Talk:Clone Saga

Verifiability

Current Quote in main Spider-Man Entry: "In 1999, after a decline in sales that began with the clone storyline. . ."

Clone Saga Quote: "The story is considered within fandom to be one of the most controversial stories ever told for Spider-Man if not in the comics industry as a whole. The comics sold very well and the writers were encouraged to prolong the saga as long as possible."

This info needs to be verified and corrected on one page or the other, thanks. I don't have access to the relevant sales info.

I'm not sure where to find sales info before 1996 (after 1996 can be found here if you look)... but I can explain this. The Clone Saga lasted almost 3 years. At the beginning, it looked very promising. Ben Reilly was a popular addition, people were intrigued by the mystery, and sales rose accordingly. However, toward the middle, it was "revealed" that Ben was the real guy, and Peter was the clone. Shortly afterward, Peter quit and Ben took over. Sales dropped drastically because of this, and it was also part of a larger trend explained on Marvel Comics#1990s. People really hated the idea that they'd been told they'd been reading about a clone for the past 20 years (clear from the letter pages, and even more clear if you happened to drop by a newsgroup around that time). Things looked bad in 1996. Even when they reversed the decision, the sales didn't rise to their previous levels. (The Life of Reilly goes into some detail.) Bringing Byrne onto the book was intended to do that, but it actually made things worse. Not until the Straczynski run did sales rise again. The entry on Spider-Man is probably OK, but I'll see if I can make it clearer here. - HKMARKS 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, compiled some of the sales data for support: Total sales for ongoing Spider-Man comics (Except Spider-Man Unlimited and LS) in December of the following years:

1996

323196 - End of the Clone Saga. Lots of interest as Pete comes back. 4 ongoing titles

1997

235797 - Interest dying off

1998

337098 - John Byrne! Hero of Fantastic Four, X-Men, Superman!

1999

148399 - Byrne's run sucks

2000

157300 - Still sucks. Hope on the horizon: Ultimate just started, but not much interest yet.

2001

269501 - Straczynski comes along, huge surge in interest, plus Ultimate Spider-Man really takes off.

-HKMARKS 01:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What those raw figures don't show though is either the number of titles being put out or the relevance of the month in question. As well as bringing Byrne on board it was decided to cut back on the number of Spider-Man titles - going from four ongoing current continuity titles to two, with Webspinners telling past stories (which is rather a niche appeal). So people already buying all four books each month by definition now purchased half the number. Plus December 1998 would be the issue 2s of the Byrne relaunch - not an average month. So is it possible that what really happened in those sales was that, apart from a spike at the time of the relaunch, but it soon settled down at around the same, given an across the board ongoing decline in sales at the time, with fewer copies sold because there were far fewer ongoing Spidey books put out? Also hadn't Byrne gone by December 2000 (#26)? Timrollpickering 02:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wendigo speculation

Removed the 'Possibly Ultimate Wendigo?' comment. Firstly, Wikipedia does not engage in dile speculation; Secondly, the Wendigo is far too trivial a character to appear at this point. SaliereTheFish 10:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spidermen.jpg

Image:Spidermen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spidermen.jpg

Image:Spidermen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Web of Spider-Man 117.jpg

Image:Web of Spider-Man 117.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ASM149Cover.jpg

Image:ASM149Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. There is a need for denser references (and possibly try and find a few separate sources for balance) and there are a number of statements that need referencing and a whole "fan reaction" section that always makes me suspicious and is unreferenced (best bet would probably be to remove it - better would be a reception section drawing together reviews from reliable sources). (Emperor (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Development

The development backstory for this saga is so long and controversial yet interesting. The clone saga lasted for 3 years and saw so many changes, possibilities, failures, and success that it really breaks down into alot of categories / development cycles involving, major decisions of what would become the future direction of Spider-Man. Its an important part of Comic book history that should be well documented. I suggest it be given its own page. I'd love to work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.22.186 (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be stated somewhere at the top of this article that The Clone Saga was an attempt to Revitalize Spider-Man and thus open it up to a new audience, similar to what Ultimate Spider-man would do many years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.22.186 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clone Saga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060524235146/http://www.newsarama.com/NYCC/Marvel/Ultimate/report.html to http://www.newsarama.com/NYCC/Marvel/Ultimate/report.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clone Saga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927024446/http://www.comicboards.com/spidergirl/view.php?rpl=031124102524 to http://www.comicboards.com/spidergirl/view.php?rpl=031124102524

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)