Would U Buy It #85: "Spider-Man & Wolverine"

#DateWelcome to WUBI # 85:Choose Your View:Attached to Forum:Back/ Next
8511/14/12Spider-Man & Wolverine(Blog) (Forum)Spider-Man vs. Wolverine (1987)(Back) (Next)

We all have trade paperback (TPB) collections we'd like to see. Here's one of mine:

Proposed Title:Spider-Man & Wolverine.
Alternate Title:
  1. Marvel Team-Up: Spider-Man & Wolverine
  2. Marvel Comics Presents: Wolverine & Spider-Man
  3. Greatest Spider-Man & Wolverine Team-Ups.
Collecting 10 Issues:
Covers: (click to enlarge)
TPB Cover: Marvel Comics Presents #49

Back in February 1987, Marvel put out an awesome one shot called Spider-Man vs. Wolverine. Wolverine agrees to kill a friend before their enemies can, Spider-Man tries to stop him, they fight, and the results were monumental. So much so, that Wolvie had to track Spidey down six months later, in Web of Spider-Man #29, just to talk him into shaking it off.

Pretty awesome story, but Paul Tobin & Jeff Parker apparently thought of a way that story could take a darker turn, and gave us What If? Spider-Man Vs. Wolverine. I'd put it right after Web of Spider-Man #29.

Next, we have a 1995 one-shot called Wolverine vs. Spider-Man. Clearly, this issue was taking advantage of the at-the-time still popular 1987 title. It collects a three part story from the anthology Marvel Comics Presents #48-50, and is Erik Larsen's tale of Pete & Logan trying to save a young mutant from a group of villains.

*******

I figured if I'm going to get all these Spidey/ Wolvie team-ups together, I must include their first meeting, from Marvel Team-Up (1972) #117, but after the Spider-Man vs. Wolverine issues. Also, as long as we're talking Marvel Team-Up, the Ultimate Marvel Team-Up issue was a tough decision. It's not the Marvel-616 Spider-Man & Wolverine. In the end, I decided to include it, because they have a conversation I've always liked, about whether Spider-Man is a mutant or not.

Last, but only because of its order of publication, I'd include the Marvel Knights: Spider-Man & Wolverine four issue mini-series. As far as I can find, it has never been collected in TPB, and it would round this collection out nicely to ten issues. It's about Spider-Man and Wolverine chasing a mystery all over the globe.

For the cover, I actually like the 1987 Spider-Man vs. Wolverine cover best, but I'm still opposed to using a one-shot's cover for a TPB's cover, if it can be avoided. I don't really like the Marvel Knights covers that much, using the Ultimate MTU cover would be misleading, and the MTU #117 cover is way too dated. The WoSM #29 cover features Spidey's black costume, and that's the only issue of this collection that the black costume is in. The What If? cover is beautiful, but I'd rather use the 1987 cover instead. So that leaves the cover of Wolverine vs. Spider-Man, but ugh, I do not dig that purple background. Fortunately, the cover it came from, Marvel Comics Presents #49, does not share that purple background, and I think it would make a great cover for the TPB, showcasing Logan & Parker prominently on the cover. It also doesn't show them fighting, which I'd prefer for the cover of this collection.

The Alternate Titles
Greatest Spider-Man and Daredevil Team-Ups

As far as the alternate titles go, it's like this: Marvel Team-Upwas primarily a book focused on "Spider-Man and..." (although, sometimes Human Torch was the lead, as seen in the suggested Human Torch Team-Ups). Marvel Comics Presents was an anthology title that became popular while Wolverine was headlining the covers. The last suggestion ofGreatest Spider-Man & Wolverine Team-Ups has precedence in Greatest Spider-Man & Daredevil Team-Ups.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Would you buy it? Let me know in the comments, and thanks for reading.

2 Comments
2 Comments
Edited by cbishop
Edited by cbishop

The site redesign had messed this blog up for a bit, and I couldn't get into it to edit it. So for a brief time, I had redone this blog as a list, and these are the comments from that list (the list is now deleted):

Who:Date/Time:Comment:
kfhrfdu_89_76k6/7/14 @10:51amI don`t like that story...
cbishop6/7/14 @8:53pm

@kfhrfdu_89_76k: I really liked it at the time, because Spidey killing someone, even if it was an accident, was a great shock moment. In retrospect, I don't like Spidey killing someone (even though the woman he killed tricked him into doing it) any more than I liked Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord. It may be great shock, but it's shortsighted writing where the characters are concerned.

If you let them kill once (Superman using kryptonite on Phantom Zone criminals from another Earth, or breaking Zod's neck in the movie) then how serious does the situation have to get before it's reasonable to assume that they would kill again? And how many previous stories now look stupid because the character didn't kill then? Or conversely, does the story where they killed look stupid, because they faced tougher situations before and didn't use deadly force?

Out of all of them though, I like the Spidey vs. Wolvie story the best. I think it was handled the best, especially since they followed it up later in Web of Spider-Man #29.

kfhrfdu_89_76k6/8/14 @2:29am

Most people act according to the moment. They don`t have enough time to think, if they should do something. Except if they`ve really thought about what they`d do in the situation.

But of course I`m over simplifying. For example, this line raises a point:

@cbishop said:

And how many previous stories now look stupid because the character didn't kill then?

They think about that time. They figure, in retrospect, maybe I shoulda killed Green Goblin that time, and should kill this a-hole, now that I have the chance. It may not be a 100 % valid justification. But they think about whether superheroes should kill too. They know that they can`t blindly believe that killing isn`t the answer. They have to have proof. Many have it, already, and refuse to kill. Others have different proof, and have become killers, or use killing as means.

@cbishop said:

Or conversely, does the story where they killed look stupid, because they faced tougher situations before and didn't use deadly force?

They might`ve been enraged at the time. They might`ve thought it to be the right thing to do, that previous time, but came to the conclusion that it didn`t help.

You know, I like how you always pose questions and thoughts that get me thinking about this stuff.

cbishop6/8/14 @3:02am

@kfhrfdu_89_76k: I'm not talking about justifying the character's actions- that's easy to do. I'm talking about the one time that a non-killing character kills being a bad idea.

The Punisher is about a man who kills as a means. Invincible or Savage Dragon are stories where death happens because those stories are more realistic about what superpowers and varying power levels would do.

Now, do I want characters to grow and change? YES, but the franchised characters of DC and Marvel are different animals.

For Supes, Bats, Wondy, Spidey and others of the Big Two, it has been too well established that they don't kill. Now, that may be because of years of censorship through the Comics Code Authority, but whatever the source, not killing has become their trademark. It identifies them as a brand, and these are characters that are selling underoos, toothbrushes, lunchboxes and breakfast cereals to kids. They have cornered themselves with the responsibility of making sure that their characters that don't kill continue to not kill. Not killing has a lot to do with why we call them "Supes, Bats, Wondy, Spidey," etc. I've expressed my feelings on this before in Death Nor Consequences: Taking the "Hero" Out of "Superhero" and The Difference Between a "Killer" and a "Killing" (shameless plugs).

It may be regrettable that DC, Marvel and Archie have spent decades building kiddie-fied brands, now that fans want to see more substance to those characters. Heck, I want to see that! That doesn't mean killing though. Plenty of great stories can be and have been told without the characters killing. For the Big Two (and Archie) I think they should commit to that.

Do I really want to see that? I don't, in that I hate to see creativity stifled. But I do, in that they have saddled themselves with that responsibility, and now I think they should ride it out.

After all, there are alternatives. Like letting these decades old characters carry on in their non-killing glory, but introducing new characters with which to tell the other stories they might want to tell. Stan Lee once said that he never wanted to see anyone else work on Spider-Man or the Fantastic Four. "Go create your own characters," was the gist of what he said. Assuming the comic form survived, imagine what kinds of characters might be out there for us to explore now, had we not just kept riding the Same Character Carousel. We may have a lot more pastiche, but we'd probably have a ton more classics as well. So I guess I'm saying I prefer "change" to be something completely different, not the same old thing with a fresh coat of paint.

kfhrfdu_89_76k6/8/14 @3:57am

Actually, they stopped killing because the creators wanted it. A few editors too, maybe.

As for the other stuff, I still haven`t written that blog entry I was supposed to. But maybe I`ll finish it soon, considering I worked on it yesterday.

Also, check out Tom Sciolis (and partially John Barbers) G.I. Joe/Transformers-mini? Maybe in trade? You wont be disappointed. Perhaps. Anyway, Comixology has free copies of issue 0, so...hint hint.

cbishop6/8/14 @10:36am@kfhrfdu_89_76k: They stopped it at the Big Two, you mean? Yeah, they've both made conscious decisions to lighten things up, because the heroes were all getting really dark. They were becoming depressing to read lol. So they both made a move about the same time to step back a bit and make it not so killer-friendly.
kfhrfdu_89_76k6/9/14 @3:57amI wouldn`t say that. Maybe they thought it was needless, or a too easy solution. Maybe they thought that it wasn`t setting a good example.
cbishop6/9/14 @4:34am@kfhrfdu_89_76k: Whatever the reason, the end result was that they lightened it up a bit with less heroes killing.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog comments. -cb