Tag: Doctor Octopus

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/)

Renew Your Vows No. 3: Dan Slott’s tale of darker Spider-Man hamstrung by lame villain Regent

August 5, 2015August 6, 2015by Douglas Ernst15 Comments

Issue No. 3 of The Amazing Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows is out, and fans get another dose of Peter Parker doing anything to protect his family. Writer Dan Slott’s “No one dies” philosophy for Mr. Parker has been replaced with “No one dies — unless you threaten my wife and kid,” which gives readers plenty to talk about. Just like issue number two, the writer does a decent job exploring the Parker family’s attempt to survive in an Orwellian nightmare. It’s a shame that its lame main villain, Regent, continues to drag down the quality of the tale.
There is something incredibly satisfying about seeing a part of the enforcement arm (no pun intended) of a totalitarian police state getting ripped to shreds by a true hero. Unfortunately, the reaction by characters like Doctor Octopus to Spider-Man’s no-joking demeanor — only moments after telling the hero that he and his family would die a gruesome death — comes across as too comical.

If a man’s stock-in-trade is to hunt down and murder entire families, then he can’t be surprised when the head of the household — yes, even Spider-Man — counters deadly force with commensurate power.

Would it be logical for Doctor Octopus to be taken aback by Spider-Man’s sudden willingness to use deadly force? In a world where state-run televisions turn off and on like something out of George Orwell’s “1984,” no. In a world where superheroes (and their children) are summarily hunted down and executed, no. In a world where Spider-Man lived after the entire Avengers team, Professor X, and The Hulk fell to Regent with seemingly little effort, no. Regardless, in this instance Dan Slott can be forgiven if his handling of Doc Ock’s response to “dark” Peter was a bit clumsy.

For those who didn’t get the message earlier in the book, Mr. Slott hammers it home in the final pages when Spider-Man webs an activated pumpkin bomb to Hobgoblin’s hand. “BWHOO” translated into writer-speak for this issue of Renew Your Vows is “If you mess with Peter Parker’s family, then there is a good chance that you will die.”

It is unfortunate that Regent is such a generic villain. Readers are left in a weird state of cognitive dissonance because on one hand the character is tied to a story that shows Peter and MJ at their best, but on the other he is a creative millstone around the neck of writer Dan Slott.

If Regent is another man’s creation that Mr. Slott has been forced to use, then I feel bad for him. If Regent is Dan Slott’s creation, then he shouldn’t complain when digital tomatoes are thrown his way for months to come.

In short, Renew Your Vows continues to be a story worth reading if you are a fan of Peter Parker. It has its flaws, but it’s better than 95 percent of what Dan Slott churned out for the entire relaunch of The Amazing Spider-Man in 2014.

Dan Slott’s feckless Peter Parker needs Doctor Octopus to inspire Uncle Ben: Spider-Verse Part 5

January 21, 2015January 22, 2015by Douglas Ernst37 Comments

Part 5 of Spider-Verse is out, and Dan Slott has reminded Peter Parker fans once again just how much he must truly despise the character.

Only in a Spider-Man comic written by Dan Slott will you see Peter Parker intellectually flail about as he attempts to inspire an alternate universe Uncle Ben into battle. Only in a Spider-Man comic written by Dan Slott will Uncle Ben receive the shot in the arm he needs to realize greatness — from Doctor Octopus. And only in a Spider-Man comic written by Dan Slott will his feckless Peter Parker then have the temerity to say “I’m running the show.”

Long story short, thanks to Dan Slott’s deus ex machina from Spider-Verse Part 4 (i.e., Master Weaver’s scrolls) and the sheer coincidence that a member of the team can read spider-totem hieroglyphics (Anya Corazon says it’s a “long story” — probably the kind that you can find out if you shell out another $4.00 for one of the ancillary books), the stage is set for everyone to head to Loomworld for a final showdown with The Inheritors. The entire cast is ready to go except Uncle Spider-Ben, who gave up the webs when “The Emerald Elf” killed his wife and nephew.

Peter’s response is to plead with Ben to put the suit on “one more time” — and he is rejected. Uncle Ben says, “No. A man with great power is still just a man. And men…men have feet of clay. They make mistakes. Great mistakes at great costs. I…I can’t fail again.”

Otto then steps up to the plate, and his response is to call Ben out for acting, ironically, like a mealy-mouthed Peter Parker written by Dan Slott.

“You’re pathetic, old man! … You’re afraid to fail again? Tough! I’ve lost more times than I’ve ever won, and every damn time I got back up. That’s all that matters! When victory is easy, it’s cheap. Every fight that’s ever been worth fighting has been against adversity! Against a so-called ‘unbeatable foe!’ But there is no such thing! Every enemy has a weakness! You just have to find it! Once! You just have to win one time! Say it!”

Ben is moved, agrees to say “One time,” and before long he is ready and willing to fight. Inexplicably, he thanks both Otto and Peter for the help, even though it was clearly Otto who roused him from his cowardly stupor.

Peter’s response to Doctor Octopus’ speech: “I don’t believe it.”

Fans of Peter Parker don’t believe it, either. That’s because any other writer of The Amazing Spider-Man would not have allowed Doctor Octopus to steal Peter Parker’s one chance to inspire Uncle Ben — even an alternate universe version of the man — to greatness.

Even worse, the whole ordeal only reminds fans that Doctor Octopus is performing an inverse-Winston Churchill; Doc Ock’s many failures weren’t rooted in a desire to save humanity, but to commit world-wide genocide on levels that surpassed “Pol Pot, Hitler, and Genghis Khan combined.”

Yes, Doctor Octopus failed many times — at killing Peter Parker for good. Unfortunately, writers like Dan Slott are doing more damage to Peter Parker than any super villain ever could.

At this point, if you’re a Peter Parker fan, you can only sit back and wonder what Dan Slott’s coup de grace will be in terms of castrating your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man in his own book.

Dan Slott’s Spider-Gump: Peter Parker is like a box of chocolates — you never know what you’re going to get

December 12, 2014December 12, 2014by Douglas Ernst72 Comments

Spider-Verse Part 3 has arrived, and the showdown everyone has been waiting for has finally happened: Peter Parker vs. Doctor Octopus (aka: The Superior Spider-Man). With Olivier Copiel vivifying Dan Slott’s words, Amazing Spider-Man #11 is injected with energy and vibrancy it otherwise doesn’t quite deserve. The reason being is because its writer seems to have drawn inspiration for his version of Peter Parker by watching Forrest Gump on repeat in his bedroom. Dan Slott’s Peter Parker is like a box of chocolates — you never know what you’re going to get.

After 10 issues of Peter fumbling and bumbling around as a sideshow character in his own book, a switch has seemingly been flipped and he suddenly takes charge. It’s jarring, and the result is a sort of cognitive dissonance for readers who haven’t been happy with the status quo for some time. If you’re like me, then you’re left scratching your head at the inconsistency. If you’re like Andrew Roebuck from Spider-Man Crawlspace, then you have a more curious take.

Mr. Roebuck says of Spider-Verse Part 3:

“It seems to me that we finally have a reason for Slott writing our Peter Parker so incompetently these last few months. He needed it to feel important for him to step into his big boy pants and take charge of the situation. We needed to see Peter at his worst to appreciate him when he is finally back doing the things that we all knew the character capable of.”

If one were to hold tight to this premise, then he or she would have to believe Dan Slott wanted Peter Parker fans to drop roughly $50 over the past year on a lackluster to embarrassing version of their favorite character for the so-called payoff of issue #11. That is certainly one way to deal with the cognitive dissonance the book has generated, but one I don’t think will be of much comfort to the vast majority of Peter Parker fans.

What is more likely: that Dan Slott views Peter Parker as a kind of Andy Dufresne from The Shawshank Redemption, who he had to drag through a mile of human waste to attain glory, or that he’s writing a character that he doesn’t quite know how to handle?

Perhaps the most bizarre moment of Peter’s momentary return to form is his assertion: “Ock can’t imagine a world where he loses. One where I come back, reclaim that body, and win!”

Given that there are plenty of instances in Spider-Man history where Peter Parker handily defeats Otto, it seems a bit odd to say that the villain can’t imagine a world where he loses. He’s lost. Multiple times. Regardless, any one who read The Superior Spider-Man knows that Peter didn’t come back and “win” per se — Otto basically stepped aside.

All of this again raises the question: What happened to Peter? Was he dead? If so, then where was his soul? Did Otto just take control of Peter’s mind for a year, which would mean that Peter was the one doing all sorts of dastardly deeds while brainwashed? Is there a “downloaded” Otto somewhere in the recesses of Peter’s brain just waiting to get out? There never was any clear answer, which may be why Peter hasn’t really grappled with the enormity of the situation. The personalities of individuals who survive near-death experiences often undergo profound changes. The Superficial Spider-Man just swings around and occasionally mentions that he maybe-sorta-kinda-died.

The one diamond in the rough from The Amazing Spider-Man #11 comes when Peter and “Spider-Gwen” share a moment that could lead to some interesting stories down the road. As much as it pains me to say it, the smart move by Marvel would be to use each character’s shared experience as a spring board for a more serious relationship between the two of them. This particular Gwen knows exactly what Peter went through when he lost his first true love. Instead of having Peter Parker engage in stupid make-out sessions with Dan Slott’s creation Silk, it would be worth Marvel’s time to kick start something more serious between Peter and Gwen. Doing so would also open the possibility of a love triangle between Peter, the new Gwen, and Mary Jane. The Superficial Spider-Man could become The Substantive Spider-Man once again.

In short, Spider-Verse Part 3 was one of the few issues of The Amazing Spider-Man since its relaunch that was actually worth the $4.00 cover price. Unfortunately, Dan Slott’s Spider-Gump is still like a box of chocolates — you never know what you’re going to get.

Update:

Shortly after this blog post went live, Dan Slott blocked me on Twitter. This is my second time with such an honor. I'm assuming the first time he unblocked me so he could once again see my Twitter feed. I promise I'll continue blogging on The Amazing Spider-Man, Dan Slott. I know you'll keep reading. — Shortly after this blog post went live, Dan Slott blocked me on Twitter (even though I never followed him to begin with). This is my second time with such an honor. I’m assuming the first time he unblocked me so he could once again see my Twitter feed. I promise I’ll continue blogging on The Amazing Spider-Man, Dan Slott. I know you’ll keep reading.

Update II:

I have also been blocked by Tom Brevoort. Marvel's reaction to intelligent criticism it can't shoot down with petty name-calling is to do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears while screaming, "I can't hear you!" — I have also been blocked by Tom Brevoort. Marvel’s reaction to intelligent criticism it can’t shoot down with petty name-calling is to do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears while screaming, “I can’t hear you!”

Dan Slott: I treated Peter Parker like a ‘meat puppet,’ but ‘Learning to Crawl’ will respect his history

February 14, 2014February 14, 2014by Douglas Ernst67 Comments

Dan Slott has spoken to the Associated Press about the return of Peter Parker, and the news service has dutifully played its role as Marvel’s mouthpiece — the perfect interview for a guy who prefers Orwellian message boards for critics of his work. Strangely enough, the guy who gleefully treated Peter Parker like a “meat puppet” for over a year now wants to assure fans that as he messes with the character’s earliest history he will do so in a way that “lovingly respects” the canon.

The Associated Press reports:

Dan Slott, who has been writing Spider-Man for Marvel since 2008, said the new story not only pays homage to the first 1962 appearance of the Stan Lee and Steve Ditko-created character, but peels back more layers of what was going on in the first volume of the 700-issue “The Amazing Spider-Man,” which began in March 1963.

“When you’re looking at things in those issues, you’re going: ‘Wait a minute! How did this happen? How did he get this? Where did this come from? Why didn’t Aunt May ever wonder about that?'” he said.

The five-part story titled “Learning To Crawl” starts May 7 with “Amazing Spider-Man” 1.1 and concludes in September with issue 1.5. Slott is writing the interlude with art by Ramón Pérez. Artist Alex Ross has painted each of the story’s five covers. …

“You start looking at it closer and closer and you go, ‘There’s a story here that we’re not seeing,'” he said. “A very pivotal and crucial story that lovingly respects everything that went on but tells you more, so much more about Spider-Man and so much more about Peter Parker.”

Do you remember when Dan Slott’s Superior Spider-Frankenstein went exactly where critics said it would — “Nazi-like” torture, I believe Bleeding Cool called it? Do you remember when Dan Slott’s body-snatching rapist was confirmed in issue #22 of Superior Spider-Man, and the type of person who crawled out of the woodwork to defend it was of the “it’s not rape if the perpetrator doesn’t climax” persuasion?

“I’m wondering if all the Ock- is-a-rapist whiners ever even read the issue? It’s clear two pages later Otto is berating his minions for “interrupting him at the worst possible time” which implies the deed wasn’t completed.” — Rick

Marvel has itself a brand new fan base on its hands. I suppose these days they probably let guys get Spider-Man subscriptions behind prison bars, so what does it matter to them? (When sales are all you’re after, who cares if Mr. “the deed wasn’t completed” is touting the book.)

Over the past few years the “brain trust” at Marvel:

Destroyed Peter’s marriage.
Had the deal with the devil (for all intents and purposes) go down.
Had him treated like a meat puppet when a megalomaniac took over his body.
Lowered the IQ of the supporting cast by about 30 points in order to appease people who like their Spider-Man fresh off a quest to kill six billion people.

Now ask yourself: Do you really expect Dan Slott to “lovingly” respect Peter Parker’s past? If you need help answering, look to his Twitter feed:

“If you write serialized stories, it’s not your job to make the reader happy. Your job is to captivate & entertain them. You’re Scheherazade” — Dan Slott

Let’s run with that, shall we? If Dan Slott believes his job is not to “make people happy,” wouldn’t it stand to reason that his job is also not to make people angry? If so, why were his stories pitched as creative endeavors that would “get you angrier than you were after Spidey #700!”? He’s just fine with making long-time readers angry if it will fuel sales, but making them “happy”? What kind of fool does that?

Dan Slott and Marvel decided they would fuel sales by tapping into fan anger, which is rather sad.

In truth, Dan Slott has nothing in common with a character from ‘Arabian Nights.’ He’s much closer to Celia Gimenez:

Dan Slott’s work on Spider-Man is reminiscent of the woman who tried to restore a 19th-century fresco of Jesus and turned it into an abomination. The finished product isn’t popular because it is beautiful, but because it is so incredibly weird and bizarre.

Impressed? Dan Slott’s fresco will also include a new villain:

“He’s got his first villain who is his own age, someone that he’s inspired. … He’s a troubled teen hero fighting a troubled teen villain!” Slott said.

Let’s hope that Marvel can do better than “Freak” this time.

Dan Slott has shown that he only respects the history of Peter Parker that he likes, and furthermore his”loving” affection is for his interpretation of that history. Unfortunately, that interpretation is steeped in moral relativism.

If you are a betting man, I would not put money on “Learning To Crawl” to remotely come close to returning Peter Parker’s respectability.

Dan Slott’s Superior Spider-Man: Body-snatching rapist confirmed in issue 22

December 4, 2013September 18, 2015by Douglas Ernst78 Comments

In December of 2012 I examined what it would mean if Dan Slott’s body-snatching Spider-Man slept with Mary Jane under false pretenses. If I had a twin brother, pretended to be him in the dark, and slept with his groggy wife I would be a monster. Likewise, if Doctor Octopus — living a lie in Peter Parker’s body — sleeps with a woman, for all intents and purposes he is a rapist. These are uncomfortable truths, but truths we must face because this is the state of the comic book industry in 2013.

With Superior Spider-Man 22, Dan Slott’s creation goes full body-snatching rapist. Didn’t anyone ever tell Mr. Slott and Marvel’s editors never to go full-rapist? (i.e., They could have “merely” kept it to Doctor Octopus pleasuring himself — in Peter’s body — to thoughts of Mary Jane.)

Chris from Spider-Man Crawlspace reviews the issue:

[W]hile I have seen stories in which bad guys have used stolen bodies to get laid (the Buffy-Faith body swap is the example I can think of right now), I don’t think I’ve ever seen a romantic relationship in such a scenario unfold naturally over the long term quite like the relationship between “Peter” and Anna Maria. After months of development, that relationship reaches a new stage in this issue, as the art and dialogue strongly imply that the two began to have sex until they were interrupted by “Peter” being called to action as Spider-Man. Obviously, obtaining consent through deception makes Otto despicable. Earlier in this run, it seemed like practically every online discussion regarding Superior Spider-Man I came across was dominated by anxiety over whether Otto, impersonating Peter, would sleep with Mary Jane, and whether such an event would constitute rape. Curiously, I have not seen the same online fervor now that Otto has actually done this to someone. People in the comments section, can you help me figure out why that is?

Indeed, Chris. Asking: “Here, now? Are you sure?” and then having Anna Maria reply “Yes. I’m not wasting a moment either…” is more than a strong implication. Those two glowing jellyfish attempting to tangle themselves together in the background as Anna says “while we have the chance,” seem to seal the deal.

Sadly, there are readers who just don’t get it. “Hairychap” weighs in to answer Chris’ inquiry — and fails miserably:

“Sleeping with Anna isn’t taking advantage of a pre-existing relationship established by Peter, heck she never even meet Peter before he was Ock.”

It’s a good thing we don’t live in a world where real body-snatchers or telepaths exist because inevitably it would be populated with “Hairychaps”… Regardless, here are a few reasons for Chris why he hasn’t seen the online furor that was displayed at the start of Superior Spider-Man:

Readers have had nearly a year of experience with this “Superior” Spider-Man and aren’t shocked anymore. He blew off a guy’s face at point-blank range, the supporting characters act as if they’ve been lobotomized in order to keep the debacle going, and even Bleeding Cool was forced to call out Marvel on the “nazi-like” torture scene approved for the annual.
Dan Slott has admitted that he turned Peter Parker into a “meat puppet.” There really isn’t much else to say. At some point Mr. Slott (consciously or unconsciously) decided to come clean. Once a writer says that a character is being used as a “meat puppet,” there’s really nothing left for readers to expose. All they can do is reiterate how awful the editorial decisions on the book are.
Dan Slott makes weirdly veiled legal threats when people who give his work hard-nosed critiques, sends his Twitter followers to block people, and generally throws online tantrums where he proclaims that he’s “done” with the internet and message boards — before coming back hours later. One of my favorite Dan Slott memories is when I started talking about Superior Spider-Man at Comicvine and he decided it was the appropriate time to discuss my writings on … Trayvon Martin.
Remember Marvel’s Orwellian comments section, where tactful comments went down the Mighty Marvel Memory Holes when they hit a nerve? I do.
It’s the holiday season. People are spending time with their family, Christmas shopping and eating good food. Most websites see a dip in traffic this time of year. My guess is that the kind of people who understand the moral bankruptcy of Superior Spider-Man are also the kind of people who check out from online message boards during November-December.
Perhaps Crawlspace might have a problem replying to inquiries regarding its comments section? There is one person who would like to comment on the rape situation over at Crawlspace, but can’t — me. I used to be able to comment there, but on July 22 that stopped. Below is a screenshot of my email to the website. (In full disclosure, I haven’t checked since July since there wasn’t a response to my inquiry.)

Dear Sir,

I’ve been trying to post in your comments section, but have been unable to for some reason. I was wondering if there is a glitch in the system or if I’ve been banned for some sort of breach of etiquette I was unaware of (I haven’t used foul language or attacked other individuals in the comments section).

I tried to comment in both Firefox and Safari and neither of those worked. [Any] insight you can give me would be appreciated. I enjoy your podcasts and updates and would like to comment, if possible.

Best,

Doug

It’s interesting that I never received a reply.

Regardless, the reason why Chris sees less “anxiety” these days is because people are resigned to the fact that Dan Slott has done vast amounts of damage to the Spider-Man brand. They’re really just waiting for the day when a new creative team can come in and pick up the pieces.

How much lower can this title go? I’ll let you know in the months ahead.

Bleeding Cool calls out Dan Slott’s creation — a ‘Nazi-like’ Superior Spider-Man

November 22, 2013September 15, 2014by Douglas Ernst47 Comments

In May, I broke down for readers what, exactly, it would mean to have a megalomaniac body-snatching Spider-Man running around in Peter Parker’s body. Dan Slott’s creation, on the cusp of enacting a world-wide Holocaust, in which 6 billion lives were meant to perish, proclaimed he would be a “mass murderer worse than Pol Pot, Hitler, and Genghis Khan combined!” What followed was months of Dan Slott following me around the internet, haranguing me for using that line as a springboard for discussion, as well as using an actual image of the Holocaust in the process.

I asked: What is more offensive: Dan Slott’s indiscriminate use of incendiary names, or my reminder of the implications of his indiscriminate use of incendiary names? I never really received an answer. Is it too early to say “vindicated”?

Bleeding Cool calls out the Super Spider-Man’s “Nazi-like” nature, which is on display in the Annual Superior Spider-Man.

Because we have seen in the regular title, Spider-Man, now possessed fully by Doc Ock, trying to be a better man. He’s not trying to take over the world, he’s not trying to steal, he is trying to be a superhero. He is vicious, he makes different decisions, he has killed, but he saves people – both those close to him, and large numbers of strangers. His motives are positive, if warped by his previous nature.

In today’s Superior Spider-Man, the character goes a little further. Into full blown Nazi-like torture/experimentation on his victims. By ripping out teeth and fingernails…

How will Dan Slott react?

This is the “Spider-Man” Marvel gives readers in 2013.

This is Dan Slott’s creation. We reap what we sow.

There are moment’s in a man’s life where he says something that gives us a glimpse into his soul. Dan Slott’s Doctor Octopus — moments from wiping out humanity — did such a thing. Dan Slott put the words into his mouth. Now, even Bleeding Cool is acknowledging that a character who tortures his victims by pulling out their fingernails and teeth does, indeed, have quite a bit in common with the Nazis. Superior Spider-Man? More like Dan Slott’s Frankenstein. And no amount of feigned outrage by Dan Slott regarding the memories of his ancestors can change that.

Given one of the most iconic characters of all time, Dan Slott honors his ancestors by creating a “Spider-Man” who tortures his victims in the name of “science.” Telling.

Hat Tip: The Colossus of Rhodey

Dan Slott: I love Peter Parker so much I turned him into a ‘meat puppet’

October 13, 2013January 16, 2014by Douglas Ernst122 Comments

The New York Comic Con is on, which means that comic fans get to view internet photo galleries of beautiful Cosplay ladies dressed as Power Girl, and Peter Parker fans get to read Dan Slott interviews where he inadvertently telegraphs to the world what he really thinks of the character.

Caps-lock abusing Dan teased things to come for Superior Spider-Man this weekend, and his state of mind couldn’t be clearer. ‘The Superior Freaky Friday Spider-Man’ takes on the Green Goblin in the months ahead, but before they clash Dan Slott wanted to set the record straight for posterity: He is the guy whose editorial judgment was so sound he decided to let a megalomaniac use Peter Parker as a “meat puppet.”

From CBR News:

CBR: We know what the Green Goblin meant to Peter Parker, but what does he mean to Otto Octavius?

Dan Slott: I don’t want to give stuff away. You’ll have to wait and see, but one thing to keep in mind is Doc Ock killed Spider-Man, took his life, and carried on. So he’s had the ultimate victory over Spider-Man.

When you look at the rankings, I’m sorry but everything he’s done from the “Dying Wish” arc of “Amazing Spider-Man” on moves him up in the rankings. Norman Osborn is like, “Ha! I threw your girlfriend off a bridge.” And Dock Ock could reply, “You know what? I RIPPED HIS BRAIN OUT OF HIS SKULL, PUT MY MIND INSIDE, AND WORE HIM LIKE A MEAT PUPPET! TOP THAT!” [Laughs] So at some point you go, “You know, I think Doc Ock might just be the #1 Spider-Man villain of all time.” It’s like, “Suck it Goblin!”

Slow clap for Dan Slott. He is actually proud of allowing Peter Parker to be treated like a “meat puppet.” If you take to blogs, twitter and other comic forums to voice displeasure with his Peter Parker meat puppetry, he mocks you. Question for long time Peter Parker fans: Did you ever think things would reach this point?

How do you top that? In Dan Slott’s mind, one would assume that making Peter Parker into The Green Goblin might be an option. There are probably all sorts of dastardly things one could do to Aunt May that could “top” it, but do we really want to go there? Anti-heroes are still, on some level, supposed to be heroes, and if Dan Slott thinks Doc Ock can exist as one in Peter Parker’s body for such an extended period of time, what now constitutes a villain?

Read the full interview and you can’t help but notice that Mr. Slott seems to have concluded that if he can’t generate sales by uniting all Spider-Man fans (those who love Peter Parker and those who really just want to see someone in the costume swinging around the city with spider-powers), he’ll do so by creating events that a.) have far-reaching implications for the entire Marvel Universe, and b.) tormenting readers. People filled with anger and people filled with inspiration can be moved to action, but it is much easier to upset readers than to uplift them — hence, Superior Spider-Man.

Again, the question becomes: Where do you go from here? At some point in time Peter Parker will have to come back, and a poor writer will have to figure out a way to undo the damage. Dan Slott’s work on Spider-Man is reminiscent of the woman who tried to restore a 19th-century fresco of Jesus and turned it into an abomination. The finished product isn’t popular because it is beautiful, but because it is so incredibly weird and bizarre.

Dan Slott is the Celia Gimenez of the comic book industry, even if he doesn’t realize it yet.

NPR fresco — Dan Slott’s work on Spider-Man can be compared to the Spanish woman who took the 19th-century fresco of Jesus (Ecce Homo or Behold the Man) and turned it into something so strange people had to notice. How will anyone return the fresco to its original beauty? How will a writer return Peter Parker to his rightful place of glory in the Marvel Universe?

If you are a fan of Peter Parker, I high suggest taking to social media platforms to let your voice be heard. There are few comic book characters that can be considered American cultural icons, but Peter Parker is one of them. When the history books are recorded, it should be a mark of shame upon the creative team that allowed him to be treated like a “meat puppet.”

Dan Slott, absent a superior argument, now sics Twitter followers on critics

September 30, 2013October 28, 2014by Douglas Ernst125 Comments

Superior Spider-Man writer Dan Slott has a reputation for not taking criticism well. His online behavior is well known, but now that he has issued marching orders to his followers like Mole Man to his troops, I will calmly and coolly dismantle his online rant for posterity.

An online critic is trying to weasel out of the time he implied that I (a Jew) was adding an antiSemitic element to my book.

Actually, no, I’m not. I’ve always been right here. The problem is that Dan Slott has never commented on my blog, sent me a direct message or asked for my email address to discuss his grievance. Instead, he’s followed me around the Internet demanding that I talk to him to about a blog post I wrote in May titled: Is Dan Slott’s ‘Superior Spider-Man’ really a Superior anti-Semite?

In Dan Slott’s mind, analyzing a character who wanted to transcend Hitler, Pol Pot and Ghengis Khan in terms of evil perpetrated upon the world is the same thing as accusing or implying Dan Slott of being anti-Semetic (as if I knew or even cared about his heritage before he brought it up). Reasonable people can separate the two, but Dan Slott can’t. What Dan Slott doesn’t get — in some sense because moral relativism has warped his mind — is that it doesn’t matter what his intentions are if the end result is that a monster worse than Hitler is in Peter Parker’s body.

His first attempt today: Why was I still talking about it? It was “months ago.”

Seriously, why am I so upset that he took one word balloon out of context and built up an entire FALSE blog entry about it? In his mind It shouldn’t matter to me that he ran that REPREHENSIBLE piece and then punctuated his point with a picture of Jewish remains being removed from a concentration camp oven.

Dan Slott was the one who made Doc Ock say he wanted to transcend Hitler, Pol Pot and Khan — at the exact moment he was on the brink of causing an extinction-level event. Not me. That context is important. There are certain critical moments in history where a man says something that reveals his true character. Doctor Octopus did just that as six billion lives were on the cusp of experiencing the apocalypse, and I wrote about it. I’m sorry if Dan Slott doesn’t like it, or if deep down he knows I’m right.

C’mon. I should drop it. Even though the article is STILL up at his site and he has NEVER apologized for it.

Dan Slott’s demand for an apology is based on the false premise that I thought or wanted people to think he was an anti-Semite.

His latest attempt today: The title of his blog raised a QUESTION. It ended in a question mark. It didn’t say I was promoting antiSemitism in a comic book. It only ASKED if I was. Therefore… It’s okay. I mean, don’t we live in a society where anyone is free to broach ANY question?

I don’t think he understands what the word “implying” means.

Poor Dan, the title was posed as a question — and then I answered the question: “Otto didn’t want to kill millions of Jews — he “merely” wanted to kill six billion people, which would just so happen to include all the Jews. Silly me. The guy who “just” came within inches of an extinction level event because he hated all of humanity is now housed in Peter Parker’s body.”

Yes, it’s pretty clear to everyone but Dan Slott what I did. He just doesn’t like it, so instead he’ll follow me around the internet demanding that I apologize to him. He’ll make it personal by invoking his Jewish faith over and over, and when a moderator doesn’t like what he’s done Mr. Slott will sic his 39K Twitter followers on me.

That blog entry, with the one word balloon taken out of context, the bizarre semantic gymnastics he makes to posit his “question,” and the graphic photo of the remnants of people I share ancestry with being shoveled out of an oven in Dachau– was put together by this unscrupulous person for NO other reason than TO imply I had antiSemitic leanings.

Again, I never did that. “Semantic gymnastics” is Dan Slott’s euphemism for “writing that doesn’t lend itself to Dan Slott’s personal attacks.”

The point of the piece was to show that Dan Slott’s “anti-hero” is in fact a monster worse than Hitler, Pol Pot and Khan. Want proof he doesn’t get it? Dan Slott used a Newsarama interview to compare a character who almost wiped out the entire earth to … Hawkeye.

“At his core, he’s someone we don’t really think of as heroic. But is he any more annoying than [former villain] Hawkeye used to be?” (Dan Slott).

That is how steeped in moral relativism Dan Slott is.

He used Godwin’s Law, the laziest and most offensive “debate” tactic, to compare someone you don’t like to Hitler & the Nazis. Why? Because he’s upset over Spider-Man comic books. IT’S SHAMEFUL. And to try to semantically weasel out of it is DOUBLY SHAMEFUL.

What is more offensive: Dan Slott’s indiscriminate use of incendiary names or my reminder of the implications of his indiscriminate use of incendiary names?

Dan Slott drops the Hitler card in his comic book as a throwaway line, and then gets upset when someone doesn’t take it as a throwaway line. Dan Slott takes his Jewish ancestry seriously, and yet he just casually has Otto say he wants to transcend three of the most reviled men in history? Interesting…

If you follow my feed and wish to show support, please block @douglasernst. And please do not give his blog ANY hits.

If you follow @douglasernst and are offended by this entry, please let me know so I can block you. I don’t want anything to do with anyone who feels fine supporting a person who would do this, leave it up on his site for months– and worse– try to walk it off as nothing wrong.

The internet can be a wonderful tool for meeting people around the world and sharing thoughts and experiences with them. It can also be a way to spread hate and distortions.

Hate? Dan Slott has called me “a bad person” multiple times now. I generally reserve that term for people who abuse their children, rape women and murder people. You know … guys like Hitler. Dan Slott? His moral relativism allows him to put me in the “bad person” category with the rest of them because I wrote a blog post he disagrees with.

Using Dan Slott’s logic, I should go ballistic on all of my friends over the years who have made Catholic jokes. My faith is incredibly important to me, but yet I don’t go around calling people “bad” because they occasionally jabbed at a part of me that I hold dear. I deal with it like an adult. He should try it sometime.

One of my most prized possessions are antique clay pipes from Masada that my uncle, a rabbi, gave me for my Bar Mitzvah. I may not be a diligent or observant Jew as an adult, but I look at those pipes and it reminds me that for the grace of my ancestors overcoming great hardships and prejudices, neither I nor my family would be here today.

That’s touching, but it does nothing to change the fact that one of the most iconic superheroes ever is now a character who wanted to exterminate humanity.

The thought of someone trying to tarnish my reputation by DISTORTING one line of dialogue I’d written– and using it to portray me as someone who would promote antiSemitism SICKENS me. The fact that same person won’t own up to it– and worse– would try to rationalize it away– just fills me with sorrow that someone who could do that even exists. And when it’s all done to score internet-points over a comic book? That just makes it even more pathetic.

Sad? Dan Slott doesn’t realize that a comic book can be much more than a comic book. When I was a kid my brother let me read ‘Maus’ by Art Spiegelman. I suggest giving it a read right now if you’ve never heard of it. Mr. Spiegelman — unlike Dan Slott — would never have Doctor Octopus just casually mention Hitler in one line of dialogue. If Doctor Octopus was moments away from exterminating all of humanity and he uttered Hitler’s name, it would mean something. Every word would be there for a reason.

Dan Slott doesn’t feel sickness and sorrow because I’m wrong; he feels those things because the truth can cut deep. Every word is precious to a good writer, and “one line of dialogue” is never just “one line of dialogue.” It is not my fault that Mr. Slott chose to use Hitler’s name in such a careless and haphazard manner if his ancestry is that important to him.

I’m taking an internet break for a while and talking to real people– people I can look in the eye. Sorry for the long vent. Had to get that off my chest.

Cathartic, isn’t it Mr. Slott? It’s kind of like someone venting after a writer kills off one of the most culturally significant comic book characters of all time and replaces him with a megalomaniac.

Here's a screenshot of Dan's tweet to his 39K followers with his re-tweet of my blog entry (which has since been deleted). But here's the rub: the internet is forever. — Here’s a screenshot of Dan’s tweet to his 39K followers with his re-tweet of my blog entry, which has since been deleted. Here’s the rub: the internet is forever.

And finally:

Dan Slott, the guy who chases people around the internet demanding they apologize for ... an implication ... writes notes to himself that he should never apologize to anyone. Classic. — Dan Slott chases people around the internet, demanding they apologize to him for perceived slights, and never stops to think that maybe (just maybe) the notes he writes to himself are subconscious attempts to clue him in on some serious projection issues.

Now Dan’s fans are taking a cue from him, where they can attack me over at Comic Vine because they don’t want to come here. You’d think if a guy was going to go to all the trouble to Photoshop my name into a panel, then he’d at least spell my name correctly. ‘Doulas’? Seriously?

The poor guy couldn't even spell 'Douglas' in his little personal attack panel that he posted at Comic Vine. Sad. — The poor guy couldn’t even spell ‘Douglas’ in his little personal attack panel that he posted at Comic Vine. Sad.

Big Bang Theory delivers punishing blow to Superior Spider-Man; Dan Slott feigns delight

September 28, 2013September 30, 2013by Douglas Ernst49 Comments

Do the writers of The Big Bang Theory read this blog? If not, it appears as though we’re on the exact same wavelength when it comes to Dan Slott’s Superior Spider-Man.

Here is what I said on February 1st after Dan Slott stalked “The Main Event” and got intellectually body slammed:

“It was only a few weeks ago that Dan Slott thought long-time Spider-Man fans would be okay reading a rip-off of 2003′s “Freaky Friday” starring Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan — only with Spider-Man and Doctor Octopus. (Or was that 1988′s “Vice Versa” starring Judge Reinhold and Fred Savage?)“

Dan Slott’s general response to me over the course of Superior Spider-Man has been to call me an idiot multiple times while abusing the caps-lock button, to call me a “bad person,” and to try and link me with some guy I don’t even know who writes fan fiction Spider-Man porn.

Now, take the most recent episode of The Big Bang Theory:

Howard: What were they thinking putting Doctor Octopus’ mind in Peter Parker’s body?

Raj: I’ve been quite enjoying that. It combines all the superhero fun of Spider-Man with all the body-switching shenanigans of ‘Freaky Friday.’

Dan Slott’s reaction? Feigned joy.

Let me spell it out for Mr. Slott and everyone else who keeps saying “Raj likes the Superior Spider-Man”: The reality is that the writers just made a joke that cut deep — at Dan Slott’s expense.

When a character on a television says he loves Superior Spider-Man because it reminds him of the “shenanigans of ‘Freaky Friday,” it is the equivalent of a Little Mac power punch to Mike Tyson on the old school NES. Correction: a Little Mac power punch to Glass Joe.

Howard asks “What were they thinking?” and the response — accentuated by the laugh track — was that Marvel killed off Peter Parker for what is essentially a rehashed version of Freaky Friday. Congratulations. Freaky Friday grossed $110 million dollars, so using the ‘Slott Rule’ for success, we only have to wait a few more decades before people realize the genius of Lindsay Lohan’s portrayal of Anna Coleman.

As I’ve said before, I believe there is room in the Marvel Universe for Doctor Octopus to play the “Superior Freaky Friday Spider-Man.” I am not opposed to having a megalomaniac running around New York with spider-powers. I just think that executing Peter Parker (twice) so that Dan Slott could make Jamie Lee Octavius everyone’s favorite wall crawler was an error of monumental proportions.

Ask yourself this question, Spider-Man fans: Knowing what you know about how Dan Slott conducts himself on message boards, how would he respond if someone said that they hated Superior Spider-Man because it was little more than ‘Freaky Friday’ with Marvel characters? Now ask yourself why he took to Twitter to feign admiration for a joke told at his expense. Perhaps because it’s a little more dangerous to mock and ridicule the writers of The Big Bang Theory than it is to personally attack the average fan? Hmmm.

Thank you, writers of The Big Bang Theory, for delivering a KNOCK OUT blow to this abomination.

Update: Someone over at ComicVine shared my blog post. Dan Slott has decided that personal attacks and weird discussions on Trayvon Martain and Ben Shapiro would be appropriate instead of actually discussing Superior Spider-Man.

“Douglas Ernst was clearly in the wrong– and horribly offensive– in the WORST way a human being could possibly be. He has NEVER apologized for that BASELESS, DISGUSTING, and REPREHENSIBLE attack. He has stuck to his guns that he was in the right for doing this TERRIBLE and ATROCIOUS thing. Douglas Ernst is a bad person. Plain and simple. Why you people give him the time of day here I’ll never know,” (Dan Slott).

It’s good to know “All-Caps” Dan Slott dislikes me so much that he … reads my commentary on legal cases like the Trayvon Martin case.

Speaking of legal issues, Dan Slott is now making weirdly veiled legal threats in my direction. Dan Slott stifles debate? Who would ever get that idea?

“If someone, like you, who is in the habit of spreading gross falsehoods about me online, I am interested to see if any of them rise to the level of being liable and actionable,” (Dan Slott).

Side note: Here’s Slott’s tweet after (one would assume, given the timing) reading this post. All press is good press, right? Even if writers are mocking your product, who cares if the attention will bring in more sales. Sad.