Talk:Spider-Man: Brand New Day

Story arcs

e seems really strange, the story arcs arnt dealth with in any deatail, yet the whole thing is seperated from the main ASM page on wikipedia? a few events are written out of order under character headings? why is is like this. It looks like it was seperated in case they changed it back straight away, but now they havent this needs serious editing updating and restructuring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.180.184 (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Reception and sales

What exactly is wrong with including reception and sales details? The sales are backed up by Diamond and newsarama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainedamo (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

They aren't backed up by Diamond, they are sales estimates (with their accuracy frequently disputed by insiders) and for the domestic direct market only - see discussion below. Please stop re-adding this as it's against Wikipedia guidelines (as well as devolving into an edit war) and not even particularly relevant to the article anyway. Please also cease copy-pasting the "reception" section from the "One More Day" article, as none of it whatsoever is relevant to this one (whereas the material you overwrote was, in the main, written and sourced well, and entirely relevant - it just lacked a certain amount of balance, also see below). MultipleTom (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the sales estimates not being "particularly relevant to the article", I came here specifically looking for sales figures for Brand New Day. If it's not relevant to this article, then where would you suggest I look? Cythraul (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia. Try Google. (Although I would warn you, said estimates have flawed methodology and deep reliability issues, which is why I describe them here as irrelevant and unverifiable.) MultipleTom (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well at least the reception area is gone altogether, because I wasn't very happy with it's overly biased viewpoint. I'd argue that One More Day is perfectly relevant to Brand New Day. One is a direct result of the other.

They are not the same thing, and all of that material is covered in (and, in fact, directly lifted from) the One More Day article (and therefore does not merit duplication here).

And actually, further to the "biased viewpoint" issue, given that nobody was willing to stump up the goods and find a professional review that sensibly critiqued any of the "Brand New Day" stories (without their argument hinging purely on the "One More Day" story that preceding it, hence making such a review significantly less objective), I have to wonder whether there was a real lack of balance in the first place. MultipleTom (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody keeps changing the reception section to overly positive and no negatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.214.55 (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is up with the reception section? Seems sort of biased to only post the positive comments that Brand New Day has been receiving. 99.226.53.169 (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your are right about that, so I added a template that makes a note of the unbalanced opinion. 129.16.49.40 (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to find a negative review that isn't simply an excuse to whine about One More Day again. MultipleTom (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"All subsequent issues have been top selling despite there being three issues per month" is SO not true... the average 2007 issue (pre-BND, #537-#545) sold 126,700 copies, the January 2008 BND issues (#546-#548) sold 109,000 average, while April sales (#555-#557) were down to 80,800 average, and May (#558-#560) dropped even further to 73,700 average, which is an all-time low for ASM. (Source: icv2.com) DarkSkywise (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Those figures are estimates by ICV2.com, not the actual figures - furthermore, every single issue thus far has appeared in the top 25 of Diamond's official charts, which does actually make the book a top seller (given that "top" is determined by ranking, not amount). Besides which, the figure you give is nowhere NEAR an all-time low for ASM (which dipped below 40,000 shortly before Joe Quesada became editor-in-chief - and that was when there was only one issue a month!).

And I can't imagine Marvel's extremely generous subscription offer for ASM has had no reducing impact on the direct market chart either - the figure's probably a lot higher. But Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. MultipleTom (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

On one hand, I agree that the Reception section reads like it was personally written by Joe Quesada. I'm sure Marvel has corporate staffers assigned to regularly check this page (and the OMD page) and tweak it positively as much as they can. The claimed quote by Stan Lee isn't even referenced. Even though I agree with the Wiki editor that this is not the place for a rolling fan rant about One More Day, that doesn't actually refute the criticism of the Reception section; and the widely disliked OMD retcon must be given its due as a major reason for the steady drop-off. Marvel folded the three separate Spider-Man titles into one, started producing the one title on a weekly basis, and created generous subscription rates for ASM, in order to stimulate individual issue sales and thus give Marvel/Quesada grounds to assert that Mephisto-ASM is successful. But if you check the ASM issue numbers, even with all that market stimuli, each issue in sequence is slowly but steadily heading down out of the top 25. And these are only records of Marvel sales to the LCS, not how many issues were sold by the shops to customers. ASM, after an initial burst of interest, is slowly losing readership, in spite of the changes being so controversial, and so much laudatory hype from the company. This data ought to be reflected in the Reception section. Diamond has not yet issued figures for July 2008 at the time of this note. I have read enough of the reviews by CBR and Newsarama, and many on-line discussion groups, to know that fan reaction to BND is quite mixed, with generally high praise for the artwork, but extremely varied opinions of the different writers' work, and a lingering sense of distaste hanging over the title caused by OMD. One can't divorce OMD from aftermath reactions to BND. If OMD hadn't happened, BND would not even exist! BND is built on the narrative foundation of OMD. It would be better to somehow acknowledge this in the article, than to exclude mixed reactions to BND on the grounds that they should never include any negative references to OMD. Jack Brooks (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that some Marvel employee, or a fan, has erased the NPOV information about Brand New Day's mixed reception and slowly sinking sales figures, and re-inserted the untrue flack material. They must keep it on a file somewhere, in order to do an easy cut-and-paste, whenever actual facts begin to show up on this page. It is identical to what was corrected from before. This is a good illustration of why schoolteachers won't allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source. Jack Brooks (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It was undone (using Wikipedia's "undo" tool) because the facts and sources that stand are verifiable and the ones that replaced them were not. US direct market sales estimates (which no not even attempt to cover subscription data, I might add) do not constitute factual evidence; what's more, ICV2's estimates in particular are routinely disputed by creators such as Mark Millar and Brian Michael Bendis. There were a couple of lines about "fan reactions" which were unsourced and therefore assumed to be original research. Everything else in the revamped reception section pertained exclusively to "One More Day" and was therefore irrelevant. I urge you to find some actual reviews from reputable sources that actually critique "Brand New Day" and find it lacking (without devolving into "One More Day" rants), such information will not be removed if added. (And please note that I put the "unbalanced" notice back in, after you removed it having slanted the section the other way...) MultipleTom (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone assigned you responsibility for this page, so I won't fuss at you about it. Actual sales will end up establishing the real reception. Jack Brooks (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. I didn't "slant" it; I unslanted it from the 100% one-sided one that was already there. The reality is that there was an initial burst of interest, then increasingly mixed, mingled opinions (with on-line reviewers not united negatively or positively on any one of the rotating writers), tainted by distatse toward OMD; and then there have been steadily decreasing sales estimates (that is, as of this date; I'm interested in seeing 2008 July's figures once they're available). I was surprised to visit this page tonight and find the reception section gone altogether. Just for the record, I did not remove the Reception section. Jack Brooks (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think sales would be appropriate for the artical, but sales have gone down in the direct market. This is going to be said that fans have dropped the series, but in reality, there are so many Spider-Man comics coming out that even if sales are going down, they are still selling a ton more copies per month for amazing, and sales from weaker selling titles are now gone. I think the issue is there is a lot of people that are going to try and claim the hit in sales is based on content, which there is not proof for that claim. Doeswhateveraspidercan666 (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please re-add the Reception and sales, this looks like censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.138.12 (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Which version, the one that included verified review extracts that was considered by some "too slanted", or the version that consisted solely of unverifiable sales estimates and an extended rant about One More Day (directly replicating portions of that storyline's own article)? It was causing an edit war and I decided to get rid of it because it's not really all that important to the article. MultipleTom (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there not an article for New Ways to Die?

I mean, New Ways to Die is the next part of this, isn't it? Shouldn't there be at least something theat talks about it? 142.26.133.248 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't started yet! The next storyline is, in fact, "Kraven's First Hunt" (which doesn't have the Brand New Day banner on the cover). I presume these two storylines will get their own dedicated articles when they have seen publication; in any event, information about them does not belong here. MultipleTom (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised there isn't a Kraven's First Hunt thing yet. I guess this is what happens when a lot of the dedicated fans leave because of a writing controversy. I'm sure some of the new fans can put this stuff up.58.175.169.47 (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it simply isn't part of the "Brand New Day" series, there is a section about it in the "Kraven's Last Hunt" article. (There aren't articles for every three-issue comic book storyline on Wikipedia.) MultipleTom (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello from 14 years in the future! ALL YOUR CLAIMS ARE TRUE AND THEY HAVE BEEN RELEASED AND THEY ARE NOT PART OF BND. I AM FROM THE FUTURE, TRUST ME

2022 Chickenmonger (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Over

Marvel solicitations for the New Ways to Die state that Brand New Day is over.Doeswhateveraspidercan666 (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, hence the recent removal of the "currently in progress" template, and the headline note that the series of storylines ran from #546-564. MultipleTom (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Keep up the good work :)Doeswhateveraspidercan666 (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Canon??

Is Brand New Day canon to the mainstream Amazing Spider-Man???(LonerXL (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it is 100% canon. MultipleTom (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean Boyle and the webshooter

The passage on Sean Boyle in the Cast section begins with "Boyle sells his wallets and the webshooter (which he thinks is a watch)..." What webshooter? What does this mean? Where did he get a webshooter? Don't you people understand that this has to be understood by a reader? Don't you know how to write with explanatory clarity? Who wrote this? Nightscream (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There was context in the article but it seems someone has removed it. MultipleTom (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

People reading this article will most likely know what a web shooter is, though it’s been 10 years and then some since you typed this so it’s probably already been fixed. Chickenmonger (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Paper Doll skin colour

It says in the article Paper Doll’s skin is blue, but I think it is white due to her either being

A: Made out of paper

B: A goth

C: Being coloured white in some panels

But additionally this claim is not WRONG, some shading makes it look like she is blue. Really, I don’t think this info is necessary, we aren’t going all in depth into Mr. Negative being “negative shaded” or something so should we just delete it? Chickenmonger (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Spider-Man UNLIMITED in other media

I am not sure, but I think Menace appears as an alternate variation of Green Goblin in unlimited (the 2012 endless runner). I just know this because I googled Menace and an image from SMU popped up of a Goblin with white skin and red clothing who looked like Menace. I AM NOT SURE. Chickenmonger (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

starat 202.86.220.52 (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)