Thread Drift: Will One More Day ever be reversed?

[Pako]

Who's gonna inevitably write the Spider-Divorce when Peter and MJ inevitably get back together ?

[Kevinroc]

Who's gonna inevitably write the Spider-Divorce when Peter and MJ inevitably get back together ?

Dan Slott will write it all! And if not Dan Slott, then his clone! And if not his clone, then his clone's clone!

[Aruran.]

Dan Slott will write it all! And if not Dan Slott, then his clone! And if not his clone, then his clone's clone!

Is it plagiarism if your clone writes it and puts your name down?

[Kevinroc]

Is it plagiarism if your clone writes it and puts your name down?

I figure the clones would have a designation based on what number they were. Slott-2 or Slott-3 or Slott-56.

I have questions regarding a person and their clone(s), too, but they're mostly sex questions that I don't know if we can ask here.

[WebLurker]

So, I think there's only one thing than can be said for sure. The debate is not going away any time soon, and we're almost a decade out from it. Judging by that, it's going to be another long decade for everyone involved.

[Alan2099]

If the marriage does happen again, I'm going to make multiple topics every month saying how the book was ruined, they betrayed the essence of Spider-man, and how I'm never reading the title again.

[WebLurker]

If the marriage does happen again, I'm going to make multiple topics every month saying how the book was ruined, they betrayed the essence of Spider-man, and how I'm never reading the title again.

If so, turnaround is fair play. Knock yourself out. (Course, if's Slott's hyperbole about the future is right, you'll never be brought to such a low state.)

Seriously, though, I wonder how much backlash there would be at a reverse-OMD and how long it would last. The level and duration of the OMD backlash was really underestimated by everyone involved.

[theoneandonly]

you would? I think you will then have to facedown metamorphosis and weblurker if you do. Not to mention those good Christians who think living by the devils sleight is blasphemous although if mephisto himself reversed it there would be another wave of outrage.

[boots]

I saw the BleedingCool.com article on this discussion and had to see it to believe it.

You mention 10 years from now. I won't predict what's going to happen in 2027. But I can tell you what happened in 2004 and what's happening now and comment on that.

Back in 2004, my pull list was 75% Marvel to 25% DC, Dark Horse and Image. I was buying Marvel over DC at a ratio of 2-to-1, maybe even 3-to-1. That is no longer the case. And in 2007 after OMD, I dropped all Spider-Man books and never bought them again.

In the past year or two, Marvel has started regularly overshipping "free" copies of books to retailers. I say "free" because retailers do have to pay for the shipping costs on those books, most of which end up as unsold product shops are stuck with and ultimately stick in dollar book bins or 50 cent bins or simply give them away. These overships started at 10% and have increased to 15% on some titles. My question is, how high does Marvel keep increasing those overships--20%, 25%, 30%--before the numbers make it untenable to continue giving away their product for free?

I have no beef with Dan Slott at all. By all accounts, I hear he's a nice guy and a successful writer whom I respect. But I fail to see how spending your days criticizing fans who stopped buying Marvel's product because they didn't like it and how they are all dumb, wrong or foolish for wanting Marvel to make product they want to buy is a winning strategy.

Marvel Comics is a business. They want and need to make money and they want to beat all of their competitors and hold the #1 position in sales. Like it or not, the customer is always right. The comics retail business rests solidly on a sales base of older, white, straight male customers who are proven resistant to change and can hold out anyone for years, if not decades. Me personally, I don't care which version of GL DC publishes--Hal, John, Kyle, Guy--as long as the stories and art are good, I will buy it. But I'm in the minority and sales figures prove that the fans will get what they want if they vote with their wallets. That isn't an opinion; that's a fact.

Marvel could go the route of undoing OMD and restoring Peter and Mary Jane to an earlier point where they weren't married. DC has proven fans will accept and buy this reset trope with Aquaman, Flash and Wally West in Titans. It can be done and sell well. But the harsh reality is that most customers do not join or even read online forums. The vast majority simply add or drop books from their pull lists without ever interacting with creators or other fans online.

The bottom line is, if the sales figures for any and all Marvel books continue their steady erosion where Marvel keeps increasing the number of free overships, then eventually the profits simply won't support continually giving away free product in ever increasing numbers. That isn't my feeling or opinion; it's basic math. It is Economics 101. No business can maintain profitability on a sales strategy founded on giving away their product for free.

Also, arguing with and criticizing your customers is a lousy way to get them to buy your product. If someone walks into a store and says they want a certain product and the salesman tells them, "Too bad. This is what we're making. Now shut up and buy it," that customer can and will walk out of the store and go to your competitors and buy their product instead.

I never, ever thought Trump could win. It was impossible. Saying that Marvel will always be #1 and no one will ever bring back a story element that the people running the company have insisted is gone forever is unrealistic. Sales can certainly drop lower. And they can continue to drop to the point where the people running the company will in fact be forced to do just about anything to claw their way back to again win over customers they alienated.

Never say never. The impossible can and does happen. Not because I or other fans want it to. But solely because falling sales figures and pressure to increase sales and regain profits will force comics executives and creators to say and do things they swore they never would.

In the eternal battle between the need to be creative and the need to make money, money always wins.

"never say never" is a great soundbite but it's more an inspirational motivator than a universal constant. there are just some (many) cases where "never" is appropriate.

i get the feeling that most people who can't wrap their heads around the idea that there are too many gate keepers and policy blocks in place just haven't worked for large corporations under similar systems. there are things i could never get through even though i was running my own dept because of executives. there are things my partner can't do, despite being a star in her department because head office in france will never allow it. even if it is what works best for her local market. never in those cases means never.

now, would i bet mine or someone else's life on this marriage "never". no, only because i don't know the specifics of the marvel ent's hierarchy and policy but it's familiar enough that i would comfortably bet money on it.

you're right that economics 101 means that marvel and any company will always be open to ideas that might sell. but you're basing your argument on the supposition that "the marriage sells" or will sell better than currently. and that's a totally unproven assumption. and if the day comes when spider-man hits rock bottom (which a lot of fans here think will "never" happen since they believe spidey will sell no matter what) and marvel need to pull out some 90 degree turns to increase sales... there are literally 100s of ways they can go. it's not a marriage no marriage dichotomy that some fans believe it is.

and don't forget that marketing 101 involves brand protection. that will often be the last thing standing.

as for marvel putting mary jane and peter back together? sure. slott has said that's not been put on the marvel blacklist. i imagine it's somewhat similar to the ben reilly situation in that, bringing ben back as a character was always possible but reinstating him as the one true spider-man is more than likely in the "never" vault.

[Metamorphosis]

If the marriage does happen again, I'm going to make multiple topics every month saying how the book was ruined, they betrayed the essence of Spider-man, and how I'm never reading the title again.

We'll just tell you to go read the 24 years of published stories again where Peter was single, then the 10+ years worth after the marriage was first was undone.

[Metamorphosis]

"never say never" is a great soundbite but it's more an inspirational motivator than a universal constant. there are just some (many) cases where "never" is appropriate.

i get the feeling that most people who can't wrap their heads around the idea that there are too many gate keepers and policy blocks in place just haven't worked for large corporations under similar systems. there are things i could never get through even though i was running my own dept because of executives. there are things my partner can't do, despite being a star in her department because head office in france will never allow it. even if it is what works best for her local market. never in those cases means never.

now, would i bet mine or someone else's life on this marriage "never". no, only because i don't know the specifics of the marvel ent's hierarchy and policy but it's familiar enough that i would comfortably bet money on it.

you're right that economics 101 means that marvel and any company will always be open to ideas that might sell. but you're basing your argument on the supposition that "the marriage sells" or will sell better than currently. and that's a totally unproven assumption. and if the day comes when spider-man hits rock bottom (which a lot of fans here think will "never" happen since they believe spidey will sell no matter what) and marvel need to pull out some 90 degree turns to increase sales... there are literally 100s of ways they can go. it's not a marriage no marriage dichotomy that some fans believe it is.

and don't forget that marketing 101 involves brand protection. that will often be the last thing standing.

as for marvel putting mary jane and peter back together? sure. slott has said that's not been put on the marvel blacklist. i imagine it's somewhat similar to the ben reilly situation in that, bringing ben back as a character was always possible but reinstating him as the one true spider-man is more than likely in the "never" vault.

*makes a long case for how the marriage could never happen under the watch of some corporate structured groupthink

*ignores the fact that the marriage actually did happen in the comics in the face of corporate structured groupthink

[Pako]

I thought RYV was the experiment on the marriage will save spider-man sales hypothesis ? Or did those sales turn up inconclusive ?

[boots]

*makes a long case for how the marriage could never happen under the watch of some corporate structured groupthink

*ignores the fact that the marriage actually did happen in the comics in the face of corporate structured groupthink

i like it when you talk meme to me. more.

it seems to me that the corporate structure marvel is currently under is vastly different to what is was at the time of the marriage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Entertainment

[boots]

I thought RYV was the experiment on the marriage will save spider-man sales hypothesis ? Or did those sales turn up inconclusive ?

i don't think marvel ever said that. if anything the ryv mini might have been an experiment to see if a ongoing was viable.

[Kevinroc]

i don't think marvel ever said that. if anything the ryv mini might have been an experiment to see if a ongoing was viable.

Pretty much this. It's obvious they didn't expect the original mini to do as well as it did since they didn't have an ongoing ready to go when ANAD launched, like they had with other titles like A-Force, Old Man Logan, and X-Men '92.