We're getting to this book now because eventually (75 issues into its 98-issue run), the book's title became Peter Parker: Spider-Man. When they restarted the Spider-titles at #1 after "The Final Chapter", they kept that title, and I bought that book for a couple years (see next week), so that's where this got stored.
But before all that, the book was a Todd MacFarlane vanity project. Todd Mac was the hot name in comics, so Marvel gave him his own book, either to capitalize on his popularity, or just to try and keep him around. If the latter, it didn't work, since MacFarlane was one of the seven who founded Image Comics, and departed with issue 16.
I've discussed in Splash Page entries for Spectacular Spider-Man, Sensational Spider-Man, and Web of Spider-Man, that it's hard to see any real principle that distinguishes those books from Amazing Spider-Man. Spectacular might have started with a notion to focus more on "Peter Parker", but the civilian side of Peter's life is such a big part of the Spider-Man formula that doesn't really do anything. Amazing wasn't exactly ignoring the Peter Parker side of things.
The best you can probably get is a writer who pursues a particular interest and puts that stamp on the book. J.M. DeMatteis eventually focused Spectacular on the psychological trauma that causes someone to put on a costume and fight or commit crimes. Likewise, I might say Gerry Conway leaned Web heavily into organized crime stories, jostling for territory or dominance (albeit in a very superhero way of big, public battles for Spider-Man to get involved with.)
If I were to try and summarize MacFarlane's run on Spider-Man, it'd be horror. He had basically 4 stories, not counting the final issue crossover with X-Force. You get Spider-Man being attacked psychically by Calypso, who is also controlling the Lizard to make him more feral and vicious (to attack Spider-Man physically.) Or Spider-Man is caught between Ghost Rider and a version of Hobgoblin that's fright mask is his face, but thinks he's a servant of God out to punish sinners. Or the Wendigo shows up, or Spider-Man has to deal with Morbius ruling a sewer kingdom of homeless people with mental health issues. It's all monsters, with at least a hint of the supernatural to them.
Also guest appearances by popular characters like Wolverine and Ghost Rider. Can't forget that!
I'm going off vague impressions. I only had a few issues of MacFarlane's run. Apparently, Nineties Calvin wasn't looking for horror in his Spider-Man comics. But once Todd Mac leaves, the book's adrift. For 30 issues, it cycles between creative teams, each popping up for one story, then moving aside. Erik Larsen's "Revenge of the Sinister Six" is the only one that goes beyond 3 issues, it and the one-shot by Ann Nocenti and Rick Leonardi that precede it are all that I still have.
Issue 45 marks the point where Marvel starts doing a lot of stories that run across all the monthly Spider-titles. Spider-Man becomes less a book of its own - for what that's worth - more a cog in a larger mechanism, especially as The Clone Saga revs up. It's Howard Mackie and Tom Lyle for ~20 issues, then John Romita Jr. takes over as the regular penciler for the most of the last 30+ issues. Through "Ben Reilly is Spider-Man", the return of Norman Osborn/end of the Clone Saga (which is when the book adds "Peter Parker" to the title), and the generally directionless last two years of the book.
I own scattered issues. Peter and Ben fighting Sentinels during Onslaught. Spider-Man getting on the Juggernaut's bad side for an issue. Identity Crisis. The closest thing to an overarching theme I can find is Norman Osborn making life difficult for Peter and Spider-Man. There's some other stuff about Captain George Stacy's brother and his two kids, Jill and Paul, showing up. I think Paul turns out to be a bigot, but I can't pretend I care.
1 comment:
At the time these came out Marvel UK was republishing them in a neat monthly anthology that collected all four of the main titles. I think while McFarlane was doing Adjectiveless Larsen had taken over on Amazing, so I got to see both side by side, and I always preferred Larsen's approach, and I didn't miss McFarlane when he jumped.
The downside of the anthology was that you went from McFarlane to Larsen to (Sal) Buscema, and poor old Sal looked a bit old fashioned and scrappy next to those two. I've grown to appreciate his style a lot more in recent years but at the time he got a bit overpowered.
Better than whoever was drawing the fourth title at the time, as I don't even remember them!
(Just checked: Alex Saviuk. Sorry Alex!)
Post a Comment