stillanerd said:
Well, if you need to know, it's pretty much from Avengers: Disassembled onward (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.
Admittedly, the concept of making Peter Parker a high school teacher is actually a decent idea; the problem was that it was handled poorly. Firstly, why did it automatically equal a departure from the DAILY BUGLE? Peter was FREELANCE. That meant he basically took photos of his random battles as Spider-Man, which he would have regardless of what his current job was, and peddle them to J.J. in the hopes of making some bucks off it. Teachers don't make much in NYC, especially starting teachers (unless you see maybe $30,000 a year as being "rich"). True, MJ is currently on the upswing of her career after spending much of the 90's down in the dumps (save for a soap opera and a few B-films), but that may not last; maybe Peter wants to start saving, in case rough times are around the corner? Besides, can't we have both? Interaction with the old faces at the BUGLE plus maybe creating some new cast members from the school (BESIDES the "student of the month who is a plot device")? As usual, for some reason Marvel insists on following all of their ideas through from one extreme position to the other, without ever figuring on a happy middleground. Sort of like how they've gone from "inter-title continuity holds writers back and only obsessed nerds care about it," to, within a year and a half, "inter-title continuity is essential, but only for a 70 chapter crossover event".
While we're on the topic of a Spider-Man formula, I ask; why is this a surprise? By the time the 90's rolled around, it should have been quite clear that Spider-Man had reached "iconic" status which means he is really not so much a character as a franchise operation, and in order to do that, the formula is key, much as it is for the X-Men, or Batman, or Superman. And why is this bad? It is only bad if you mishandle it. You can still manage to craft exciting stories without needing to "fix" Spider-Man's formula, because the essentials of it define who he is; remove them and it's not really "Spider-Man" anymore. And by continuing to write stories that seek to "fix" him over and over again, you're saying that somehow, in the 21st century, Spider-Man's formula no longer works, is outdated, and it needs an overhaul. I disagree. Movie audiences wouldn't have paid a billion worldwide for two Spider-films if the formula itself was so flawed. ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN wouldn't routinely have outsold ASM and the other Spider-titles for YEARS before Marvel started using crossover events (THE OTHER) to boost the core book sales above USM. Most attempts to "overhaul" a character's formula in comics, at both Marvel and DC, have always failed. And they are almost always regrettable.
Removing that secret identity angle is such a deviation from that formula that it almost can't last for very long, because it goes against what makes Spider-Man work. As I said before, this may be temporary, and perhaps Marvel's way of taking Spider-Man to an "extreme" so that he can go back to basic levels. Although I am pretty sure he will remain an Avenger; according to some editorial comments, it seemed that the basic hook for NEW AVENGERS was to get Wolverine and Spider-Man on the core team, regardless of who was writing it. And maybe there is a way to have Spider-Man an Avenger without having him, say, live in Stark's Ivory Tower rent and bill free, and I'd be interested in someone clever thinking it up. But I guess its more fun to have him mutate into giant spiders, give birth to himself, and then eat people's faces.
Something I whipped up on the subject, for fun a few days ago:
stillanerd said:
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."
I only use the sales figures because according to Joe Q himself, those are the measures of comic book success that he routinely points to in order to justify any major action, good or bad. "Point to the dollars, it has to be working," he'll go. So that means its fair to note that DC outsold Marvel in May DESPITE CW #1 being the top book that month. Of course, it could be a fluke; DC pulled that off one month in 2005, too. But its such a rarity for DC to win out over Marvel in a given month that it bares notice. If June proves better for Marvel, that'll mean CW is working; after all, in May, IC was still in its last gasps and 52/OYL were new. Come June, all of DC is in OYL for better or worse and 52 has been gotten used to (although the strategy of all but guarenteeing 4 spots on the Top 10 list to 52 is a goldmine for DC). But if June doesn't prove well, or if DC outsells Marvel again, that could mean something needs tweaking.
I like Marvel better overall, but I'm not ravenously allegent, and I see every time DC outsells Marvel as good news, because it'll spark change if it becomes a trend. I'm just curious if Joe Q will be so anxious to "point to the charts" during months when DC outsells them.
And for the record, whining about the whining of others is all but the clearest example of hypocrisy. Those who feel this way should seriously consider political office.
