Development vs. Retconning (re: recent events)

[supermarvelman]

Spidey origin is still scientific, magic just set things in place.

 

[i'm Spider-Man]

hey peeps,

i'm glad that on the whole, the posts so far have been pretty polite and well-argued.

I agree with Gildea when he said;

a) people are concentrating too much on the reveal itself and ignoring how it flowed logically from the story that was being followed in ASM. This was the evolution of a story arc for peter and his family and flowed as thus.

but on the other hand, I also see Wolverine25th's point;

There's good change, then there' change fer the sake of change. A lot of what Marvel's done lately is change fer the sake of change. Change through evolution is just fine, but it's absent.

I think this is a genuine case of change being for the evolution of the character. It's well justified, obviously well-reasoned by the character involved, fits with the theme of the story, and has ties back to issues of Amazing Spider-Man which partly explain his decision (his promise to Tony)

I really do think this is a change which in the long run will mean big things for the character. Some new stories can be told, some new angles can be shown, and new tensions can grow. I'm intrigued to see where this will go.

 

[gildea]

Because it was written to be that way.

I don't disagree with that actually.

But then there is next to nothing in comics you couldn't say that about.

Most comic writers write characters to get them from point A to point B. The only notable exceptions i can think of are bendis and gaiman actually.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I basically view the reveal as a half-and-half between creative exploration and a sales gimmick, myself. The potential for major evolution to the character exists with something as big as this, but you know that if it doesn't sell well, Marvel will retcon it out any way they can as quickly as possible to avoid another Clone Saga.

Also, technically the blame could be laid at Joe Q's feet on this one since he recently admitted on Newsarama that the idea was probably initially his. It came out of one of those think-tank sessions where he and a few creators determine the future of Marvel's comics, and he claimed that it's hard to remember who says what first.

 

[The Batman]

why do people fear change?

Cause most of the time it sucks

Nuff Said

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Actually, there's a huge point about th' reasons why Pete fought so hard to keep his identity, and his unmaskin' ain't evolution but severe irresponsibility. Especially how it was done. I find myself agreein'.

 

[Darthphere]

I don't disagree with that actually.

But then there is next to nothing in comics you couldn't say that about.

Most comic writers write characters to get them from point A to point B. The only notable exceptions i can think of are bendis and gaiman actually.

Well yeah, though the thing is, I truly believe that the Spider-Man JMS was writing when he frist came on the title would never had done that. But since his inception on New Avengers, and Iron Spidey suit, its clear theyve been building to the last pages of Civil War #2. In essence, they try to catch us off guard but they usually fail and then try to explain it away with well in ASM #528 blah blah blah. I just want to know how this exactly harkens back to what Stan Lee did as Joey Q and others claim.

 

[Darthphere]

I basically view the reveal as a half-and-half between creative exploration and a sales gimmick, myself. The potential for major evolution to the character exists with something as big as this, but you know that if it doesn't sell well, Marvel will retcon it out any way they can as quickly as possible to avoid another Clone Saga.

Also, technically the blame could be laid at Joe Q's feet on this one since he recently admitted on Newsarama that the idea was probably initially his. It came out of one of those think-tank sessions where he and a few creators determine the future of Marvel's comics, and he claimed that it's hard to remember who says what first.

Millar already said it was Joey Q's idea on his own board.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Maybe Millar lies.

 

[Darthphere]

Maybe Millar lies.

No, hes diverting the hate in the right direction.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Joe Q's got Brevoort to divert it to, if necessary.

 

[Darthphere]

Joe Q's got Brevoort to divert it to, if necessary.

Dan Buckley: *cashing his check* Yeah, dont ask me, it wasnt my idea.

 

[gildea]

Well yeah, though the thing is, I truly believe that the Spider-Man JMS was writing when he frist came on the title would never had done that. But since his inception on New Avengers, and Iron Spidey suit, its clear theyve been building to the last pages of Civil War #2. In essence, they try to catch us off guard but they usually fail and then try to explain it away with well in ASM #528 blah blah blah. I just want to know how this exactly harkens back to what Stan Lee did as Joey Q and others claim.

I agree actually.

I think the justification is as strong as it could be with something that goes against the convention so. In that its never (given spidey history) going to be possible to construct a completely water tight case for the unmasking.

Millar already said it was Joey Q's idea on his own board.

Millar was quoted way back when he was writing marvel knights that he didn't even think may should have been allowed to know.

 

[Darthphere]

I agree actually.

I think the justification is as strong as it could be with something that goes against the convention so. In that its never (given spidey history) going to be possible to construct a completely water tight case for the unmasking.




Millar was quoted way back when he was writing marvel knights that he didn't even think may should have been allowed to know.

Yeah, hence the controversy.



Didnt know that, but in a way I disagree with it. I think its better for Aunt May to know.

 

[stillanerd]

I'm definately not one of the fans who've vowed not to "ever read a Spider-title again" after the events of CW #2, especially before I read the book; I think a fringe of "extreme" fans sometimes overshadow some of us who are critical, but who can do so without insults or sweeping generalizations, etc....

Hope you don't mind I cut your quote down to size, mainly because for the sake of room but also because your response was so spot on that it made me feel inadequate--and I mean that as a compliment BTW

What I think also should be underscored is that there has been a persistant pattern going with Spider-Man for pretty much the past five years or so, and each time there were those that believed that the character was "straying too far from his roots," it went something like like this:

The totemistic aspects to Spider-Man's origins, which implied that Peter gaining his powers was no mere accident.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Peter Parker becomes a high school teacher which, while logical and good, ends up removing him from the Daily Bugle and away from classic supporting characters like J. Jonah Jameson, Joe Robertson, and Betty Brant.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Aunt May learns his secret identity, thus removing the notion that Peter had to keep his identity as Spider-Man a secret out of fear that the discovery would be too much for her fragile health, as well as the guilt he felt over his uncle's death.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Amazing Spider-Man #500, which resulted in Uncle Ben coming back as a ghost and telling Peter how proud he was of him, which essentially absolved Peter of guilt over being indirectly responsible for his uncle's death
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Avengers: Disassembled, which resulted in Spider-Man having organic webshooters like the movies and the cost of de-emphasizing that he's an underappreciated scientific genius.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Sins Past, which resulted in his learning that Gwen Stacy had cheated on him with Norman Osborn and gave birth to twins, thus forever tainting their romance and the idea that she died solely because the Green Goblin knew his sceret identity.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

New Avengers, in which Spider-Man became an offical member of the Avengers, which goes against the idea that he's a lone operator and dimishes his independence.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Skin Deep, which resulted in Peter, MJ, and Aunt May loosing their home and moving into Stark Tower--the HQ of the New Avengers.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

The Other: Evolve or Die, in which the once ambigous totemistic aspects were finally confirmed to be part of Spider-Man offical origin, that the spider that bit Peter was magical (which means Peter would've gained powers regardless whether or not the spider was irradiated) where his powers were further upgraded and he gained abilities such as night vision, vibrational sensitivity, and Wolverinesque "stingers" (and also commited an act of cannibalism during a berserker rage) on top of dying and being regenerated.

The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

The "Iron Spidey" costume, which not only gave him body armor but also established that he was in the pocket of Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, meaning the hero who was once self-reliant and suspicious of authority now is solely dependent on his "boss" and follows his orders almost blindly.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Spider-Man unmasking, which essentially dismantles the idea that Peter Parker tries to lead a seperate and relatively normal life outside of being Spider-Man and makes him a celebrity.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Anyone else notice a pattern? Sure, change is necessary for a character to grow and develop, and there are certain stories that can be told as a result of changes to the status quo. However, at what point do you ask yourself whether or not the character has changed TOO MUCH, so much so that what made him a compelling and popular character is no longer there, and is there any way it can be restored just in case it does go too far without making it look like they're cheating the readers?

In the end, if you end up changing things too much, sooner or later you end up alienating the long time readers, the causal readers, the new readers that you are desperately trying to attract, and eventually the readers who actually like the changes that have been made.

 

[Darthphere]

Hope you don't mind I cut your quote down to size, mainly because for the sake of room but also because your response was so spot on that it made me feel inadequate--and I mean that as a compliment BTW

What I think also should be underscored is that there has been a persistant pattern going with Spider-Man for pretty much the past five years or so, and each time there were those that believed that the character was "straying too far from his roots," it went something like like this:

The totemistic aspects to Spider-Man's origins, which implied that Peter gaining his powers was no mere accident.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Peter Parker becomes a high school teacher which, while logical and good, ends up removing him from the Daily Bugle and away from classic supporting characters like J. Jonah Jameson, Joe Robertson, and Betty Brant.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Aunt May learns his secret identity, thus removing the notion that Peter had to keep his identity as Spider-Man a secret out of fear that the discovery would be too much for her fragile health, as well as the guilt he felt over his uncle's death.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Amazing Spider-Man #500, which resulted in Uncle Ben coming back as a ghost and telling Peter how proud he was of him, which essentially absolved Peter of guilt over being indirectly responsible for his uncle's death
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Avengers: Disassembled, which resulted in Spider-Man having organic webshooters like the movies and the cost of de-emphasizing that he's an underappreciated scientific genius.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Sins Past, which resulted in his learning that Gwen Stacy had cheated on him with Norman Osborn and gave birth to twins, thus forever tainting their romance and the idea that she died solely because the Green Goblin knew his sceret identity.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

New Avengers, in which Spider-Man became an offical member of the Avengers, which goes against the idea that he's a lone operator and dimishes his independence.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Skin Deep, which resulted in Peter, MJ, and Aunt May loosing their home and moving into Stark Tower--the HQ of the New Avengers.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

The Other: Evolve or Die, in which the once ambigous totemistic aspects were finally confirmed to be part of Spider-Man offical origin, that the spider that bit Peter was magical (which means Peter would've gained powers regardless whether or not the spider was irradiated) where his powers were further upgraded and he gained abilities such as night vision, vibrational sensitivity, and Wolverinesque "stingers" (and also commited an act of cannibalism during a berserker rage) on top of dying and being regenerated.

The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

The "Iron Spidey" costume, which not only gave him body armor but also established that he was in the pocket of Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, meaning the hero who was once self-reliant and suspicious of authority now is solely dependent on his "boss" and follows his orders almost blindly.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Spider-Man unmasking, which essentially dismantles the idea that Peter Parker tries to lead a seperate and relatively normal life outside of being Spider-Man and makes him a celebrity.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Anyone else notice a pattern? Sure, change is necessary for a character to grow and develop, and there are certain stories that can be told as a result of changes to the status quo. However, at what point do you ask yourself whether or not the character has changed TOO MUCH, so much so that what made him a compelling and popular character is no longer there, and is there any way it can be restored just in case it does go too far without making it look like they're cheating the readers?

In the end, if you end up changing things too much, sooner or later you end up alienating the long time readers, the causal readers, the new readers that you are desperately trying to attract, and eventually the readers who actually like the changes that have been made.

*Applause*

 

[deemar325]

What's a Nubian?

LOL!!

 

[Dread]

Hope you don't mind I cut your quote down to size, mainly because for the sake of room but also because your response was so spot on that it made me feel inadequate--and I mean that as a compliment BTW

What I think also should be underscored is that there has been a persistant pattern going with Spider-Man for pretty much the past five years or so, and each time there were those that believed that the character was "straying too far from his roots," it went something like like this:

The totemistic aspects to Spider-Man's origins, which implied that Peter gaining his powers was no mere accident.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Peter Parker becomes a high school teacher which, while logical and good, ends up removing him from the Daily Bugle and away from classic supporting characters like J. Jonah Jameson, Joe Robertson, and Betty Brant.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Aunt May learns his secret identity, thus removing the notion that Peter had to keep his identity as Spider-Man a secret out of fear that the discovery would be too much for her fragile health, as well as the guilt he felt over his uncle's death.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Amazing Spider-Man #500, which resulted in Uncle Ben coming back as a ghost and telling Peter how proud he was of him, which essentially absolved Peter of guilt over being indirectly responsible for his uncle's death
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Avengers: Disassembled, which resulted in Spider-Man having organic webshooters like the movies and the cost of de-emphasizing that he's an underappreciated scientific genius.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Sins Past, which resulted in his learning that Gwen Stacy had cheated on him with Norman Osborn and gave birth to twins, thus forever tainting their romance and the idea that she died solely because the Green Goblin knew his sceret identity.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

New Avengers, in which Spider-Man became an offical member of the Avengers, which goes against the idea that he's a lone operator and dimishes his independence.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Skin Deep, which resulted in Peter, MJ, and Aunt May loosing their home and moving into Stark Tower--the HQ of the New Avengers.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

The Other: Evolve or Die, in which the once ambigous totemistic aspects were finally confirmed to be part of Spider-Man offical origin, that the spider that bit Peter was magical (which means Peter would've gained powers regardless whether or not the spider was irradiated) where his powers were further upgraded and he gained abilities such as night vision, vibrational sensitivity, and Wolverinesque "stingers" (and also commited an act of cannibalism during a berserker rage) on top of dying and being regenerated.

The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

The "Iron Spidey" costume, which not only gave him body armor but also established that he was in the pocket of Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, meaning the hero who was once self-reliant and suspicious of authority now is solely dependent on his "boss" and follows his orders almost blindly.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Spider-Man unmasking, which essentially dismantles the idea that Peter Parker tries to lead a seperate and relatively normal life outside of being Spider-Man and makes him a celebrity.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Anyone else notice a pattern? Sure, change is necessary for a character to grow and develop, and there are certain stories that can be told as a result of changes to the status quo. However, at what point do you ask yourself whether or not the character has changed TOO MUCH, so much so that what made him a compelling and popular character is no longer there, and is there any way it can be restored just in case it does go too far without making it look like they're cheating the readers?

In the end, if you end up changing things too much, sooner or later you end up alienating the long time readers, the causal readers, the new readers that you are desperately trying to attract, and eventually the readers who actually like the changes that have been made.

I accept the compliment. You're good at defining many key points yourself. Your post demonstrates how many stories have recently been done that brought in "changes". Granted, some of them sound fine and could be done well if written certain ways, but others are way off the mark for Spidey. Its stories like this that've been keeping me away. Admittedly, I probably should have bought SPIDER-MAN UNLIMITED for some of the tales I wanted, but no use crying over spilled milk now.

The reveal will increase sales for the issue and for the rest of the Spider-books, and it'll be a success. At least, Joe Q'd better hope it does; the May sales figures are in, and while CIVIL WAR #1 was the #1 book of May, DC beat out Marvel in both dollar and unit share; not something that happens frequently.

 

[gildea]

I'm interested stillnerd do you consider all the changes you've mentioned as bad changes?

 

[The Question]

Hope you don't mind I cut your quote down to size, mainly because for the sake of room but also because your response was so spot on that it made me feel inadequate--and I mean that as a compliment BTW

What I think also should be underscored is that there has been a persistant pattern going with Spider-Man for pretty much the past five years or so, and each time there were those that believed that the character was "straying too far from his roots," it went something like like this:

The totemistic aspects to Spider-Man's origins, which implied that Peter gaining his powers was no mere accident.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Peter Parker becomes a high school teacher which, while logical and good, ends up removing him from the Daily Bugle and away from classic supporting characters like J. Jonah Jameson, Joe Robertson, and Betty Brant.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Aunt May learns his secret identity, thus removing the notion that Peter had to keep his identity as Spider-Man a secret out of fear that the discovery would be too much for her fragile health, as well as the guilt he felt over his uncle's death.
The Respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so we really haven't changed anything."

Amazing Spider-Man #500, which resulted in Uncle Ben coming back as a ghost and telling Peter how proud he was of him, which essentially absolved Peter of guilt over being indirectly responsible for his uncle's death
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Avengers: Disassembled, which resulted in Spider-Man having organic webshooters like the movies and the cost of de-emphasizing that he's an underappreciated scientific genius.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Sins Past, which resulted in his learning that Gwen Stacy had cheated on him with Norman Osborn and gave birth to twins, thus forever tainting their romance and the idea that she died solely because the Green Goblin knew his sceret identity.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

New Avengers, in which Spider-Man became an offical member of the Avengers, which goes against the idea that he's a lone operator and dimishes his independence.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Skin Deep, which resulted in Peter, MJ, and Aunt May loosing their home and moving into Stark Tower--the HQ of the New Avengers.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

The Other: Evolve or Die, in which the once ambigous totemistic aspects were finally confirmed to be part of Spider-Man offical origin, that the spider that bit Peter was magical (which means Peter would've gained powers regardless whether or not the spider was irradiated) where his powers were further upgraded and he gained abilities such as night vision, vibrational sensitivity, and Wolverinesque "stingers" (and also commited an act of cannibalism during a berserker rage) on top of dying and being regenerated.

The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

The "Iron Spidey" costume, which not only gave him body armor but also established that he was in the pocket of Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, meaning the hero who was once self-reliant and suspicious of authority now is solely dependent on his "boss" and follows his orders almost blindly.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Spider-Man unmasking, which essentially dismantles the idea that Peter Parker tries to lead a seperate and relatively normal life outside of being Spider-Man and makes him a celebrity.
The respone to the critics: "Why are you afraid of change? He's still the same Peter Parker, so nothing's really changed. Wait until the story is over."

Anyone else notice a pattern? Sure, change is necessary for a character to grow and develop, and there are certain stories that can be told as a result of changes to the status quo. However, at what point do you ask yourself whether or not the character has changed TOO MUCH, so much so that what made him a compelling and popular character is no longer there, and is there any way it can be restored just in case it does go too far without making it look like they're cheating the readers?

In the end, if you end up changing things too much, sooner or later you end up alienating the long time readers, the causal readers, the new readers that you are desperately trying to attract, and eventually the readers who actually like the changes that have been made.

You have to admit, though. Fans ***** about changes way too much. Only one or two of the changes you listed sound like bad ideas. To me, at least.

 

[Darthphere]

You have to admit, though. Fans ***** about changes way too much. Only one or two of the changes you listed sound like bad ideas. To me, at least.

Yeah to you. I dont know whats worse though fans that ***** constantly, or people who ***** constantly about fans *****ing.

 

[stillanerd]

I'm interested stillnerd do you consider all the changes you've mentioned as bad changes?

Well, if you need to know, it's pretty much from Avengers: Disassembled onward that I believe are bad (although Spidey being on the New Avengers isn't necessarily so bad per see, except he's basically become similair to the Flash in the Justice League cartoon in terms of his characterization, and it's made virtually all of his supporting cast members other superheroes rather than everyday people, much less having him living in a luxury apartment once again, this time rent free).

Anyway, my overall point wasn't so much that the various changes to Spider-Man were either good or bad (and I do think there ARE some good and bad changes that have happened) but rather the amount of changes over a certain period of time. If you change the character too much and too often, sooner or later what attracted you the character in the first place is no longer there, and as a result, the comic, while initially getting a sales boost--curiousity and controversy does sell after all--it eventually ends up loosing readers in the long term, especially if dragged out for far too long. The problem is further compounded when efforts are made to get back to some sense of the status quo, and as a result, no one is satisfied. And the more damaging the change, the more ridiculous the "solution" becomes. What happened to Spider-Man during the 1990s is a perfect example of this. Basically, the less changes you make to the status quo--especially ones that do not fundamentally alter the core concepts of the character--the easier it is to go back and fix them, especially if winds up being bad for the character.

I accept the compliment. You're good at defining many key points yourself. Your post demonstrates how many stories have recently been done that brought in "changes". Granted, some of them sound fine and could be done well if written certain ways, but others are way off the mark for Spidey. Its stories like this that've been keeping me away. Admittedly, I probably should have bought SPIDER-MAN UNLIMITED for some of the tales I wanted, but no use crying over spilled milk now.

The reveal will increase sales for the issue and for the rest of the Spider-books, and it'll be a success. At least, Joe Q'd better hope it does; the May sales figures are in, and while CIVIL WAR #1 was the #1 book of May, DC beat out Marvel in both dollar and unit share; not something that happens frequently.

You're welcome and thanks.

As for the potental sales increase of Spider-Man comics after the reveal, I'd be very surprised if it didn't initially, given all the hype surrounding it. However, a couple months of this new status quo and more and more people are going to start asking "When is Peter Parker's identity as Spider-Man going to become secret again?" If they haven't already. And if your correct about DC, it goes to show you that that company, while making changes to the status quo, are also using the adage "the more things change, the more they stay the same" with many of their characters as opposed to "how many things can we throw against the wall in the hope that it will stick."

 

[Horrorfan]

Yeah to you. I dont know whats worse though fans that ***** constantly, or people who ***** constantly about fans *****ing.

Fans who ***** constantly. The ones who ***** about the *****ing are only doing it because its a legit reason, which most of the fans *****ing is not imo, they are just *****ing for the sake of it. Instead of crying about how Bendis is ruining N.A or whatever, just shut up and stop buying. Problem solved.

 

[Darthphere]

Fans who ***** constantly. The ones who ***** about the *****ing are only doing it because its a legit reason, which most of the fans *****ing is not imo, they are just *****ing for the sake of it. Instead of crying about how Bendis is ruining N.A or whatever, just shut up and stop buying. Problem solved.

Yes, Stalin used the same tactic.

 

[Horrorfan]

Yes, Stalin used the same tactic.

Yeah, he really loved the 'New Fantastic Four' and couldn't see why people *****ed about it

So naturally, he killed them.

Not a bad tactic when I come to think of it...