Marvel’s Latest Attempt to “Fix” Spider-Man

“I try not to do anything that’s too close to what I’ve done before. And the nice thing is we have a big universe here. It’s filled with new ideas. All you have to do is grab them.”

-STAN LEE, Brandweek, May 2000

If you go WAY back on this blog, you’ll find a whole series of articles I wrote lambasting Marvel Comics’ handling of Spider-Man since the Early 90’s. They’ve attempted so many “fixes” the character is now barely recognizable. First, they had the Clone Saga which hurt Spider-Man fans to their very core with the twist that we had been following the adventures of Spider-Man’s clone for two decades. A few years later, the series was rebooted by the man who brought a more modern Superman to audiences everywhere, John Byrne, who promptly turned the series into a joke until what was thought to be the answer to all our prayers, Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski took the reigns. His Spider-Man was a huge improvement, but still suffered from some of the same ailments that troubled the character since the Clone Saga. Those ailments being the seemingly self-destructive need to continue “changing the status quo” by altering Peter’s past and whole reason for being Spider-Man. And in 2004 when Straczynski transformed the once innocent Gwen Stacy into a tramp who would let herself get knocked up by a man twice her age, his run on the title finally “jumped the shark”.

Then in 2007, Jose Quesada and what was left of Jose Quesada decided it would be really neat to destroy another two decades of Spider-Man’s past with “One More Day”. Straczynski, who felt pretty guilty over what he did to Gwen Stacy was told that he’d be afforded the opportunity to correct that mistake during One More Day…a hope that was dashed by Editor in Chief Joe Quesada who took over the storyline to deliver us a more complete reboot of Spider-Man than ever before. And with that, Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson’s marriage was erased. Fast forward about a half decade and Marvel decided to “kill” Peter Parker by having Doctor Octopus take over his brain(Yeah, I just said that). “Superior Spider-Man” was born. I predicted at the time this reboot would last only as long as the increased sales did. And lo and behold, when sales dropped, so was the “Superior” version dropped in favor of the original.

A new Amazing Spider-Man #1 was released with about 100 different variant covers. A record that would only be broken by Star Wars return to Marvel this year. Does Marvel have any shame at all? To force us completists to buy 100 different covers is tantamount to extortion. But, I digress…

Enter 2015 and a new story hits SuperheroHype…Marvel is using their new status quo changing crossover event(Those words have become so common from Marvel now, hasn’t it become the company’s status quo to change the status quo?) “Secret War” to bring back Peter and Mary Jane’s marriage! YAY! FINALLY! Whoo HOO! Everyone go dance in the streets the original Spider-Man is back! I mean, just check out this poster:

Wait. Who’s that on Spidey’s shoulder? Looks like a four year old girl. A redhead. Wait…May? Mayday Parker? Their daughter from the futuristic series “Spider-Girl”? Didn’t their baby die? Ohhh, that’s right, they left that open. So, not only are we getting a married Peter back, but as a dad as well.

OK, I can deal with that…as long as the series gets back on track. Surely it will. Who did they get to write this back to basics reboot? Roger Stern? Tom DeFalco? Straczynski? Bendis? Errr, John Byrne? Uh….no. Seriously? Dan Slott? Wait, I thought we were moving away from the madness of the past eight years? Wouldn’t that mean a new creative leader? So Marvel’s solution to the mistakes made since 2007 is to rehire the same freaking writer????

OK, I’ll preface my remarks from here with the fact that I have to admit I’ve never read a word Slott has written. I stopped reading Spider-Man from the moment I read Gwen Stacy cheated on Peter with Norman Osborn. Still, considering that under Slott’s watch I’ve seen the series go through some serious ups and downs and now supposedly back up(again), I would have thought Marvel would bring in some new blood to truly move Spidey into a new golden era. Sticking with the same writer through all of this tells me one of two things: Either Slott is just that good and they really want to see where he can take the original version OR….Slott is a yes man and Marvel wants to be in full creative control of the character moving forward. Especially considering the news the new Spider-Man Movie series will take place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, they don’t want take a chance on anyone taking Spider-Man into any stories that are not sanitized for public consumption.

Since I’ve yet to hear how great a writer Slott is from pretty much anyone, I’d have to lean toward the latter possibility. To which I say this: Grow some freaking balls, Marvel! You didn’t get where you are by being a conservative company. And no, not the type of balls to kill the character off temporarily, or change him into one of his greatest adversaries(again temporarily). No, the balls to bring in a writer that might actually bring us a Spider-Man that shows reverence to the stories of the past(as in pre-1990) while introducing us to new modern villains and supporting characters that FIT INTO THAT WORLD. And the balls to STICK WITH THAT DECISION no matter how good or bad sales get. Good stories will win out in the end and even if you have to go through some lean months or even years, the character will be better off for it in the end.

Or, stick with Slott who will continue delivering slickly produced stories and events from the boardroom that will temporarily(there’s that word again) drive the bottom line rather than drive the character to new creative heights that should be anything but temporary.

Look Familiar?

The new Secret Wars #1 cover by Alex Ross and Crisis on Infinite Earths #1 cover by George Perez. Homage or?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Life is like a wheel. Sooner or later, it always comes around to where it started.”

-Stephen King

Ah, John Byrne. I could say anything I want to about him right now. He wouldn’t give a damn. You see, I “hide” behind a username, so anything I say is inherently invalid. But, to be frank, this article is not about John Byrne’s opinions. I love that quote by Dirty Harry from The Dead Pool(1988), “Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.” Byrne must have thousands of assholes, but I digress.

The webline is appropriately upside down.

This article is not about Byrne or his thousands of assho—I mean, opinions. This article is about his Spider-Man “reboot” in 1999. In Spider-Man: Chapter One, Byrne gives us his interpretation of Spider-Man’s early days. The thing was, we had already seen a great rendition of Spidey’s early days by Tom DeFalco and Pat Ollife in the ensuing years up to Byrne’s Chapter One. Sure, Untold Tales of Spider-Man did not chronicle the character’s origin, but it did give those who hated the Clone Saga(and the issues following it) a place to go to read some classic Spidey tales. Tales free from the increasing weight of baggage being spoon-fed us in the core titles of the time. So, not only was Byrne’s Chapter One not needed, it wasn’t wanted either.

So, obviously he had an uphill battle ahead of him in recreating the same type of success he had rebooting Superman over a decade earlier. However, Superman was in a completely different place when Byrne took the reigns. Superman was a near fifty-year old character that was utterly out-dated. Superman needed a modern update. Spider-Man, on the other hand, was still a thoroughly modern character. He didn’t need an update. He needed to be brought back to basics. In bringing Byrne in to reboot Spidey, Marvel was not fixing what was wrong by bringing things back to basics, they were making it worse by changing things that didn’t need to be changed.

Byrne’s Superman was iconic.

The changes Byrne made to Spider-Man’s beginnings are:

1. Peter Parker and Otto Octavius receive their powers and abilities at the same radiation experiment(Which would be great for a movie, but in the comics, this just did not happen).

2. Electro’s origin and costume(because Byrne loves to tinker).

Electro’s new costume is so incredibly…generic.

3. Norman Osborn and Sandman are cousins(because, you know, cornrows run in the family).

Couldn’t they just have the same barber?

4. The Vulture can only fly in NYC(Huh?).

5. The burglar is after Uncle Ben because he bought a new computer(Which is so much better than money left in the basement by a mob boss, oh and this renders Amazing Spider-Man #200 an alternate universe tale).

This page shows how out of touch Byrne was. It looks like the original, but it’s not. The changes are subtle, yet terribly blunt.

6. Norman Osborn is behind everything(and I mean it, everything)

And that just scratches the surface. That doesn’t even go into his takeover of the regular series with introductions of some of the lamest villains ever created. And a new Spider-Woman, to boot, who gets her own goofy series as well(Thank the good Lord someone had the good sense to bring back Jessica Drew….eventually). Yes, let’s bring Spider-Man back to his roots and make up for everything the Clone Saga did, by…screwing everything up again. Well, Kaine stuck around, where’s this version of Spider-Woman? Huh? Where she belongs, comic book purgatory. Hopefully, she stays there.

Ladies and gentlemen, Flash Gordon—I mean Thompson!

After about two years of work(which is about all the time Byrne could apparently commit to after his long run on Fantastic Four), Byrne left(or was sent packing). And we were right back into Spider-Limbo for awhile. Erik Larsen jumped on for a few issues, further cementing, that even post Savage Dragon, he was the go-to guy when a Spider-Man creator jumped ship. And why, oh why was one of the men directly responsible for the Clone debacle always brought in to take over Amazing when they had no one else to go to? Howard Mackie must have worked for pennies. One bright spot during this time was John Romita Jr’s return to the flagship title. I’ve always loved his work, even when it got all blocky and scratchy.

To sum up this edition of SMCC, when will Marvel learn that the only way to fix things is to actually fix them? When a 1965 Mustang breaks down, you don’t go buy parts off a 1999 Camaro, to update it. You look at what’s broken and fix it with original parts meant for that make and model. You can’t make Spider-Man like the modern version of Batman or Superman or Spawn, because he’s Spider-Man. That’s who he is and that’s who he’s supposed to be. You created his parts in the 60’s, 70’s and some even in the 80’s. Those are the parts you use when you attempt to repair him. And you surely don’t replace a 1965 Mustang with a newer model. It’s worth more if you restore it. And that’s because it’s a classic.

Maybe that’s what Marvel should do. Stop updating Spider-Man and restore him instead. The way sales currently are, it couldn’t hurt.

This is what Spidey is today. All customized, and very little original. Sure it’s an expensive hot lookin’ ride. But to me, it’s not much different than this:

To be continued….

Box Office Analysis Why X-Men Days of Future Past will Break the 300 Million Dollar Barrier

 Every superhero film franchise, and other franchises in general have a saturation point. There is a reason why even though the films are separated by 500 million dollars, Superman(1978) and Marvel’s The Avengers(2012) are actually very close in terms of actual attendance. Others in this group are Batman(1989), Spider-Man(2002) and The Dark Knight(2008). Considering both inflation and The Avengers’ 3D boosted tickets*, all of these films are within 25% of each others’ ticket sales. They all reached their respective series’ saturation points. Star Wars(1977) and Raiders of the Lost Ark(1981) are other examples of this, as their arguably superior sequels, The Empire Strikes Back(1980) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade(1989) started out with more, but ended with less.

*Even though The Avengers outgrossed The Dark Knight, their ticket sales are very close due to 3D upcharges.

 As can probably be gleaned from the above examples, the saturation point is often hit by the first film in a franchise. So, why do I think the defacto seventh film in the X-Men franchise will hit it? Because for one thing, it has already been proven that the first film was not the highest ticket seller of the franchise. X-Men(2000) sold less tickets than both X2: X-Men United(2003) and X-Men: The Last Stand(2006). The latter two being in a virtual tie for first, with “X3” just edging X2 by a mere 135,000 or so. As far as franchises go, only the anomalistic Lord of the Rings franchise has multiple(all three, really) films so close to the series’ saturation point. Exceptions to a rule do not make or change the rule. Also, even the highest point in the X-Men series, “X3“, sold less than half of the top tier of the above examples. There is room for improvement, and I think X-Men: Days of Future Past can capitalize on that fact.

X-Men: The Last Stand would have made over 300 million if it was released at today’s prices and had the advantage of 3D upcharges.

 Now that we have established that the X-Men franchise has yet to reach its peak, we can move on to why this particular X-Men film has more going for it than any of the past seven editions. Marvel’s The Avengers was a phenomenon, and while I firmly believe phenomenons cannot be predicted, they can be seen with 20/20 vision once they have occurred. Let me state for the record that I think X-Men “7” has zero chance at replicating The Avengers’ success. That said, I see no reason it can’t do half of it. Both X2: X-Men United and X-Men: The Last Stand adjust to between 285-290m when inflation is taken into account. Neither film had what The Avengers had….the team-up gimmick. X-Men: Days of Future Past has both the original cast from “X1” to “X3” and the more recent X-Men: First Class.

 The Avengers had a team of four different franchises: Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor and Captain America. However, I believe the real pull of The Avengers was seeing Iron Man with these other superheroes. Iron Man, as played by Robert Downey Jr, is unequivocally the star of Marvel’s connected universe of films. Just as Wolverine, as played by Hugh Jackman, is the star of the X-Men universe. Yes, Wolverine is nowhere near as popular as Iron Man in film. But he is probably half as popular, considering the average of his spin-off films is basically half of the average of the three Iron Mans. Attendance-wise, Wolverine’s two films average 20-21 million tickets. Iron Man’s average is 40-44 million. X-Men First Class was a bit lower than Wolverine’s average, but having an X-Men film without Wolverine(Cameos don’t count) makes one wonder just how well an Avengers film would do starring just Captain America, Thor and Hulk. Surely not 600 million plus. In addition, First Class has done very well for itself in the ancillary markets, which has boosted that X-Men group’s fanbase. Even though the last two entries in the franchise, the aforementioned First Class and The Wolverine(2013), may not have blown the world up, they were still well received by theater-goers and on video.

No, cameos don’t count toward the typical Wolverine and the X-Men boost.

 Having Wolverine team-up with the First Class team(as well as the original team) is going to be more appealing than either “X2” or “X3” were.  And considering that those two films nearly reached an inflation-adjusted 300 million without the advantage of the team-up gimmick or 3D prices(and as long as director Bryan Singer delivers a quality product), I don’t see how X-Men: Days of Future Past does not make over 300 million dollars. If X-Men: Days of Future Past sells half of Marvel’s The Avengers‘ tickets, it will make 310 million. I believe it can go even higher.

 Another good comparison for the X-Men franchise is the Fast and Furious franchise. After two rather great outings, the franchise fell to its low point with The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift(2006). And even though that film and 2Fast 2Furious(2003) before it, failed to become classics, the next chapter Fast and Furious(2009) managed to just squeak by 2Fast in admissions. Fast and Furious brought back most of the original cast, much like Days of Future Past is. With its two stars, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker back together. That team-up(see a pattern here?) managed to bring the series back to a typical attendance level despite the failings of its predecessor. And then Fast 5(2011) took the team-up(there it is again) aspect to the next level by bringing back most of the characters from previous films and having them team-up(I know, it’s getting old by now) with The Rock, Dwayne Johnson. That film took the entire franchise to new heights and its sequel even more so(by teaming up yet another character from past films, OK I’ll stop now). Much like some pundits are saying about the X-Men franchise, most thought this franchise had left its glory days in the past, but they were proved to be very wrong.

Paul Walker, you will be missed.

 X-Men: Days of Future Past will make more than 300 million dollars in the domestic market. How much more? Only time will tell that tale. But, considering Fox has green lighted another sequel in 2016, I think it’s safe to say they know what they’ve got and are planning to milk it for all it’s worth. And really, who can blame them?

 

Box Office Analysis Hobbit 1 vs Hobbit 2

VS

Desolation of Smaug catches up to An Unexpected Journey = $300 million.

DAY	AUJ GROSS	CHG	DOS GROSS	CHG	DIFF	GAP
1	$37.13m	—-	$31.19m	—-	-5.93m	-5.93m
2	$27.74m	-25%	$24.43m	-22%	-$3.31m	-$9.24m
3	$19.75m	-29%	$18.02m	-26%	-$1.73m	-$10.97m
4	$7.74m	-61%	$6.20m	-66%	-$1.54m	-$12.51m
5	$7.86m	+2%	$6.30m	-2%	-$1.56m	-$14.07m
6	$6.33m	-20%	$4.86m	-23%	-$1.47m	-$15.54m
7	$6.62m	+5%	$5.05m	+4%	-$1.57m	-$17.11m
8	$10.08m	+52%	$X.XXm	-XX%	-$X.XXm	-$X.XXm
9	$14.16m	+41%	$X.XXm	-XX%	-$X.XXm	-$X.XXm
10	$12.65m	-11%	$X.XXm	-XX%	-$X.XXm	-$X.XXm
11	$6.90m	-46%	$X.XXm	-XX%	-$X.XXm	-$X.XXm
12	$11.24m	+63%	$X.XXm	-XX%	-$X.XXm	-$X.XXm
13	$11.39m	+1%	$X.XXm	-XX%	-$X.XXm	-$X.XXm
14	$10.14m	-11%	$X.XXm	-XX%	-$X.XXm	-$X.XXm
15	$10.62m	+5%	$X.XXm	-XX%	-$X.XXm	-$X.XXm
16	$11.59m	+9%	$X.XXm	-XX%	-$X.XXm	-$X.XXm
17	$9.72m	-16%	$X.XXm	-XX%	+X.XXm	+X.XXm