So to start things out this week, last time I spoke a bit about the SQUADRON SUPREME collection of 1997, into the print run of which Marvel Executive Editor Mark Gruenwald’s physical remains were mixed.
I know that the Pete/MJ crowd hates to hear this, but people in the Spidey office had been looking for a way to back out of that marriage pretty much from the point where it happened.
With regards to "people in the Spidey office". The editor of the Spider-Man titles from 1987-1994 was Jim Salicrup, regarded by Roger Stern and David Michelinie, as well as Todd McFarlane as the best editor they worked with. Salicrup was in favor of the marriage and he welcomed it. As did Danny Fingeroth who followed Salicrup. It was also supported by then Editor in Chief Tom DeFalco. Among the writers, David Michelinie expressed initial skepticism about the marriage but later came to like it. Other writers on Spider-Man titles at the time like JMD and Peter A. David welcomed the change. So if most of the writers on Spider-Books at the time of the marriage were in favor of the change as were the editors and the EIC, who exactly was in the Spider-Office who opposed the marriage from the point when it happened?
Jack, I really don't want to debate any of this stuff with you. But I can tell you that while Jim Salicrup was definitely a proponent of the marriage, Danny Fingeroth and Tom DeFalco were certainly not--which is why when the Clone Saga gave them an opportunity to unknot that thorny knot, they took it.
In this interview with the web-channel The Comics Cube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr2iQ7S3dck&t=2032s), Tom Defalco says at 33:20 timestamp that he agreed at the marriage, even admitting that as Editor in Chief he made the call to print the Annual issue when he could have pulled it out at the last moment. He also says later in the same interview that he was skeptical about the Clone Saga when it was proposed and only approved of it reluctantly. And he's said that in other interviews. Mr. Fingeroth has likewise said that he was in favor of the marriage in a round-table for Back Issue #23 and has affirmed that in other interviews.
Jack, I was there, you were not, so you can choose to believe me or not as you like, but this is not a court of law and nobody is on trial here, so please stop with this “gotcha” behavior. I am not debating this with you, and if you continue to force my hand, I’ll have little other choice but to ban you. You’ve got a whole internet out there where you can complain about this stuff, use it. But doing this just supports Dan’s assertions about your behavior elsewhere.
The knot is thorny, rather than the marriage, because the act of untying it will lead to declarations that the creators hate love, or marriage, or Peter Parker despite there being many solid creative and commercial reasons for untying it.
Tons of people began to read and still bought the Spider-Man books while they were married without that harming sales, so it is a problem of perception rather than reality. Very few of the post-OMD comic storylines of note have absolutely needed Peter to be single. If there had been a will, there would have been multiple ways to make it work. That said, I know the point is only academic.
I think the fact that people started reading ASM while they were married is not indicative of the marriage not harming sales. For example, would more people have bought the book if he wasn't married?
But as you say, this is all academic. Whether the marriage was good for sales/stories is going to depend on any given person, and lots of people have complex thoughts.
The marriage was thorny because, in comics, status quos reset. And this seems to be one status quo that some people refuse to give up on, over a decade later.
Another great newsletter Tom! After a recent visit to Greece I bought and sent you some greek editions of Lee/Kirby FF and Thomas/Roth Xmen. Fun editions in Greek that are slightly oversized and reprint 4 issues each with some cool extras. Hope you enjoy them as I saw on your blog you like seeing foreign reprints of classic Marvel - any foreign editions that are faves of yours?
You know, your post about Final Crisis made me wonder about some of your other takes on the post-1985 DC line. So at the risk of asking for blog-worthy content here, do you have a top five (or, what the heck, a bottom five) post-Crisis-pre-New-52 DC Comics stories?
First, I finally caught with the Hickman episode of Cerebro. Therein, Hickman arguably gave good advice regarding new talent or, in Tom’s case, maybe, a new editorial office: avoid fan service. I suppose that’s always the goal, not always met, of course.
From your reference to X-men covers (Gillen’s newsletter), it looks like the Krakoa era maybe ends with Fall of X?? Can it be ending that soon that it’s a matter of months? That is, sooner rather than later?
Oh, before I forget: congratulations to Tom -- or it Dan Buckley who deserves the thanks? -- on retaining the FF. I’m really enjoying it.
Anyway. Question:
How do Thor’s wings stay on the helmet? The way it’s drawn it looks they’re stapled or bolted to the sides of his head behind the temples.
Thanks for sharing your observations on the Clone Saga (and thanks to the commenter who shared the blog link!). It's a genuinely fascinating part of Spidey history for all of the good and bad of the execution and I love hearing people talk about the intentions Vs the reality (even if, upon doing so, you're adding yourself to some great Pro/Anti marriage tally sheet)
I have a question on the mechanics of running an on-going. Taking Ryan North's Fantastic Four as an example (but please swap in a better example if that helps): Do you have any events where you get together and plot out the next year, or is he just writing 5-6 issues ahead, onward until he leaves the series?
Or is there some kind of much more nuanced third option that is the reality?
great question - I always wonder if there are some modern day pitches that are just 'this is the direction/theme I want to go in' versus a detailed set of arcs. Like Moon Knight is in charge of the midnight mission protecting people of the night versus villains and weirdness (not that that was pitch just my own interpretation :))
Speaking of DC's various crises, do you think a scenario could ever arise where Marvel would consider a real reboot? It seems like most of the time, a simple change in direction for individual titles can accomplish what a reboot would be trying to do. I got to read the excellent new Thor #1 yesterday, for example, which felt very "back to basics" without contradicting or invalidating anything that came before it. You guys even managed to destroy the universe without a reboot, so it's hard to imagine you pulling that trigger. But do you think there could ever be circumstances that would warrant a it? Do you know if it's ever been considered in the past, maybe around the bankruptcy or something?
The original Ultimate Marvel was a nice way of getting a reboot and keeping the continuity going at the same time. Wondering fi that is what we'll get again, or if the new Ultimate Marvel is a continuation of sorts. Like a rebooted reboot?
Tom, I appreciate the response and the wisdom. I, like you, am always trying to do my best to tune out those voices, as numerous, loud, and assertive as they might be. Sometimes it feels like whack-a-mole because as much as you might create a safeguard for yourself in one channel as soon as you change venues the safeguards come off again.
I would still be curious to hear your thoughts on my other questions, if you had a chance (ie. graphic novels and continuity lite storytelling, and the dangerous of alcohol/work/networking), but they were mostly passing musings.
Thanks again, enjoyed this week’s insights and pondering as always.
I've always been a Gwen (OG Gwen not Spider-Gwen. She's too different from 'my' Gwen to appeal) and not MJ but I never minded the marriage. I also didn't miss it, even I had trouble with Peter making a deal with the literal devil to dump it. I think what doomed Ben was the bleached hair, new costume, and him not retaking the name he was born with. They were in a bind though, what with you couldn't have Spider-Man divorced. Short of faking MJ's death publicly, they were stuck.
My one gripe with AHSOKA and a common trope with a lot of recent Star Wars stories, particularly in TV, is that being stabbed by a lightsaber is basically just a scratch now.
I know Tom will -- rightly, I suppose -- blame it on the market.
But would long runs be impossible? I mean, we do have them in a way, like Aaron's Thor and Avengers runs, likewise the Krakoa era if one treats Hickman's bible as a long run (I do).
Regarding your next arrival at the X Office, I wonder if you are preparing or if you have prepared a document similar to the Spider-Man Manifesto that you wrote in 2006 and which served to redirect the character's direction. If so, it is a document that hopefully we can read soon, but I can't resist asking you what is your analysis of what the mutant franchise has been in recent years and if your plans include bringing it closer to the rest of the Marvel Universe and trying to to abandon that "splendid isolation" in which, in my opinion, it has been installed for decades, with the exception of very specific situations.
You spoke about Hickman’s Avengers coming out at an accelerated schedule and I recall lots of Marvel books would come out more than 12 a year but nothing set in stone (so I guess not every 6 issues, just as fast as you can?)
Two questions why did that stop? It feels like most/all books are monthly (except Amazing Spider-Man ) now.
And how did retailers feel about it? (I know regular sakes is so important to their baseline income... but not sure if extra issues help or hurt that)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that the Pete/MJ crowd hates to hear this, but people in the Spidey office had been looking for a way to back out of that marriage pretty much from the point where it happened.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to "people in the Spidey office". The editor of the Spider-Man titles from 1987-1994 was Jim Salicrup, regarded by Roger Stern and David Michelinie, as well as Todd McFarlane as the best editor they worked with. Salicrup was in favor of the marriage and he welcomed it. As did Danny Fingeroth who followed Salicrup. It was also supported by then Editor in Chief Tom DeFalco. Among the writers, David Michelinie expressed initial skepticism about the marriage but later came to like it. Other writers on Spider-Man titles at the time like JMD and Peter A. David welcomed the change. So if most of the writers on Spider-Books at the time of the marriage were in favor of the change as were the editors and the EIC, who exactly was in the Spider-Office who opposed the marriage from the point when it happened?
Jack, I really don't want to debate any of this stuff with you. But I can tell you that while Jim Salicrup was definitely a proponent of the marriage, Danny Fingeroth and Tom DeFalco were certainly not--which is why when the Clone Saga gave them an opportunity to unknot that thorny knot, they took it.
In this interview with the web-channel The Comics Cube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr2iQ7S3dck&t=2032s), Tom Defalco says at 33:20 timestamp that he agreed at the marriage, even admitting that as Editor in Chief he made the call to print the Annual issue when he could have pulled it out at the last moment. He also says later in the same interview that he was skeptical about the Clone Saga when it was proposed and only approved of it reluctantly. And he's said that in other interviews. Mr. Fingeroth has likewise said that he was in favor of the marriage in a round-table for Back Issue #23 and has affirmed that in other interviews.
Jack, I was there, you were not, so you can choose to believe me or not as you like, but this is not a court of law and nobody is on trial here, so please stop with this “gotcha” behavior. I am not debating this with you, and if you continue to force my hand, I’ll have little other choice but to ban you. You’ve got a whole internet out there where you can complain about this stuff, use it. But doing this just supports Dan’s assertions about your behavior elsewhere.
What exactly is thorny about the marriage though?
The knot is thorny, rather than the marriage, because the act of untying it will lead to declarations that the creators hate love, or marriage, or Peter Parker despite there being many solid creative and commercial reasons for untying it.
Tons of people began to read and still bought the Spider-Man books while they were married without that harming sales, so it is a problem of perception rather than reality. Very few of the post-OMD comic storylines of note have absolutely needed Peter to be single. If there had been a will, there would have been multiple ways to make it work. That said, I know the point is only academic.
I think the fact that people started reading ASM while they were married is not indicative of the marriage not harming sales. For example, would more people have bought the book if he wasn't married?
But as you say, this is all academic. Whether the marriage was good for sales/stories is going to depend on any given person, and lots of people have complex thoughts.
The marriage was thorny because, in comics, status quos reset. And this seems to be one status quo that some people refuse to give up on, over a decade later.
Meanwhile, Peter still hasn't been reset back to high school.
Another great newsletter Tom! After a recent visit to Greece I bought and sent you some greek editions of Lee/Kirby FF and Thomas/Roth Xmen. Fun editions in Greek that are slightly oversized and reprint 4 issues each with some cool extras. Hope you enjoy them as I saw on your blog you like seeing foreign reprints of classic Marvel - any foreign editions that are faves of yours?
You know, your post about Final Crisis made me wonder about some of your other takes on the post-1985 DC line. So at the risk of asking for blog-worthy content here, do you have a top five (or, what the heck, a bottom five) post-Crisis-pre-New-52 DC Comics stories?
Two points or whatever...:
First, I finally caught with the Hickman episode of Cerebro. Therein, Hickman arguably gave good advice regarding new talent or, in Tom’s case, maybe, a new editorial office: avoid fan service. I suppose that’s always the goal, not always met, of course.
From your reference to X-men covers (Gillen’s newsletter), it looks like the Krakoa era maybe ends with Fall of X?? Can it be ending that soon that it’s a matter of months? That is, sooner rather than later?
Oh, before I forget: congratulations to Tom -- or it Dan Buckley who deserves the thanks? -- on retaining the FF. I’m really enjoying it.
Anyway. Question:
How do Thor’s wings stay on the helmet? The way it’s drawn it looks they’re stapled or bolted to the sides of his head behind the temples.
Thanks for sharing your observations on the Clone Saga (and thanks to the commenter who shared the blog link!). It's a genuinely fascinating part of Spidey history for all of the good and bad of the execution and I love hearing people talk about the intentions Vs the reality (even if, upon doing so, you're adding yourself to some great Pro/Anti marriage tally sheet)
I have a question on the mechanics of running an on-going. Taking Ryan North's Fantastic Four as an example (but please swap in a better example if that helps): Do you have any events where you get together and plot out the next year, or is he just writing 5-6 issues ahead, onward until he leaves the series?
Or is there some kind of much more nuanced third option that is the reality?
Thanks!
great question - I always wonder if there are some modern day pitches that are just 'this is the direction/theme I want to go in' versus a detailed set of arcs. Like Moon Knight is in charge of the midnight mission protecting people of the night versus villains and weirdness (not that that was pitch just my own interpretation :))
Speaking of DC's various crises, do you think a scenario could ever arise where Marvel would consider a real reboot? It seems like most of the time, a simple change in direction for individual titles can accomplish what a reboot would be trying to do. I got to read the excellent new Thor #1 yesterday, for example, which felt very "back to basics" without contradicting or invalidating anything that came before it. You guys even managed to destroy the universe without a reboot, so it's hard to imagine you pulling that trigger. But do you think there could ever be circumstances that would warrant a it? Do you know if it's ever been considered in the past, maybe around the bankruptcy or something?
The original Ultimate Marvel was a nice way of getting a reboot and keeping the continuity going at the same time. Wondering fi that is what we'll get again, or if the new Ultimate Marvel is a continuation of sorts. Like a rebooted reboot?
Tom, I appreciate the response and the wisdom. I, like you, am always trying to do my best to tune out those voices, as numerous, loud, and assertive as they might be. Sometimes it feels like whack-a-mole because as much as you might create a safeguard for yourself in one channel as soon as you change venues the safeguards come off again.
I would still be curious to hear your thoughts on my other questions, if you had a chance (ie. graphic novels and continuity lite storytelling, and the dangerous of alcohol/work/networking), but they were mostly passing musings.
Thanks again, enjoyed this week’s insights and pondering as always.
I've always been a Gwen (OG Gwen not Spider-Gwen. She's too different from 'my' Gwen to appeal) and not MJ but I never minded the marriage. I also didn't miss it, even I had trouble with Peter making a deal with the literal devil to dump it. I think what doomed Ben was the bleached hair, new costume, and him not retaking the name he was born with. They were in a bind though, what with you couldn't have Spider-Man divorced. Short of faking MJ's death publicly, they were stuck.
When it comes to the clone saga, I always enjoyed this seemingly well researched account of it: https://www.benreillytribute.x10host.com/LifeofReilly1.html
I rarely read the comments on substack newsletters, so my apologies if this has been shared already.
My one gripe with AHSOKA and a common trope with a lot of recent Star Wars stories, particularly in TV, is that being stabbed by a lightsaber is basically just a scratch now.
Your "goofball drawings" are fun. Your love of cape comics comes across quite well in these emails. Thanks!
Forgot this question:
Thoughts regarding this: https://www.cbr.com/long-ongoing-comic-runs-pros-cons/
I know Tom will -- rightly, I suppose -- blame it on the market.
But would long runs be impossible? I mean, we do have them in a way, like Aaron's Thor and Avengers runs, likewise the Krakoa era if one treats Hickman's bible as a long run (I do).
How much longer till OMD is undone?
Excited to share space with you in Jim's book!
Hi Tom,
Regarding your next arrival at the X Office, I wonder if you are preparing or if you have prepared a document similar to the Spider-Man Manifesto that you wrote in 2006 and which served to redirect the character's direction. If so, it is a document that hopefully we can read soon, but I can't resist asking you what is your analysis of what the mutant franchise has been in recent years and if your plans include bringing it closer to the rest of the Marvel Universe and trying to to abandon that "splendid isolation" in which, in my opinion, it has been installed for decades, with the exception of very specific situations.
Thanks a lot,
You spoke about Hickman’s Avengers coming out at an accelerated schedule and I recall lots of Marvel books would come out more than 12 a year but nothing set in stone (so I guess not every 6 issues, just as fast as you can?)
Two questions why did that stop? It feels like most/all books are monthly (except Amazing Spider-Man ) now.
And how did retailers feel about it? (I know regular sakes is so important to their baseline income... but not sure if extra issues help or hurt that)