Spider-man is the Sonic of the comic book franchise. He was a hero adored by most of us during childhood, especially with the movies, the tv shows, and the old comics you found dug up. To some Spider-man was more than a hero larger than fiction but an inspiration to all of us during childhood. But as we grow older we shy away from Spider-man not just because of our age but because there has been a downfall with Spider-man. Recent comic-book arcs have been generally shit for the past several years or maybe more, the movies have been pretty awful, ect. And like sonic, there are rabid man baby fans that still try to cling on to that sweet nostalgia or deny that Spider-man is still shit even after many awful story arcs and bad writers. And once you believe it's getting better, the franchise dives down a deeper low.
Spider-man is dead. Bury it
but sales, user, they need sales
but dude its getting better
Spider-Man was at his lowest in the 90s.
You don't know shit about Spidey if you think his current stuff is the worst it's ever been.
Spider-Man isn't the Sonic of comic book franchises. He's the Mickey Mouse of Marvel. He's been in some good stuff but also a lot of mediocre stuff but will never be an obscure character. He's everywhere and everyone knows who he is.
B-b-but OMD/Slott/Miles
...
But do we have a Spiderchu yet?
Sonic is the Sonic of comic book franchises, m8.
I've read the 90's comics.
They were better written than a lot of stuff in the last 8 years.
Slott has only been bad for 2-3 years.
And %95 of Spider-Man comics are great. Unlike Batman's which has more bad comics than his good comics.
Gwenpool
Spider-Man in the 90's had a lot of good stuff. The Harry Green Goblin saga, Norman's return. Norman as owner of the Daily Bugle terrorizing everybody. etc
That's a lie. 95% my ass
>This is what Spideyfags believe.
Spider-man has been shit post ASM #38. Everything after that has been stupid fan fic.
>That's a lie
It isn't. Let's count actually.
Considering he had more bad comics than the good ones in certain years, I'm just going the take those certain dissapointing years and calculate the good and bad ratio (ASM and Superior Spider-Man).
1978 = 7 issues, 1980-1981 = 12, 1992-1997 = 36 issues, 1999 - 2008 = 29 issues, 2012-2016 = 65
149 x 100 / 763 = 19.5
Meh. %81.5 of his comics are still good.
Batman on the other hand, he doesn't have a single redeemable comic from the Golden Age.
Read some comics next time, kiddo ;^)
Spidey has had almost nothing but infamous stories for a few decades now.
The best run the character has had during this time was not even 616
>Being this casual
He's been mediocre for quite some time. No amount "hurr durr casual" is going to change that.
He's been "bad - for quite sometime -" since 2012. I already did the calculation.
It didn't just start in 2012
1978 = 7 issues, 1980-1981 = 12, 1992-1997 = 36 issues, 1999 - 2008 = 29 issues, 2012-2016 = 65
Batman has so much more iconic and acclaimed stories than Spidey, it's not even comparable.
Dude, I fucking love Spidey and even I can admit that Batman has had more good comics.
your display of autism is impressive
How much poo do I enjoy munching for liking strazcinkzi's run on Spiderman?
Superpowered Autism
Spider-Man has better and more acclaimed stories than Batman. Only reason Batman has more "memorable" comics is because of marketing strategies DC has followed back in the day. He was selling so shit that you won't even believe how much DC spent for Batman just for his comics' marketing.
Spider-Man, Thor and Superman were the showcase titles for the most talented people in comics throughout 70's to late 80's.
Nice try Jameson.
Some of Dan Slott's shit makes clone saga and look good.
You just had a skewed definition of great.
none, the JMS run is one of the best Spider-Man runs marred by two stories that were the result of Quesadas shitty ideas about what Spider-Man should be
Eh, there are great spidey stories
Spider verse was fun, and spock was great (when someone other than slott wrote him)
What is Spidermans equivalent of the long Halloween or hush?
>Spider-man is the Sonic of the comic book franchise.
no. What happened to sonic was he failed to make the jump to 3d and suffered for it. Video game mascots have to tackle the herald of transitioning between different software and hardware while trying to remain relevant. This is something no fictional character has ever had to face. Books, movies, comics don't need to be revamped or remastered for newer audiences while video games have to as the newer audience probably won't have the means to run the game (unless you are willing to pirate)due to the original software being obsolete on current consoles.
Hush = Gauntlet
Long Halloween = Rogern Stern's Hobgoblin
90s Spider gave us Cardiac, Joystick and a buttload of interesting D-Listers.
Fucking this!
Nigger, I doubt you've even read Beonze age Batman or Superman considering you have to bring in sales for quality.
People who wrote Batman in 70s and 80s included O'Neil, Englehart, Len Wein, Wolfman, Moench, Starlin, Barr, Miller, Alan Grant, Moore, Morrison. Not all of these wrote good stories, but they are acclaimed writers. In the 90s, LOTDK and other Batman titles had more great stuff by more British writers.
O'Neil's Batman run and Batman and the Outsiders are one of my favorite cape comics actually. I like both Batman and Spider-Man but I happen to like Spider-Man more due to his more quality stories.
And Batman's Golden Age comics are one of the worst comics a medium can produce.
Oh, I almost forgot, I read every single one of them except Moench and Barr's I think.
Currently the best books they got are the ones that rely on nostalgia from the good ol' days.
Spider-Man/Deadpool is better than Spidey though
>And Batman's Golden Age comics are one of the worst comics a medium can produce.
They aren't that bad, specially for the time, Superman ones are a lot worse.
That's what people in the 90's thought
Then the 00's and 10's happened
Barr's run was great. It had the best Joker story IMO. It was the perfect mixture of campiness and post crisis maturity.
>They aren't that bad
They are. '69 - 83' Batman are god's gifts to comic book world.
Forgot JMS as an upswing before shit hit the fans
I don't think Spider-Man's track record in comics has been particularly great. Lee/Ditko and much of Lee/Romita are memorable (and endlessly recycled), and then the death of Gwen Stacy was a famous moment, but for years after that the franchise seemed to be spinning its wheels. Writers who did memorable work on other characters had trouble doing memorable work on Spider-Man, like Len Wein, Marv Wolfman, Denny O'Neil all produced little that sticks in the mind.
There have been some good Spider-Man runs since then but not as many as you'd expect from Marvel's most popular hero. He seems to be stuck in the '60s in a way that some other characters aren't.
>JMS
And Jenkins and Wells. Don't forget them, their Spider-Man stories were good. Well, mostly. Fuck Jenkins for being so uneven, but when he's great he's great
Not the same user, but I disagree. Golden age Superman was fun.
Conway is Slott of his era. A mediocre, amateur writer who can only get people to remember his overall forgettable stories by SHOCKING TWISTS like Gwen Stacy thing and Jackal/clones shit.
At least he had an excuse of being an actual amateur at the time, and not a "professional" writer like Slott
Kelly's Spider-Man is pretty good.
Captain "GOAT" Marvel died so that beatingupgangstersfortenyearsman could live. Only the art can be good sometimes or when it's a really wild story with sci-fi elements
First 4 issues of Spidey read to me like Marvel Adventures, but with none of the charm.
Did it get better?
A lot of the Marvel flagship books were spinning their wheels in the '70s. Hardly anybody remembers a FF or Thor story after Kirby left, a Daredevil story after Colan left, etc.
In the '80s some of these titles were turned around by strong writer/artists like Simonson, Miller, Byrne. Spider-Man was too popular to shake up much, so he continued to be basically old-fashioned (though the Stern/Romita Jr. was a good old-fashioned run). It started to change a bit with Kraven's Last Hunt, but Spider-Man was never on the cutting edge of Marvel.
Wein and Wolfman's Spidey is actually pretty fucking great. O'Neil on the other hand is utter shit.
ASM has been one of the most consistent titles in terms of great quality throughout 60's and late 80's though. And his side books are also good in terms of both quality and consistency.
Conway was Gerard Way of his time. He didn't have much experience but his ASM was one of the best runs in comics' in that era. It still is actually. I agree that his dialogues were mediocre but his use of characters, supporting characters, villains and his characterization of Peter were spectacular.
Slott post-Alpha arc is just a paid fanfic writer.
But they stopped with gangsters later.
Why so little love for Roger Stern ITT?
>the best Vulture
>Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut isn't one of top-tier Spider-Man stories.
>somehow made a cliche "little boy with cancer" story work
>created one of the best Spider-Man villains
*is one of top-tier Spider-Man stories
I need fucking sleep.
Because I don't think there are much people who read Spider-Man ITT other than me. Stern's run is one of the best.
Lessened
This applies more to Superman now. Thanks WB for your stupidity.
But we had the best Superman run a few years back.
Wasn't the 70's when Marvel launched most of their old horror titles?
>Recent comic-book arcs have been generally shit for the past several years
>Sonic Comic
Nigga what? Are you just making assumptions based on the fact that it's sonic?
It is pretty much that. I mean it's okay to good but it still doesnt have the charm Marvel Adventures had.