|
|
Post by Duragizer on Oct 24, 2019 17:26:16 GMT -5
This is the first issue of Spectacular Spider-Man I bought and read:  (Oh so '90s....) It was my first exposure to Sal Buscema's art. I was pretty indifferent to his style at the time, but around the time Ben Reilly was wearing the Spidey suit, I'd warmed to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 17:50:23 GMT -5
In the early 90s, Marvel UK began publishing The Complete Spider-Man (which later became The Exploits of Spider-Man). If memory serves me right, it reprinted all four US Spidey titles - which was great. What was greater was the fact that The Exploits of Spider-Man, at 100 pages, also reprinted Spider-Man 2099 and Stan Lee/Steve Ditko stuff. So I got to read a lot of great Spidey stuff back then!
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Oct 24, 2019 18:41:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Oct 24, 2019 20:05:10 GMT -5
I love that trapezoidal mouth. The Sal Buscema Punch™ is also quite cromulent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 24, 2019 21:48:01 GMT -5
Sal Buscema was very important to Marvel and the Avengers for me. Good Storytelling  People forget that he started off the Kree Skrull war   |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,222 
|
Post by Confessor on Oct 24, 2019 21:57:55 GMT -5
I like Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man quite a bit...at least up until around the time of Sal Buscema's run in the late '80s. I bought it in roughly equal measures with Amazing Spider-Man and Marvel Tales (which reprinted old Lee/Ditko or Lee/Romita issues of ASM) back in the day. As others have noted, PP:TSSM was meant to focus in on more of the private life and soap opera elements of Peter's life and I think that held true up to about the mid-80s. That was also part of its appeal for me...I've always been a big fan of the soapier elements in Spider-Man comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 25, 2019 1:57:50 GMT -5
I was not a fan of Spectacular Spider-Man, as I felt it was just unnecessary, with a format that Marvel Team Up could and did handle with Spider-Man/Parker from time to time. No Spider-Man spinoff title ever matched the creative power of TASM, even in the parent title's slight, late 70s slump--there was no way to compete with (or successfully build on) all that TASM had established.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 9:28:18 GMT -5
Other than sales, was there a reason a fourth Spidey title was launched in 1990?
I've probably answered my own question: sales. But at the same time, I know creativity can be a part of it, too. Yes, it's about money and sales, but with any endeavour, it can't just be about sales. I'm sure the WWF didn't just launch NXT *solely* for sales, it had to and surely does involve creative reasons, too? (Non-wrestling fans, ignore me).
So, yes, I can imagine someone wanted four lots of Spidey sales in 1990, but I just wondered if there was any other reason or aim in launching the fourth title. Peter Parker, the Spectacular Spider-Man no doubt had a sales motivation too, but there was also, as discussed, the desire to explore more of Parker's personal life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 9:42:35 GMT -5
Sales plus DC was already doing it with Superman and Batman. It effectively put a title on the stands weekly starring those heroes. I think Marvel also tried this approach with the Punisher at one point. This essentially made these characters a weekly title when the 4 monthly titles became linked into telling one story like the Clone Saga.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Oct 25, 2019 9:44:36 GMT -5
That fourth Spidey lot meant Todd McFarlane, which was guaranteed to make Marvel a lot of money in 1990.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 9:46:17 GMT -5
For me, less will always be more. Let me give you a wrestling analogy about...no, just kidding.
I like the Punisher, but they overdid it in the 90s. Of course, as a kid, I lapped it up. In retrospect, it wasn't good.
I switched to buying The Incredible Hulk again around 1995 (I'd bought a lot of the Peter David stuff as a kid). I like the Hulk anyway, but at least he only had one title. Not only was that easy on the wallet, but he felt more special. He was a "friend" to catch up with once a month. With Supes, Bats and Spidey being routine, well familiarity can breed contempt. Even the best are in danger of being overexposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 10:29:12 GMT -5
I agree. I think 2 titles a month is enough. I like variety. One of the reasons I got away from certain characters in the 90s like Spider-Man Batman Superman and X-Men. However I understand others would love a weekly fix of their favorite characters and ultimately sales drive these decisions by publishers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 10:48:11 GMT -5
I used to think that the complaints I made were shared by everyone. Not out of ego (I promise), but because everywhere I went (e.g. a comic store), and every forum I visited, had complaints similar to mine, such as "there are too many X-books" or "we need fewer books for this character". I thought I had my finger on the pulse.
Yet, via Comichron, I've been viewing sales figures from 1989 onwards. Despite the many complaints over time, first issues/reboots and various X-titles have consistently been top of the charts, either via units sold or money made. So despite the complaints I read here, or elsewhere, it does seem that is what fans want. So I do get why the comic companies do it.
I feel they risk burn out, though. I gravitated away from the X-comics in the mid-to-late 90s because there were too many. I remember sighing when Superman: The Man of Tomorrow was added to the Super-Calendar. What was worse was that it was different from my youth. As a kid, the Superman books were standalone. I didn't need to pick up DC Comics Presents to know what was going on in Action Comics. A story which started in Action Comics didn't end in DC Comics Presents. So back in the day, having a lot of titles was no problem.
As time went on, it was a problem because of the overlap. Oh great, I'm really enjoying this Action Comics story, but I best hope the corner shop has The Adventures of Superman in two weeks' time because the story will continue there. After a while, it becomes unwieldy.
In an ideal world, I think 3 titles per character/concept is enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 12:03:12 GMT -5
I get it. There is a reason characters that are popular get multiple titles. With the typical fan collector mentality they will buy every title depicting their favorite characters. However it has led to other titles struggling on sales. I predicted years ago DC and Marvel only having 3-4 franchises that would be published.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 12:11:51 GMT -5
I like Luke Cage. Does he have a solo title now? I don't know. I know if he did, there's no guarantee of success, but I'd rather see a solo Luke Cage series right now than yet another X-book or Spidey-book.
Didn't DC streamline their titles around 1996/97? I remember a magazine using the word "streamlined" back then. Less is more. It's not like, in this era of events/crossovers, that any title can really do its own thing for long. "War of the Realms" certainly seemed to be plastered on every Marvel book a few months ago.
|
|
