Tag: Amazing Spider-Man

Dan Slott uses terror attack to mock Christians, play partisan politics

December 3, 2015December 3, 2015by Douglas Ernst29 Comments

The terror attack in San Bernardino, California, on Wednesday killed at least 14 and wounded 17. As Syed Rizwan Farook and his accomplices attempted to evade police, Marvel writer Dan Slott thought it would be the ideal moment to mock Christians who turn to God in times of tragedy. For good measure he told jokes to foreign citizens at America’s expense.

Dan Slott California shooting

Here is a closer look at the re-tweet.

Daily News California shooting

Ask yourself what kind of sick person would use requests for prayers during a terror attack and cops’ pursuit of the suspects to take political pot-shots? What kind of man would retweet satirical “God” Twitter accounts as terror victims riddled with bullet holes were bleeding out?

Objective observers know Mr. Slott was playing politics during a terror attack because his earlier tweets indeed asked for “thoughts and prayers.”

Dan Slott San Bernardino

Dan Slott can tweet “thoughts and prayers” for terror victims, but if someone he politically disagrees with does the same thing — again, as people are dying — they are Christian “cowards” issuing “empty platitudes.”

Dan Slott bashes America

To add insult to injury, The Amazing Spider-Man scribe decided to honor the recently-deceased and injured by telling jokes at America’s expense.

“Non-Americans, you’re all looking at us and shaking your head in disbelief, aren’t you?” he wrote. No one thought to ask him which “non-Americans” he was addressing.

Perhaps Dan was talking to Saudi Arabian Spider-Man fans (the nation Farook travelled to shortly before his massacre), but only the men because women aren’t allowed to leave the home without related escorts. And not Saudi Arabian Christians, because they officially don’t exist — it isn’t allowed.
Perhaps Dan was talking to French Spider-Man fans, but not those who died in its recent terror attack perpetrated by the Islamic State group, because dead people can’t enjoy Peter Parker’s adventures.
Perhaps Dan was talking to Syrian Spider-Man fans, but not in ISIS-controlled areas because reading Marvel (i.e., infidel) Comics would literally be grounds for chopping one’s head off.
Perhaps Dan was talking about Qatar, where San Bernardino terror suspect Bin Ardogan was from.

Puruse Mr. Slott’s twitter feed from Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2015, and you will see many tweets about gun control. What you will not see after it was announced that Syed Rizwan Farook was responsible for a day of terror is anything about radical Islam.

In Dan Slott’s world, a correlation between access to guns and gun-crime is worthy of loud denunciations of the NRA and Republican politicians who pray during terror attacks — but a correlation between Islam and Islamic terrorism is an opportunity to listen to crickets.

Congratulations Dan Slott: You’re the type of guy who uses an unfolding tragedy as an opportunity to mock men praying to God. One day you’ll get to stand before your Creator and explain yourself. Until then, I will pray for you.

Exit Question: How pathetic is it that Nick Spencer equates a recluse who lived in a shack all by himself somewhere in Colorado — a man estranged from his friends and family and described by them as “weird” and “unpredictable” — to countless radical Islamic terror networks with tens-of-millions of sympathizers around the globe?

Nick Spencer shooting tweet

Dan Slott slimes ‘gun owners’; Marvel would fire writer for similar tweet about ‘Muslims’

November 18, 2015November 19, 2015by Douglas Ernst16 Comments

Dan Slott gun

It was only days ago that Marvel writer Dan Slott talked to Newsarama about internet “dicks.” The comic book “news” site saw nothing ironic about asking the guy who regularly acts like an unprofessional clown on social media to espouse on his critics. That is probably part of the reason he has started up again with political attacks that would get him fired if he switched out subjects like “gun owners” with “Muslims.”

Take the following Dan Slott tweet: “Ever notice how every gun owner who tweets is a responsible gun owner? My theory: All irresponsible ones have shot up their keyboards.”

What would Dan Slott think of someone if he came across a tweet like: “Ever notice how every Muslim is a responsible Muslim? My theory: All irresponsible Muslims have prematurely detonated their suicide vests.”

That would be incredibly mean and uncalled for since the vast majority of American Muslims break no laws — just as millions of American gun owners break no laws. A tweet like that would be a low blow and the hallmark of a very immature man.

Ask yourself this question: Why is Dan Slott a “gregarious” guy when he slimes patriotic Americans who have broken no laws, when in your heart-of-hearts you know The Amazing Spider-Man writer would go off on an epic rant if you took his own tweets about “gun owners” and tweaked them to target “Muslims”?

Who said Mr. Slott was “gregarious,” you ask?

Answer: Newsarama (Jim McLauchlin wouldn’t want to risk losing his access to the writer, now would he?)

When it comes to the Internet and comic books, people can be d**ks. Obsessive d**ks. …

We slap labels on all things Internet. It’s a “virtual” world. But virtual can crash into real in a hurry when he Internet Rage Machine gets cranking. But what is the Machine? Is the Rage misplaced? And what fiefdom do you live in? …

Dan Slott, Marvel’s Amazing Spider-Man writer, muses that “I could write whole books on this,” but gets very itchy, declining to cite specific examples.

“You never want to let that guy know he got under your skin, and you never want to show people examples of bad behavior to emulate,” he says.

Slott is a gregarious, friendly guy who’s always willing to interact with fans on Twitter and the like. It’s where he’s from.

On the whole, Slott tries to measure his online interactions. He recently called the aggregate a “heightened reality,” where the bright spots get brighter, but the dark areas show up so much darker.

Again, Newsarama found nothing ironic at all about the guy who can flip like a switch between opining on social media “dark spaces” and attacking Marvel readers who exercise rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Dan Slott Second Amendment

The reason why Dan Slott got “itchy” about citing examples of critics who get under his skin is because he knows this blog is one of the few places calling him out on his mean-spirited Twitter feed (it’s okay if he attacks the “right” targets — emphasis on “right”).

And remember: Dan Slott is done “wasting time on hate” — even though it’s obvious to any objective observer that he spends plenty of time dishing it out.

Perhaps it doesn’t count if you don’t agree with him politically. Once you dehumanize a person it’s okay to mock and ridicule them, right Mr. Slott?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to catch up on the latest Newsarama piece. It’s the one that is quick to call out internet “dicks” without ever asking unprofessional writers to explain their own troubling behavior.

Exit Question:

Consider the following from Newsarama:

The world is full of problems: Ebola, ISIS, potholes, global warming, and more. So you’d think people would spend their time doing something more productive than railing on about Spider-Man.

Newsarama — a site that depends on traffic generated by people who are interested in comic books — will immediately criticize Spider-Man fans who enjoy discussing Spider-Man, but it has nothing to say about Spider-Man’s actual writer for his unprovoked political attacks on entire groups of law-abiding Americans. At what point does Newsarama just admit its role as Marvel’s shameless handmaiden?

Dan Slott eviscerated after cyber-stalking Philly charity runner; industry ‘journalists’ M.I.A.

November 5, 2015January 26, 2016by Douglas Ernst26 Comments

What does it mean to be a comics industry “journalist”? Does it mean finding and reporting good stories that readers would be interested in, or does it mean reporting only the happy-happy-joy-joy “Ren and Stimpy” versions preferred by publishers? Consider the dead silence over Marvel’s Dan Slott, who cyber-stalked a Philadelphia YouTuber and then exploited the man’s charity event for digital butterfly kisses.

Two years ago the Spider-Man scribe was verbally lashed by “The Main Event” after stalking him. Then there was a lull — again, for two years.

The Main Event asked fans on Tuesday to vote on the shirt he would wear for a 3-day Marvel/Disney-sponsored charity run (5K, 10K, and half-marathon), which set in motion one of the most bizarre chain of events comic fans will see from a creator in recent memory.

Dan Slott pounced. He exploited a charity event to receive pats on the back and plaudits from his Twitter followers.

Did a close friend request The Main Event use a Superior Spider-Man shirt? Did he even know it was the new costume used by Doc Ock, or did he just think of it as one of 1,000 Spider-Man costume variants created in recent memory?

It’s a trick question — none of it matters, because the guy was running for charity and hasn’t said peep about Dan Slott in years.

What followed was a YouTube video that comic book “journalists” would swarm like bees on honey if The Main Event were a Lena Dunham lookalike who openly shared LGBT struggles on Twitter. Masculine pro-GamerGate YouTube guy who can eat cyber-stalkers for lunch? Nah. “Journalists” don’t want to jeopardize their access to Marvel writers.

The Main Event delivered a rant for the ages on Wednesday. There is a mushroom cloud where Mr. Slott’s head once rested.

Here is just a snippet of his righteous indignation:

Piece of s–t, Dan f–king Slott. I see we meet again. … So let me get this straight: You’re going to sit here … and tell your fans half-truths, because that’s what you’re doing right now. You’re sitting her saying I’ve bagged on Superior Spider-Man for years. I haven’t even talked about the f–king thing in years! After those videos, that was it. … This man just exploited a charity — a charity — because he wants to fish for compliments! That’s the kind of piece of s–t he is. … There is no excuse for this.

The entire response is worth watching, especially since there is an embargo at Comic Book Resources on legitimate news stories that make Marvel editors uncomfortable.

Remember: Media bias can present itself in print, but it also is part and parcel of the power to ignore. These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along. Move along.

Enjoy.

Amazing Spider-Man #3: Dan Slott can’t decide if title should be serious or campy

November 4, 2015November 5, 2015by Douglas Ernst15 Comments

Marvel’s The Amazing Spider-Man and Invincible Iron Man now have three issues in circulation. Dan Slott and Brian Michael Bendis each offer a glimpse into the life of tech moguls, corporate espionage, terrorist organizations, and — most importantly — the heroic men who must navigate the playing field. Just as Peter is out of his element as the CEO of a major corporation, Mr. Slott seems uncomfortable with the kind of story he is writing.

Before getting to some getting into details as to why, exactly, this story seems primed to disappoint, we must first ask the question: Why does Peter Parker keeping responding to blatant insubordination with an impotent line or two about needing to “talk”?

Sajani actively tried to destroy Peter’s vision for the company and got a five-second “talk.” Clayton Cole (aka former criminal Clash) disobeyed him and the response was “It’s okay. … But we will talk about this.”

The situation’s strangeness is compounded because, on some level, Mr. Cole has a point — Spider-Man and The Human Torch were seemingly destroying Parker Industries just to blow off frustration. The “fight” is stopped at one point so Peter can take a call from S.H.E.I.L.D., and then resumed like Rocky Balboa entertaining Apollo Creed’s “favor” fight at the end of Rocky III.

Does The Amazing Spider-Man want to take itself seriously, or does it want to treat its subject matter as something a bit more farcical? Dan Slott doesn’t seem to know, and the result is a disjointed tone.

Consider yet again the difference between Invincible Iron Man and ASM. Everything that is revealed in Bendis’ book appears to be there for a very specific reason. With ASM, it seems as though Mr. Slott just keeps giving Peter more widgets and gadgets and technology for nothing more than a “Wouldn’t it be cool if Peter had Batman’s toys?!” mentality.

One gets the feeling that Bendis actually does legwork into corporate titans and terrorist networks. Mr. Slott seems to rely on preconceived notions about what those worlds might be like based on cursory knowledge obtained through network news.

ASM3 Spider Skimmer — In my last review I mentioned that it was only a matter of time before Dan Slott gave Peter Parker Elon Musk-like Spider-Rockets. We now have a “Spider-Skimmer.” How far down the campy hole will Dan Slott go? Only he knows.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to this story arc’s success is its main foil: The Zodiac. The characters look and act goofy, yet all indications point to revealing the terror network’s plans over many months. That is a lot of creative real estate. Will it be worth it? ASM has a track record of over-promising and under-delivering; The Zodiac does not inspire confidence anything is destined to change.

The issue ends with Peter, Johnny, and Harry ‘Lyman’ (Yes, a former Green Goblin employed by Parker Industries — but wasn’t he running a coffee shop not long ago?), talking about family, friends, and “fourth” chances. Readers can’t help but think of the repeated chances they have given Marvel with its ASM relaunches.

Editor’s note: I will be reviewing the third issue of “Invincible Iron Man” by Sunday.

Dan Slott: Peter Parker’s love for Mary Jane is ‘anti-Marvel’

October 21, 2015August 19, 2016by Douglas Ernst41 Comments

One of the common complaints about Marvel writer Dan Slott is that he fundamentally misunderstands the character Peter Parker. While there is plenty of evidence from his run on The Amazing Spider-Man to make such a case, I have found the best way to illustrate this is to simply quote the man.

An incredibly telling moment from Florida Supercon went under the radar roughly eight months ago. Mr. Slott said Dr. Octopus is actually better at appreciating real beauty than Peter Parker — and that Parker’s love for Mary Jane is “anti-Marvel.”

“Ann is beautiful. When you think of Peter Parker, I wanted to have this big change in the life of what makes Otto different from Peter. And when you read all the Otto Octavius stories of his background, of his growing up, of who he was — and even as Dock Ock — all the women he falls in love with, he sees them for who they are inside.

Look at Stunner. Look at all these, like, nerdy girls he was dating as Otto. I think that’s something Otto does something better than Peter. He sees people who are truly beautiful and loves them for that.

And you look at everyone Peter has fallen in love with, and every single one of them is superficially beautiful on the outside. And the reason for that is they’re all created by John Romita Sr., who drew everyone woman beautiful.

What guy wouldn’t fall for Gwen Stacy or Mary Jane? Or even if he falls in love with like a Deb Whitman, yeah, she’s the girl with glasses, but she’s the girl with glasses who can suddenly take off her glasses and whip out the hair.

Everyone Peter falls in love with is so classically beautiful, and to me that is anti-Marvel.

To me, the Marvel Universe is not about perfect people. To me the Marvel Universe — the thing that makes it so much better than any other superhero universe — is the Marvel Universe is the book about people with feet of clay.

When I read DC Comics, my favorite DC characters that I love the most are the most f***ed-up ones.

In Dan Slott’s world, there is something unacceptable with Peter Parker falling in love with a beautiful woman — but it’s perfectly okay if he falls into lust with Silk (Cindy Moon), due to Slott-created spider-pheromones.

Why is Anna Maria Marconi considered “truly” beautiful by Dan Slott, but Mary Jane is not? It has been established that MJ’s beauty is not just skin-deep, so what is the problem?

Only if Peter Parker was a shallow man who married an equally-shallow party-girl would there be an issue — but that is not the case.

Here is Mr. Slott’s problem with Peter Parker:

When I read DC Comics, my favorite DC characters that I love the most are the most f***ed-up ones.

Peter Parker is a well-adjusted character, despite all of his trials and tribulations. He has guilt issues due to Uncle Ben’s and Gwen Stacy’s death, but in general he has always handled the challenges life throws at him with grace and dignity. He is not “f***ed-up,” which Mr. Slott indicates is a prerequisite for becoming one of his favorites. As a result, he must make up weird personality deficits for Peter Parker like Doctor Octopus being better at appreciating “true” beauty.

Dan Slott’s Peter Parker is now “very close” to Lian Tang. Is she not beautiful? Or is Peter just falling in lust again with a new Asian flavor-of-the-month?

Is it “anti-Marvel” for the character to fall in love with Gwen Stacy and MJ, but Marvel-certified to fall in lust with women of Japanese and Chinese heritage? We thought we were getting diversity, but perhaps we’re just getting the objectification of Asian women… Sad.

If you feel like Mr. Slott does not understand Peter Parker, then I suggest watching the Dan Slott Q&A Spotlight from Florida Supercon. The whole thing runs for an hour, but it will take less than five minutes to understand why The Amazing Spider-Man has been creatively spotty for years.

Update:

Dan Slott is playing the old “I was taken out of context” card. Classic. Ask yourself how he is taken out of context. He isn’t. Should I have transcribed the entire hour’s worth of dialogue — in addition to posting and linking to the YouTube video?

Mr. Slott’s definition of “out of context” is, “Someone accurately highlighted my words and now I look bad.”

Here is Dan, via Tweet longer:

The frustration of being in the public eye (even in a small pond) is everything you do or say gets scrutinized, pulled out of context, and twisted by those with an agenda. Oy.

In a video from a convention in January I talked about two or three different characters from the Spider-Man supporting cast being designed/drawn as being “superficially beautiful on the outside”. That was talking about the characters’ external appearance ONLY — and NOT about them being superficial on the inside as well.

Thanks for reading, Dan. If by “agenda” you mean, “honoring Peter Parker’s integrity,” then guilty as charged. Even if you were only talking about external features, what proof is there that Peter Parker could not appreciate Anna’s beauty?

Answer: There is none.

As always, I wish you the best.

UpdateII: Thanks to Hellz Yeah, Mr. and Mrs. Spider-Man for sharing my blog post. Thanks as well to Mary Jane Watson Tumblr. Good stuff.

(Photo: http://mrsspidermanmaryjanewatsonparker.tumblr.com/)

(Photo: http://maryjanewatson.tumblr.com/)

Dan Slott’s Renew Your Vows souffle falls flat; Regent, Sinister Stooges collapse tasty cake in 4th issue

August 20, 2015August 20, 2015by Douglas Ernst22 Comments

A souffle that falls flat in the oven is usually going to keep its good taste, but on many levels it is still considered a disappointment. Dan Slott’s 4th issue of The Amazing Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows is just like a souffle that begins to collapse before the oven timer rings. The main reason for this is Regent, who continues to weigh down the story.

Issue 4 of Renew Your Vows reveals that Mary Jane and Annie were shuttled away from danger by Mockingbird and The Prowler, who are working for S.H.I.E.L.D. Their escape was made possible by Jonathan Ohnn (aka: The Spot), who is also working for the organization.

Spider-Man, however, does not fare as well. He and S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Sandman are captured by Regent, who uses telekinesis to immobilize them.

“And no, little man. It’s not fair at all. It never is when you battle a god,” Regent replies to the accusation that he isn’t fighting fair. It is not long afterwards that the souffle begins to deflate.

“I am a good man, Peter. Before you die, I want you to know that,” Regent tells his captive. He then says that he needs Peter’s spider-sense to battle Doctor Doom, who has become a near-omnipotent god on Battleworld. Although Peter calls this “insane,” in all likelihood there isn’t going to be a plot twist to make Mr. Slott’s idea any better.

Perhaps the second most embarrassing thing about Renew Your Vows is the way the Sinister Six has, arguably, become the Sinister Stooges. Not only does angry-Pete dispose of them with ease, but now his daughter is able to literally take out Shocker, Kraven, and Boomerang with eye-pokes and crotch-shots. In the middle of a story about an Orwellian police state, readers abruptly get Slottian hi-jinks; Kraven says “Gnyah!” when he’s kicked in the testicles. Mr. Slott should have gone all the way and had Annie say “Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk!”

In short, Renew Your Vows is still the best thing that Dan Slott has written in awhile. Fans have more-or-less gotten what they wanted out of the tale (e.g., strong MJ, Peter acting like a man instead of a man-boy), and Slott’s worst instincts have mostly been corralled. The Renew Your Vows souffle may not be the prettiest thing in the world, but it is still worth $4.00 if you’re a fan of The Amazing Spider-Man.

Side note: I would be remiss if I didn’t say kudos to Mr. Slott for his use of The Spot in this issue. I first came across the character as a kid while reading my brother’s collection of Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man. Even though he wasn’t treated as a serious villain, his powers fascinated me. He always seemed like a character with untapped potential. It was nice to see Jonathan Ohnn appropriately used here.

Dan Slott’s paranoia hits new high: ASM screenshots now invalid if used on feared Douglas Ernst blog

July 4, 2015July 5, 2015by Douglas Ernst94 Comments

Marvel’s Dan Slott has taken his fear of this very blog to a whole new level. Criticism of The Amazing Spider-Man is now illegitimate if screenshots taken from this blog accompany said feedback. A reader pointed me to recent Comic Book Resources discussion where the writer expertly used his favorite red herring and “poison the well” fallacies.

A user commented:

What are people going to remember about “the best selling comic in 2012, 2013, or 2014”?

– Will it be SlOtto shooting an unarmed man in the face, while his peers and allies stood around drooling on themselves like idiots? (Because, you know, Spider-man always fought crime with guns and a lust for criminal execution like the Punisher, except for the 50 years of stories where didn’t, and there’s nothing weird about that).

– Will it be Peter running around in his web-diaper, in a literal on-panel representation of the painfully regressed man-child he’s become in the dumbed-down, lowest common denominator, post-One More Day comic continuity?

– Will it be Peter claiming “wow Sanjani is so right and I’m wrong” as (SlOtto’s) his company crumbles, and he has to be saved from a villian by the likes of Anna Maria and Clash (a character we’re supposed to care about since he was shoehorned into yet another unneeded reinterpreting of Spider-man’s origin)?

– Will it be this glorious, gag-inducing panel?

Dan Slott’s response:

HA! Look at that link! You pulled that image from “dougernst.files.wordpress.com” Wow! You went all the way to crazy town for that one. You chew over your Spidey-bile with Mr. I-Think-Spider-Man-Should-Kill-North-Koreans? Seriously… wow. Your posts make SO much more sense now.

I thought I was talking to a potentially reasonable person… but if that’s where you dredge up your “intellectual ammo” …you’re a lost cause. Sorry. But good day, sir.

The commenter handled Mr. Slott like a true professional.

No idea what you’re on about here, man, unless you’re trying to get this thread flagged by the NSA. But way to dodge. YOU wrote the panel, so you must find nothing icky / silly / ridiculous about Peter and Silk addressing each other and lolling around together like an old married couple. But it’s all just another day in the silly Slott-Verse for us and Spidey.

See, I’m discussing content, where you keep dissembling and trying to spin off the topic, so much so that Mets could freely thread drift your posts.

Dan. Slott. Nailed. To. The. Wall.

Let us speak of intellectual ammunition, shall we? Dan Slott was blasted away by this young man with an intellectual .50 Caliber Machine Gun. As bits and pieces of Dan’s fragile ego exploded off his psyche, he looked for anything that might save him and found some cover just in time — a link to douglasernstblog.com. Dan Slott’s go-to survival technique when faced with punishing critiques is to bring up this blog and then distort things I said — in 2012.

Here is where it gets fun. Consider Dan Slott’s retort to this young man: “If that’s where you dredge up your ‘intellectual ammo’ …you’re a lost cause.”

Let us pretend this individual did get his intellectual ammunition here. If that is the case, then it is obvious that he is using the kind of nuclear weapons from 2012 that are still reverberating in Dan Slott’s mind three years after detonation. The shock waves from what I’ve said continue to bounce around in Slott’s skull for years, and yet he still strangely attempts to convince others that my reviews of his work are without merit.

I wrote a post in 2012 where I said it was ridiculous that Dan Slott’s Peter Parker would be faced with a possible extinction-level event and — when every single second could mean the death of six billion people — he thought it was a wise decision to berate his teammates about the sanctity of North Korea’s gulag overseers. While billions of lives hung in the balance and time was of the essence, Dan Slott’s Peter Parker decided to harangue Black Widow over how she navigated an army of North Korean torturers. Kudos!

Years later, Marvel’s ASM scribe is still so emotionally scarred by the drubbing he gets here that he has to frame the debate as if I want Peter Parker to snap the necks of emaciated North Korean women living in rural villages outside Pyongyang. Perhaps if Dan Slott actually read comics like Guy Delisle’s “Pyongyang,” (It’s a good bet that he probably isn’t going to make time for books like “Escape from Camp 14”), then he’d know just how foolish he comes across on CBR message boards.

Exit question: If I showed up to defend myself over at CBR and I did so tactfully, then how long would it take before Dan Slott’s moderator buddies banned me anyway?

Wired’s Angela Watercutter bashes Tom Holland as Peter Parker — because he’s white

June 23, 2015June 24, 2015by Douglas Ernst28 Comments

Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios announced this afternoon that actor Tom Holland would be the next actor to play Spider-Man on the big screen. Wired’s Angel Watercutter was ready within hours to bash the decision because…he’s white.

Ms. Watercutter said Tuesday for her piece ‘Your New Spider-Man Is a…Fresh-Faced White Dude. Great’:

When Marvel and Sony announced Spider-Man’s inclusion in the Marvel Cinematic Universe earlier this year, fans got excited that we could see a fresh take on the character, rather than just another fresh-faced white dude. (No offense to fresh-faced white dudes.) In particular, the studio had a chance to shift gears and make the new cinematic Spider-Man not Peter Parker, but Miles Morales—the half-black, half-Latino teenager who wears the Spidey suit in the Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man. The prospect of that was virtually nil (though Morales is taking over as the web-slinger in the comics), but there was still a shot that Peter Parker could be re-imagined.

As for Watts, he’s the latest in a series of young and relatively unknown directors to take on a Marvel property. Sure, Joss Whedon and Kenneth Branagh are big deals, but folks like Thor: The Dark World’s Alan Taylor or Joe and Anthony Russo, who will likely direct Holland in his Parker introduction in Captain America: Civil War, were mostly TV directors before joining Marvel. Those directors have all done good work in the MCU, and there’s no reason to believe Watts won’t as well, but if you were expecting this new Spider-Man flick to be directed by a big-name director (or a woman, or a non-white person), that’s not going to happen this time around.

Just as Brian Michael Bendis believes that white superheroes cannot be for “everybody,” Ms. Watercutter seems to define “fresh take” as “anything but a white guy playing a character who has been white since his inception.” And by “fans” who were excited, she really means “fans who subscribe to Angela Watercutter’s race-obsessed worldview.”

Ms. Watercolor is so obsessed with race that she even laments that the next Spider-Man movie is being directed by a white man. How sad is it when a woman can’t look at anything unless she’s wearing a racial View-Master while simultaneously taking on the role of racial bean counter. “Are there too many white people in this story? Why are there so many white people? Is this justified? If I think it’s justified, then is it truly justified — or is that just my white privilege talking? Raceraceraceraceracerace!”

If you think this is an isolated mindset, then think again. It was only a few months ago that Dan Slott weirdly started referencing Jim Crow laws when fans said that Peter Parker should remain white for his cinematic appearances. It was just days ago that Gawker’s Sam Biddle said “Spider-Man is a fucking dork” because he is a straight white male who does not do drugs or have sex as a high school teenager.

The ideal Peter Parker for Wired and Gawker writers is apparently a popular gay black woman who does copious amounts of drugs while engaging in teen orgies. Classic.

Maybe instead of being bitten by a radioactive spider, Peter (or was it Pam?) could snort an arachnid up her nose like a line of cocaine. Maybe that would take away the “fucking dork” status. (If you write for Gawker, then you have to swear because that somehow makes your arguments more valid.)

The one bright spot in all of this is that Stan Lee is speaking up.

Newsarama reported June 22:

“I wouldn’t mind, if Peter Parker had originally been black, a Latino, an Indian or anything else, that he stay that way. But we originally made him white. I don’t see any reason to change that. …

I think the world has a place for gay superheroes, certainly. But again, I don’t see any reason to change the sexual proclivities of a character once they’ve already been established. I have no problem with creating new, homosexual superheroes. It has nothing to do with being anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-Latino, or anything like that. Latino characters should stay Latino. The Black Panther should certainly not be Swiss. I just see no reason to change that which has already been established when it’s so easy to add new characters. I say create new characters the way you want to. Hell, I’ll do it myself.”

But hey, what does Stan Lee know? Until he’s a gay black heroin addict his authority on all things Peter Parker is pretty much zero.

Nick Lowe tries out Marvel’s ‘permission to leave’ business model

April 5, 2015April 7, 2015by Douglas Ernst34 Comments

Marvel Senior Editor Nick Lowe is the type of guy who dresses up as the pope on Halloween because he’s scared to death of what would happen if he pranced around the office as an imam or Mohammed. Marvel Senior Editor Nick Lowe is the type of guy who dresses as the pope for Halloween because Dan Slott would probably not find it funny to see his editor mock Orthodox Jew rabbis on Halloween. Marvel Senior Editor Nick Lowe is also the kind of guy who needlessly burns bridges with loyal Marvel customers in the Letters to the Editor section of The Amazing Spider-Man.

It’s no secret that Marvel has run its Letters to the Editor section like something out of the Kim Jong-un School of Journalism for quite some time. Issue #17 of The Amazing Spider-Man continues that trend, although 1 out of 9 letters actually provides a critique of Dan Slott’s work.

Here is an excerpt from a letter sent in by Ryan Knight of New Port Richey, Florida:

Can you please offer your readers some kind of idea when Dan will be off the book? He’s written more Spider-Man than anyone with the exception of Stan Lee … and Brian Michael Bendis. I understand that his work is accessible for many casual readers with little to no frame of reference, but even many of his strongest supporters believed he should have left when Superior ended. …

I am sick of Marvel “Events” and so-called story arcs (look up the word story arc in the dictionary. You Marvel folks will see it’s different froma multi-part look at the Tablet Arc in Stan Lee’s run or the Jackal Arc in Conway’s if you want a clue.) screaming for attention, it just betrays how corrupt and lame some corners of the universe are. …

How often do we get one-issue stories? Two-parters? Character studies? Slice of life? Of yeah, Slott is a self-confessed plotter by nature. Howard Mackie’s run is downright readable in comparison to most of Slott’s work. History won’t remember the BND/Big Time/Superior/Relaunch era fondly at all.

Mr. Knight is not too happy with the current direction of the book. However, it’s obvious that he’s been reading Spider-Man for years. He’s a loyal Marvel customer. He has stuck through the book through thick and thin. Say what you want about the tone of his email, but he’s clearly sunk loads of cash into Marvel, and by extension Nick Lowe’s and Dan Slott’s bank accounts.

One would think that Mr. Lowe would be grateful for such customer loyalty and, even in the face of hard-nosed criticism, respond in a professional manner. Mr. I-dress-up-as-the-pope-because-I’m-scared-to-dress-up-as-Mohammed Lowe chose the “We don’t need you” route instead.

Nick Lowe responded:

Hi, Ryan. Sorry you don’t like Dan’s run, but you certainly seem to know it very well. If you’re a Gerry Conway fan, definitely pick up Amazing Spider-Man #16.1, on sale now. It’s the first part of a five-parter (sorry). Pains me that you’re so unhappy, so take this as permission to leave the book behind. I’m a big fan of Dan’s work and won’t be replacing him any time soon, providing we’re still publishing Spider-Man after Secret Wars.

In the mind of Nick Lowe, Marvel’s faux pope, it is a mortal sin to question the direction of The Amazing Spider-Man, even if you’re someone who has been religiously buying the book for decades. Question Dan “deus ex machina” Slott’s work, and you must be excommunicated from the Church of Marvel.

If you’re like me, then you long ago realized that Marvel decided on a business model that involves needlessly lashing out at paying customers. If you’re like me, then perhaps you’ve become much more discerning in which books you buy each month — if any — from the company.

The next time you see Nick Lowe at a Comic Con, ask him when he’s going to be Mohammed for Halloween, and then let him know what you think about Marvel’s “permission to leave” business model.

Hi, My name is Nick Lowe. I think it's a good idea to tell loyal Marvel customers to take a hike when they disagree with the direction of a book. I also dress up as the pope as a joke on Halloween because I know Catholics turn the other cheek. Dressing up as an imam or Mohammed as a joke would actually require me to display courage, so I won't do that. — Hi, My name is Nick Lowe. I think it’s a good idea to tell loyal Marvel customers to take a hike when they disagree with the direction of a book. I also dress up as the pope on Halloween because I know Catholics turn the other cheek. Dressing up as an imam or Mohammed as a joke would actually require me to display courage, so I won’t do that.

Dan Slott: I write Peter Parker like a blockhead because Charlie Brown never kicked the football

March 20, 2015March 21, 2015by Douglas Ernst27 Comments

Marvel’s “Renew Your Vows” is just around the corner, which means Dan Slott has been making the rounds to preemptively defend the weird editorial mandates Marvel will soon shove down readers’ throats. Think of it like the “medicine” Tom Brevoort is fond of telling fans they need.

Flashback: “The medicine may not taste good, but if it makes you feel better, then you need to take it.”

In its lead-up to questions with The Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott, here’s what Entertainment Weekly said March 16 about Marvel’s past attempts to administer fans their “medicine.”

While there isn’t much of a way to objectively measure these things, the dissolution of the Spider-marriage in 2007’s One More Day is easily one of the most widely disparaged story decisions for the character in recent memory. (The “death” of Peter Parker leading up to Superior Spider-Man may have come close, but a lot of people have come around on that front. Not nearly as many have said, “Hey, the Parkers selling their marriage to the devil to save Aunt May was actually great.”)

Entertainment Weekly writer Joshua Rivera (perhaps best known for not understanding why self-censorship is a bad thing for the industry), gently alluded to the possibility that Marvel would once again screw things up with “Renew Your Vows.” Dan Slott’s reaction: talk about Charles M. Schulz denying Charlie Brown the opportunity to kick the football out of Lucy’s hands.

Mr. Slott said:

“With any story where you give people what they want—there’s a difference, as a storyteller, between what your readers want and what your readers need. In a good Peanuts story, you want Charlie Brown to kick that football. But if Charlie Brown kicks the football, it’s over!” says Slott. “All the best stories in serialized fiction–it’s always about teasing the greatest wishes and wants, but monkey-pawing it. Always giving you what you want, but not the way you want it.”

The Marvel writer was so proud of his false analogy that he even started using it on Twitter:

How bizarre is it that Dan Slott willingly casts himself as the comic industry’s Lucy Van Pelt and then wonders why fans often want to verbally kick him around like a football? Regardless, like Mr. Brevoort’s “medicine” comment, the hubris of the modern comic book creator is on full display. Tom Brevoort knows what medicine you “need” to take. Dan Slott knows what you “need” — and it’s not what you want.

Dan Slott seems to really believe he is comparing apples to apples when he compares a static character who never ages with one who is much more dynamic. In one instance there is Charlie Brown — the sole property of Charles M. Schulz — who is inspired by the artist’s childhood. In the other instance there is Peter Parker, a character who was created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, but in no way meant to be trapped in his own hell-ish editorial version of Groundhog Day.

Why is it “over” if Charlie Brown kicks the ball? It’s not. It’s only over if your point all along was to convey some strange message about how women are duplicitous jerks who send good men reeling when they are trusted.

Is Dan Slott saying that Peter Parker’s “Lucy and the football” situation is marriage to a strong woman like MJ? What does Dan Slott have against writing a married version of Peter Parker? Just as it’s totally legitimate to ask what the heck Charles M. Shulz was thinking by never allowing Charlie Brown to kick the football, it is also quite valid to wonder why so many writers and editors at Marvel are uncomfortable with a marriage between Peter and MJ.

If Dan Slott really believes that his job as a writer is to be the best “monkey-pawer” in the business — and I have no reason to doubt that he is sincere when he makes that case — then it should be abundantly clear why the relaunch of The Amazing Spider-Man has been an embarrassment in terms of Peter Parker’s characterization.

Dan Slott is great at telling naked Spider-Ham jokes and he is great at treating Peter Parker like Charlie Brown trying to kick at the old pigskin, but he is not great at characterization. If you plan on buying “Renew Your Vows,” then you should take the writer at his word when he says that his job is not to give the fans what they want.