Why Did The Spider-Man Reboot Fail?

[remoteman]

I have a bit of time off over the Christmas period, and while it would be fun to just sit around eating and drinking I figured it would be better to do something productive with my time

With that in mind, I have decided to re-read what has become one of the most heavily criticised eras of Spider-Man's history - the reboot (that is, the Mackie / Byrne one from the early 2000's) I'm not sure what sort of schedule I will keeping to (and it will have to work around family commitments over the holiday period), but I recently posted a background piece on my blog - where I will be posting the rest of my 'project'.

If it's something that interests people I can carry on updating this thread, and it can perhaps become a place for general discussion on the Reboot. While perhaps not the most enjoyable period of history it should make for an interesting topic.

Anyway the first part can be found over at my blog, so check it out if interested. Thanks guys

[Jake V]

Did it?


10101010

[remoteman]

Did it?


10101010

Yes. I don't have exact statistics but I understand that it sold poorly and was widely critically panned. It was a comprehensive failure in pretty much every respect.

[pedroparkero]

saw it on twitter...didnt know it was you.

cant wait for part 2

[MarvelMaster616]

Very nice blog. I like your reviews. However, I don't agree with your assessment that the Spider-Man reboot failed. It's still one of Marvel's most popular titles and events like Spider-Island show that there's still a strong market for 616 Spider-Man in it's current status quo. The top 616 Spider-Man books continue to remain in the top 50. It's faced greater competition from DC's new 52, but then again so has every major Marvel title. I think there's a lot to like about the current status of Spider-Man. Now I still believe there's plenty of room for improvement, but I think it's a stretch to call it a failure.

[Darrell D.]

Very nice blog. I like your reviews. However, I don't agree with your assessment that the Spider-Man reboot failed. It's still one of Marvel's most popular titles and events like Spider-Island show that there's still a strong market for 616 Spider-Man in it's current status quo. The top 616 Spider-Man books continue to remain in the top 50. It's faced greater competition from DC's new 52, but then again so has every major Marvel title. I think there's a lot to like about the current status of Spider-Man. Now I still believe there's plenty of room for improvement, but I think it's a stretch to call it a failure.

Wrong reboot period. He's talking about the Mackie/Byrne era in the late 90s, not the current one.

[pedroparkero]

Wrong reboot period. He's talking about the Mackie/Byrne era in the late 90s, not the current one.

the fact he didnt remember or many dont...reflects how much of a failure it was.

[remoteman]

Very nice blog. I like your reviews. However, I don't agree with your assessment that the Spider-Man reboot failed. It's still one of Marvel's most popular titles and events like Spider-Island show that there's still a strong market for 616 Spider-Man in it's current status quo. The top 616 Spider-Man books continue to remain in the top 50. It's faced greater competition from DC's new 52, but then again so has every major Marvel title. I think there's a lot to like about the current status of Spider-Man. Now I still believe there's plenty of room for improvement, but I think it's a stretch to call it a failure.

Yes, my apologies - I wasn't aware that the current era was known as 'The Reboot'. The other two posters are correct, I am discussing the reboot of Amazing Spider-Man and Peter Parker: Spider-Man from the early 2000's. I will make it more clear in the opening post. Thanks very much for the kind words.

[Kevinroc]

I have a few ideas as to why that run isn't very fondly remembered.

I think it could all be boiled down to being far too convoluted. Aunt May was alive. We had a new Spider-Woman. Mary Jane "died" in a plane crash. And of course Chapter One was a fizzle (it wanted to be "Man of Steel" but Spidey didn't need such a reboot).

I also think Mackie was burnt out on Spidey by that point and it showed. (Poor guy gets a rap he really shouldn't.)

[Therion]

It did not sell poorly, it was mostly ranked in the 11-15 range (thru the end it got closer to 18-20), with PP:SM landing 2 to 4 places behind, lowest ranked number was ASM25 foil cover at 24 but adding the normal cover, it should had been ranked at 12...

It consistently outsold Batbooks and Superbooks. X-titles and Spawn + specials (and later, the Ultimate line) was what kept it out of the top 10, but then JMS took over, and then no one referenced to the Mackie/Byrne issues at all, so it was swiftly forgotten...

[Venomous Mask]

If I recall, it began to have too many throwaway stories and villains no one cared about There were a few brilliant moments, like the Green Goblin stories, but on the whole, it just struck me as very tedious.

[Hypestyle]

The TriCorp setting was under-used-- the characters were introduced rather dramatically, but then rarely seen despite them being set up as being new (major) supporting characters.. Peter was set up as a hard-luck sap more often than not.. the one guy at TriCorp who hated him on principle was never put in check (whether by Peter solving a problem in front of the boss, etc.); it all ended with Pete being looked at by everybody as a slacker who gets fired for never showing up.. The corrupt/alien senator subplot was overly drawn out and had a bizarre resolution.. Mary Jane dying (albeit with the literal back-door)..

[DeadXMan]

Yes, my apologies - I wasn't aware that the current era was known as 'The Reboot'. The other two posters are correct, I am discussing the reboot of Amazing Spider-Man and Peter Parker: Spider-Man from the early 2000's. I will make it more clear in the opening post. Thanks very much for the kind words.

to the misgiuded few that Spidy being married was a good idea it is a reboot


the rest have called it "writing a 25 year old wrong"

[charlesthehammer]

to the misgiuded few that Spidy being married was a good idea it is a reboot


the rest have called it "writing a 25 year old wrong"

What are you talking about, I never heard anyone calling it writing a 25 year old wrong.

[Chris Lang]

What are you talking about, I never heard anyone calling it writing a 25 year old wrong.

Other than, say, Joe Quesada, you mean?

Granted, Joe Quesada wasn't the only one who thought the marriage was a bad move. But many others who felt that way got over it, or felt the Statute of Limitations on this supposed 'crime' against the Spider-Man comics had run out. The books had moved on, and so had they.

This is not to say that there weren't attempts to break them up. Mary Jane's disappearance and alleged death during the 'reboot' era was one of those. And of course Ben Reilly's taking over the role of Spider-Man while Peter and Mary Jane moved to Oregon was an attempt to get a single Spider-Man back (an attempt that was doomed from the start, as Ben Reilly was his own character by then and there wasn't a way for him to take over Peter's life unless they went public with the existence of cloning. That would mean that Peter and Mary Jane would be constantly hounded by the press, scientists, and super-villains and couldn't just ride off into the sunset).

Then there was the 'seperation' at the end of the 'reboot' era when Mary Jane was found, and her stalker wasn't even given a name (I'm sure the blogger who started this discussion will get to that sooner or later). But after that, it seemed that most anti-marriage people had gotten over it. And then, just when people thought it was safe to have a married Spider-Man, along came 'One More Day'.

Basically, it seemed there were, and still are, two opposing viewpoints on the marriage.

One is that the marriage was like Peter's graduation from high school, his moving in to his own apartment, and so forth. It was acceptable growth and progress, and a natural consequence of what has gone before.

Others, however, thought it was completely wrong for the books and that it never should have been done. Arguments were made that it 'aged the character too much'. Many of the anti-marriage arguers were clearly nostalgic for the days when Peter had several different romantic interests but couldn't really make any commitments due to his Spider-Man activities.

Some believe that as long as Peter Parker continues to have realistic problems in his personal life, the books are still true to the spirit of Spider-Man regardless of whether or not he is married or whether or not Aunt May is alive.

Others, however, believe that Spider-Man just isn't Spider-Man unless he's single and Aunt May is around to nag him for using 'that awful slang'.

(I don't know what Aunt May is doing in the post-OMD books, and quite frankly I don't care that much. 616 Spider-Man stopped being 'canon' to me with 'The Gathering of Five/The Final Chapter'. But I'm digressing).

In any case, I think one reason the Spider-books have suffered over the last 15 years or so is because we had too many cooks with different recipes for the broth, or who weren't quite clear on the ingredients.