month, Spectacular and Web of, it was perfect always a new Spidey on the rack.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

To have one title released 2-3 times a month is better than having 2-3 different titles
Makes it easier to follow

[Kuwagaton]

I liked BND because it was such a grab bag. Waid, Kelly, Wells, and Van Lente did some fun stories. With only one title and one writer, I'm probably gonna have to wait five years before Slott leaves.

[Metamorphosis]

I liked BND because it was such a grab bag. Waid, Kelly, Wells, and Van Lente did some fun stories. With only one title and one writer, I'm probably gonna have to wait five years before Slott leaves.

Totally agree--the nice thing about another book / writer is you can buy that one if you don't like the main title.