CBR: Mark Waid Talks Spider-Man 24/7

**CBR News** · 05-11-2009, 03:45 PM

Peter Parker's embarked on a campaign to be Spider-Man full time, a move that's made him a target of New York's new Mayor and a violent new incarnation of his classic foe, the Vulture. CBR spoke with writer Mark Waid about the arc.

Full article here.

**Maestro** · 05-11-2009, 03:52 PM

I feel like I've died and gone to heaven! And then in heaven, I found AWESOME Spider-Man comics!!

**RDMacQ** · 05-11-2009, 04:14 PM

I like how they are now trying to spin us on the "Webheads" after trying to sell us on the "Braintrust" for most of the last year.

**Matt Linton** · 05-11-2009, 04:22 PM

Or, you know, that's just what they're calling the group of writers working on the books. "Selling" implies that they want you to "buy" something, and I don't see them gaining anything by getting folks to use a certain name.

**Matt Linton** · 05-11-2009, 04:28 PM

On the topic of the interview, I'm looking forward to seeing what role Toomes plays in the next issue, and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what Waid has planned for 601.

**RDMacQ** · 05-11-2009, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Matt Linton

Or, you know, that's just what they're calling the group of writers working on the books. "Selling" implies that they want you to "buy" something, and I don't see them gaining anything by getting folks to use a certain name.

They did want us to buy. They wanted the readership to buy into the concept of a "braintrust"- a collection of individuals coming together to make things better. However, there was an aspect of the readership that co-opted the term and turned it into something derogatory and negative, implying that the term was not well founded. Unlike "Braintrust," "Webheads" is less likely to be turned into a negative term.

**Booma151676** · 05-11-2009, 04:34 PM

So far Waid's stories in Amazing Spider-Man have been the best and 24/7 has started out slow but it is getting better and better especially the new Vulture. Seeing Aunt May and Jameson Sr. have left a dark spot in my mind. Plus Mike McKone's art is really good.

**Matt Linton** · 05-11-2009, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by RDMacQ

They did want us to buy. They wanted the readership to buy into the concept of a "braintrust"- a collection of individuals coming together to make things better. However, there was an aspect of the readership that co-opted the term and turned it into something derogatory and negative, implying that the term was not well founded. Unlike "Braintrust," "Webheads" is less likely to be turned into a negative term.

The definition of "brain trust" from Merriam-Webster:

brain trust
Function:
noun
Date:
1910
: a group of official or unofficial advisers concerned especially with planning and strategy
— brain trust·er \-ˌtrəs-tər\ noun

Which is exactly what they were. No "selling" or "buying" involved, unless it has to do with trying to get people to buy the actual definition of the word.

And, yes, they probably changed it after the 10,000th joke from those on the other side, but that's also not the same as trying to get anyone to "buy" anything.

The question is still, what gain is there in getting people to use "brain trust" OR "webheads"?

**RDMacQ** · 05-11-2009, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Matt Linton

The definition of "brain trust" from Merriam-Webster:

brain trust
Function:
noun
Date:
1910
: a group of official or unofficial advisers concerned especially with planning and strategy
— brain trust·er \-ˌtrəs-tər\ noun

Which is exactly what they were. No "selling" or "buying" involved, unless it has to do with trying to get people to buy the actual definition of the word.

And, yes, they probably changed it after the 10,000th joke from those on the other side, but that's also not the same as trying to get anyone to "buy" anything.

The question is still, what gain is there in getting people to use "brain trust" OR "webheads"?

True that is the official definition of "brain trust" from the dictionary. But I doubt that was the literal intent of the creators in choosing that as a moniker for the group of creators. Why else would they go to such lengths to describe this group of creators working on the books, if not to sell the readership on the idea of a special group of people. They may not be the biggest names in comics like Bendis or Miller, but they are part of the "brain trust" which should mean something. It was something that was looking to be bought mentally by the readership to add to their experience, not monetarily.

Remember that Stan Lee had a lot of success in the early days of Marvel by crafting this idea of there being this internal community within the Marvel comics offices, selling the readership on this idea that the Marvel offices was just one big nuthouse. When in actuality, it was anything but. But it did add something mentally to the readership, in that it made the people working on the books into characters almost as interesting as the superheroes they were reading. It was an added benefit after the sale, after the person had already bought the comic, brought it home and read it. And it is no shock that the creators are trying to re-create the magic that Stan Lee once wove on the title.

The benefit comes from the added value that comes from the readership in buying into this idea of a gang of creators as characters themselves, or the braintrust. Now this moniker has been co-opted and demonized by the opposition, so a new term has to be created that isn't as easily corrupted. And here's a question to ponder as well- if it WASN'T so important to have these terms, why invent or promote them in the first place? Why not just let the term Braintrust drop and not use it, instead of replacing it with another one?

**spiderman_rj** · 05-11-2009, 05:16 PM

may 20 ? so no spiderman this week ?

**spiderman_rj** · 05-11-2009, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by RDMacQ

True that is the official definition of "brain trust" from the dictionary. But I doubt that was the literal intent of the creators in choosing that as a moniker for the group of creators. Why else would they go to such lengths to describe this group of creators working on the books, if not to sell the readership on the idea of a special group of people. They may not be the biggest names in comics like Bendis or Miller, but they are part of the "brain trust" which should mean something. It was something that was looking to be bought mentally by the readership to add to their experience, not monetarily.

Remember that Stan Lee had a lot of success in the early days of Marvel by crafting this idea of there being this internal community within the Marvel comics offices, selling the readership on this idea that the Marvel offices was just one big nuthouse. When in actuality, it was anything but. But it did add something mentally to the readership, in that it made the people working on the books into characters almost as interesting as the superheroes they were reading. It was an added benefit after the sale, after the person had already bought the comic, brought it home and read it. And it is no shock that the creators are trying to re-create the magic that Stan Lee once wove on the title.

The benefit comes from the added value that comes from the readership in buying into this idea of a gang of creators as characters themselves, or the braintrust. Now this moniker has been co-opted and demonized by the opposition, so a new term has to be created that isn't as easily corrupted. And here's a question to ponder as well- if it WASN'T so important to have these terms, why invent or promote them in the first place? Why not just let the term Braintrust drop and not use it, instead of replacing it with another one?

Becouse a lot of people were saying they didnt care about the comics anymore, and even though it might make no diference, they wanted to assure reader they are taking care of the character thus creating a name relatable, instead of a STATUS as some have demonized ? :rolleyes:
nah, it cant be, its all about money, and trying to make ppl who rant and rave not buying comics to buy comics becouse of a namesake the creaters hide behind.

**ShaggyB** · 05-11-2009, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by spiderman_rj

may 20 ? so no spiderman this week ?

correct.... no spidey this week.. tis a sad week... but next is a spidey week and it also has punchout on nintendo wii.... Woo

**Mark Waid** · 05-11-2009, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by RDMacQ

Now this moniker has been co-opted and demonized by the opposition, so a new term has to be created that isn't as easily corrupted.

Oh, dear God. Send me an address so I can get your tinfoil hat in the mail pronto.

We just liked the name "Webheads" better because it has to do with spiders. That's all. That's it. I swear to you on my mother's grave that we simply thought it was a more relevant and more clever name to acknowledge everyone's various creative contributions. YMMV. But I also swear that no one said or even thought any variation of these words: "You know, there are people on the internet--the single most rewarding place on Earth for comics writers to hang out--who criticize the term 'braintrust,' so let's change it."

Acknowledging in print that we help one another is done in the spirit of camaraderie, not fear of blame. At least, that's what I say. Choose to believe whatever you like.

Raping childhoods since 1992,
MW