Dan Slott says he's sticking to Spider-Man

[Lee]

Hopefully with RYV Marvel will have two very high-performing Spider-titles on their hands.

Three, if Spider-Man/Deadpool continues to perform as well as it has been doing.

Nice to not see the "multiple ingredients" formula ever applied to regular ASM, though. Kettle, pot, black, etc.

It's always "multiple ingredients" for every comic. Amazing Spider-Man is a core Marvel title that has always performed well relative to the conditions of the marketplace. The character of Spider-Man has a very large multi-media and merchandising presence. In recent years it's had the advantage of milestone issues (#600, #700) and a couple of relaunches, that got a lot of attention. But it hasn't always been a given that it would outsell Avengers, X-Men etc. So I think it's safe to assume that plenty of people are enjoying the stories.

[Mister Mets]

And yet, when the notion of Slott being moved to another book has come up in the past, didn't you suggest calling a new book "Dan Slott's Spider-Man" to distinguish it from Amazing Spider-Man? It does seem like you do believe that a name (Only as long as it's Slott's) is a guarantee for sales.

Cheesedique's argument was that we don't know the extent to which Slott as a writer contributes to Spider-Man sales because there isn't a comparison with a non-Slott title. It's an interesting argument, and my response to it was about how I think Slott contributes to sales. My opinion that another Slott Spider-Man monthly might be a viable approach for Marvel is consistent with that.

[DieHard200904]

Cheesedique's argument was that we don't know the extent to which Slott as a writer contributes to Spider-Man sales because there isn't a comparison with a non-Slott title. It's an interesting argument, and my response to it was about how I think Slott contributes to sales. My opinion that another Slott Spider-Man monthly might be a viable approach for Marvel is consistent with that.

I have been out of the loop on Spider-Man for years obviously. What titles need bringing back? Web of Spider-Man? Spectacular Spider-Man?

[Mister Mets]

I have been out of the loop on Spider-Man for years obviously. What titles need bringing back? Web of Spider-Man? Spectacular Spider-Man?

I'll recap the comment Phantom Roxas mentioned.

My opinion is that most satellite books aren't going to be effective in the current comics market. There are multiple problems. There are all sorts of scheduling and plotting issues that are going to happen when you have multiple series with the same character, especially someone like Peter Parker whose private life is supposed to be a major story engine, and especially in the modern era of comics storytelling where longer storylines are normal (and often quite good.) There's an additional branding problem in that the reputations of the spinoffs aren't that great which makes it feel like a second-rate book.

I think if Marvel were to launch a new Spider-Man monthly, they've gotta go with a different title than Spectacular or Web. Adjectiveless Spider-Man kinda works, but it's currently use for Miles Morales.

Marvel has recently taken to increasing the output of Amazing Spider-Man, which is probably a good idea, given the strength of the brand and the storytelling advantages. They have a bit of a problem in that they're working with a writer who isn't very prolific, although his work sells well enough that it's worth the tradeoff.

One way to try to try to solve that problem would be to move Slott to another title, but then there's the question of what to call it. If Dan Slott were to be put on a new Spectacular Spider-Man, Web of Spider-Man or Sensational Spider-Man it would seem like a demotion, so it wouldn't make sense for him to take that deal.

One idea would be to call a new title Dan Slott's Spider-Man. That way someone more prolific could take over Amazing Spider-Man allowing Marvel to publish 24+ issues an year, while Slott gets a new title in a way that gives him as much prestige as working on Amazing Spider-Man.

[Metamorphosis]

One idea would be to call a new title Dan Slott's Spider-Man. That way someone more prolific could take over Amazing Spider-Man allowing Marvel to publish 24+ issues an year, while Slott gets a new title in a way that gives him as much prestige as working on Amazing Spider-Man.

Seriously? That would be the height of pomposity. You make it seem like Slott is Will Eisner or something.

What creator has ever had their name put over the top of a comic in such a way, especially of a character they didn't create?

[Zeitgeist]

The issue was that "multiple ingredients" were cited for Renew Your Vows to move the goalposts away from acknowledging the appeal of the marriage, but when ASM succeeds, people aren't as quick to cite "multiple ingredients".

Where are these discussions about when ASM succeeds exactly? Definitely no discussion I imagine I'd see you or Cheesedick on the pro side of. Pulling unspecified general accounts said by one or two people and applying it to a whole ("they") just results in the silliest game of "he said, she said" ever.

You can whine about me ~playing the victim~ or having some ~martyr narrative~, but it does seem odd to insist that the success of Renew Your Vows could only be because of outside factors, especially when none of the factors actually include the marriage.

Who ever said the appeal of the marriage wasn't a factor in part?

There were other months pre-Rebirth where ASM didn't crack the top 10 either, but conveniently don't let that get in the way of your tirade.

The only thing convenient is your telling reluctance to provide citations for any of your incendiary arguments.

January 16: 11th (knocked down by 4 new #1's that month)
February 16: 9th and 11th (Spider-Man #1 debuted 4th)
March 16: 5th
April 16: 10th
May 16: 10th
June 16: 38th and 39th, nothing to do with Rebirth, not at all an outlier!
July 16: 25th, nothing at all to do with 90% of the comics in the top 20 being Rebirth 1's and 2's!
August 16: 4th

From what I recall, the only times it dipped out of the top 10 in 2015 was thanks to Convergence. But apparently the effects events have on sales charts are just an excuse, ho hum

[oldschool]

Seriously? That would be the height of pomposity. You make it seem like Slott is Will Eisner or something.

What creator has ever had their name put over the top of a comic in such a way, especially of a character they didn't create?

Yeah, I would have to agree with you here. I remember thinking it was a bit much how Marvel had to give Todd McFarlane his very own brand new Spider-title way back in 1991 just to appease him (and he would write AND draw it--what a mistake that was! ). Anyway, that pales in comparison to having a creator name over the character----something that no modern comic book has ever had, at least not to my knowledge.

Anyway, I think all of this is overthinking things: to me, it would be a simple matter to reintroduce satellite titles. We already know there is little to no chance they will sell as well as ASM----never have, likely never will. BUT with good creative teams in place, they can and should sell well enough to justify their existence. Why is that so difficult? Surely Marvel can justify getting, say, Waid and Samnee aboard for a new volume of PP:SSM or whatever they wish to call it.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

He said he wanted to write Moon Knight, still he hasn't even made him a guest star.
When better writers lasted less than he did before they let go of the book, I think it's ripe time to select another writer to take his place.
Chances are the better writer will be like Roger Stern and stay two-three years on the title before giving reigns to someone else.

[Phantom Roxas]

Where are these discussions about when ASM succeeds exactly? Definitely no discussion I imagine I'd see you or Cheesedick on the pro side of. Pulling unspecified general accounts said by one or two people and applying it to a whole ("they") just results in the silliest game of "he said, she said" ever.

When I say "they", I don't try to refer to generalized whole, but I do understand if I've failed at that. Usually I have four very specific in mind, so the "they" refers to them, but I am vague enough that it does sound like "EVERYONE who ever opposes the marriage at all!", so I am sorry about that.

Who ever said the appeal of the marriage wasn't a factor in part?

Generally the people who argue that people have been over Mary Jane for a long time, or saying that there's no point in doing Renew Your Vows to satisfy people. Usually people don't even specifically say "The marriage alone caused Renew Your Vows to succeed", just something like "This is proof of the marriage's appeal." That isn't actually saying that the marriage was the sole factor, just taking satisfaction in the marriage's contribution. And yet, these people just jump in, apparently offended that someone dared to even attribute an ounce of praise to the marriage, so these people just start moving the goalposts and talk like "Or maybe it's because _____? Or what about _____?" Basically they treat the other person like a child who needs to be taught a lesson, because how dare anyone be allowed to appreciate that something they enjoy can find success! Nope, you have to consider everything else! Funny that these "multiple ingredients" only ever come up in response to someone talking about the marriage.

[Southern_Spider]

He said he wanted to write Moon Knight, still he hasn't even made him a guest star.
When better writers lasted less than he did before they let go of the book, I think it's ripe time to select another writer to take his place.
Chances are the better writer will be like Roger Stern and stay two-three years on the title before giving reigns to someone else.

I think if JMS's tenure on ASM had been as short as Roger Stern's, we would regard him as a top 5 Spidey writer. Dan Slott, maybe not top 5 but if he had bowed out after Superior, I think his long-term legacy would be much more favorable than it is since he has given us crapfests like Spider-Verse and most of Vol. 3.

[Tuck]

Anyway, that pales in comparison to having a creator name over the character----something that no modern comic book has ever had, at least not to my knowledge.

Tekno Comix did this. But I think most of the creators just came up with the concepts and handed them off to others.

(And, of course, they were original IPs.)

[Metamorphosis]

The only thing convenient is your telling reluctance to provide citations for any of your incendiary arguments.

January 16: 11th (knocked down by 4 new #1's that month)
February 16: 9th and 11th (Spider-Man #1 debuted 4th)
March 16: 5th
April 16: 10th
May 16: 10th
June 16: 38th and 39th, nothing to do with Rebirth, not at all an outlier!
July 16: 25th, nothing at all to do with 90% of the comics in the top 20 being Rebirth 1's and 2's!
August 16: 4th

From what I recall, the only times it dipped out of the top 10 in 2015 was thanks to Convergence. But apparently the effects events have on sales charts are just an excuse, ho hum

I notice you didn't add the actual sales numbers, which tell a different tale, that actual ASM sales this year have notably fluctuated--sometimes up, but generally downward for this volume.


http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales.html


Jan

11 Amazing Spider-Man 6 $3.99 Marvel 76,517


Feb

9 Amazing Spider-Man 7 $3.99 Marvel 75,357

11 Amazing Spider-Man 8 $3.99 Marvel 71,599


March

5 Amazing Spider-Man 9 $3.99 Marvel 88,164


April

10 Amazing Spider-Man 10 $3.99 Marvel 73,643


12 Amazing Spider-Man 11 $3.99 Marvel 67,446


May

10 Amazing Spider-Man 12 $3.99 Marvel 74,963


June

39 Amazing Spider-Man 13 $3.99 Marvel 65,519


38 Amazing Spider-Man 14 $3.99 Marvel 65,646


July

25 Amazing Spider-Man 15 $3.99 Marvel 87,994


Aug

4 Amazing Spider-Man 16 $3.99 Marvel 185,342


32 Amazing Spider-Man 17 $3.99 Marvel 74,869


If the demand is so high, wouldn't retailers consistently be ordering ASM in quantities of or larger than 70-75k every month, regardless of a slew of #1's or events? Why the actual number drops?

Is the base audience for this book really in the 66 - 75k range, and you have people buying up more copies of the book when someone like Mary Jane appears on the cover with the considerable bump #15 got?

What happened in August with #16? Did Marvel incentivize retailers to order the issue in much larger quantities?

[suemorphplus209]

I'll recap the comment Phantom Roxas mentioned.

My opinion is that most satellite books aren't going to be effective in the current comics market. There are multiple problems. There are all sorts of scheduling and plotting issues that are going to happen when you have multiple series with the same character, especially someone like Peter Parker whose private life is supposed to be a major story engine, and especially in the modern era of comics storytelling where longer storylines are normal (and often quite good.) There's an additional branding problem in that the reputations of the spinoffs aren't that great which makes it feel like a second-rate book.

Marvel has recently taken to increasing the output of Amazing Spider-Man, which is probably a good idea, given the strength of the brand and the storytelling advantages. They have a bit of a problem in that they're working with a writer who isn't very prolific, although his work sells well enough that it's worth the tradeoff.

One way to try to try to solve that problem would be to move Slott to another title, but then there's the question of what to call it. If Dan Slott were to be put on a new Spectacular Spider-Man, Web of Spider-Man or Sensational Spider-Man it would seem like a demotion, so it wouldn't make sense for him to take that deal.

One idea would be to call a new title Dan Slott's Spider-Man. That way someone more prolific could take over Amazing Spider-Man allowing Marvel to publish 24+ issues an year, while Slott gets a new title in a way that gives him as much prestige as working on Amazing Spider-Man.

Okay, while the "satellite books" will not do as well, it wouldn't neccessarily hurt to add more titles or at least do minis to tell a story. Dan Slott's Spider-Man doesn't quite sound as appealing to me as some of the older names, like Web of Spider-Man, or Spectacular Spider-Man. I think Peter Parker: Spider-Man would sound workable, since that tells you the nature of how the stories for the Peter Parker Spider-Man go. It doesn't feel appealing to me to hear Dan Slott's Spider-Man. I do think that they could use a satellite title like what was suggested to tell a miniseries story in 616 continuity. Just my opinion.

[suemorphplus209]

I think if JMS's tenure on ASM had been as short as Roger Stern's, we would regard him as a top 5 Spidey writer. Dan Slott, maybe not top 5 but if he had bowed out after Superior, I think his long-term legacy would be much more favorable than it is since he has given us crapfests like Spider-Verse and most of Vol. 3.

There's always the riddle of finding the right time to end it. Honestly, I wish clone conspiracy happened earlier instead of the Spider-Verse. JMO.

[Southern_Spider]

There's always the riddle of finding the right time to end it. Honestly, I wish clone conspiracy happened earlier instead of the Spider-Verse. JMO.

Same, I'm sensing a lot of promise with Clone Conspiracy while Spider-Verse I felt was a huge dud.