Tag: Marvel

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.

Joe Quesada, giant hypocrite, plays dumb when confronted on other comic industry hypocrites

March 21, 2015April 1, 2023by Douglas Ernst43 Comments

Joe Quesada, Chief Creative Officer of Marvel Entertainment, took to Tumblr on Friday night to bemoan the way comic industry “professionals” are treated by fans. He played the world’s smallest violin for people like Steve Wacker, Dan Slott, Mark Waid, Erik Larsen, Gail Simone and countless others who say incredibly nasty things via their social media accounts. When confronted about his silence on the despicable behavior of his buddies, he chose to play dumb.

Here is what Mr. Quesada said Friday:

“It has never ceased to amaze me how some people, in defense of their favorite fictional characters or stories, treat creators and each other, flesh and blood people living actual lives with actual feelings and families, with such disrespect and cruelty as though they were two-dimensional, fictional villains who merely exist on a page or the imagination.”

A fan then called him out on the laughable attempt to play the victim.

Joe Quesada’s response: What you talkin’ about Willis?

I don’t know what inexcusable behavior you’re referring to, but I know that they all love this medium and the fans as well. I see them at conventions and online, they’re giving of their time, funny, even cheeky at times, even when provoked in horrible ways. But, I’ve never known them to behave inexcusably.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane just for Joe, shall we?

There was that time Dan Slott stalked and upset a random woman on Twitter.

And then there was that time when Dan Slott told Hobby Lobby supporters to go to “Christ-Land.”

Note: I’m pretty sure that if a group of mostly Jewish individuals won a court case and I told them to go to “Jew-Land,” Dan Slott would find that rather repugnant. The same goes for a request to go to “Muslim-Land” to a group of Muslims. But hey, Mr. Quesada has “never known” Dan Slott to behave inexcusably.

Moving on, we have Erik Larsen last year letting all his Christian fans know just what he thinks of their faith by posting an Easter bunny ejecting bloody eggs out of its butt, which then hatched different versions of Jesus. But again, Mr. Quesada has “never” known comic book industry “professionals” to behave inexcusably.

What about if you’re a conservative comic book fan? How do writers and artists comport themselves online, then? Since Mr. Quesada has “never” known creators to behave inexcusably, let’s see a snapshot of Mark Waid’s online behavior. Ah yes, he wants Republicans to go “f**k themselves.” How quaint.

Speaking of conservatives, how many conservatives work with Joe Quesada? I know he likes to talk about diversity, but I seem to have trouble finding one comic book writer employed at Marvel who is openly conservative. I guess ideological diversity doesn’t count.

I can go on and on, but since Mr. Quesada struggled to find comic book industry “professionals” acting inexcusably I’ll even add in an example from Gail Simone. Apparently it’s okay to start resorting to personal attacks against combat veterans if they disagree with Ms.Simone’s politics.

If I called Ms. Simone a “walnut-brained woolly mammoth” over a disagreement on politics or comics, I suppose Mr. Quesada would lecture me on how I need to treat her like “flesh and blood” with “actual feelings.” We all know that he won’t give that lecture to Ms. Simone, though — he agrees with her politics.

Here’s the bottom line: At Marvel, tolerance, tact and understanding are all part of a one-way street.

If you agree with them on politics or the creative direction of their books, then they’ll laugh and giggle and chortle along with you all day long. If you happen to think that young women who work the late shift at a hospital should be able to carry a handgun, then things start to change. If you think having Peter Parker make a deal with the devil goes against everything the character stands for, then it’s a different story. Steve Wacker and Dan Slott and Tom Brevoort and the whole Marvel crew can make smarmy, condescending cracks in your direction all day long, but if you’re a smart guy who has a few intellectual nuclear warheads in your back pocket, then suddenly you need to be concerned about “feelings” and “families.”

Joe Quesada is the guy who burns bridges and then berates fans for not making those bridges out of stronger material in the first place. Joe Quesada is the guy who eggs on his buddies to act like bullies, and then when fans give them a verbal beat-down he gives lectures on inflammatory rhetoric. The brown-nosing comic book and entertainment “journalists” who will do anything to cozy up to a few Marvel writers and artists may not call out inappropriate behavior, but bloggers will.

Keep playing dumb, Mr. Quesada. Keep going with the Arnold Jackson “What you talkin’ about Willis?” strategy. This isn’t 1990. The digital trail doesn’t go cold very quickly, and bloggers are always ready to chronicle your hypocrisy. If you want to know why you’re not treated with respect by countless fans — or why the comic book industry is a shadow of its former self — all you have to do is look in the mirror.

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.

Dan Slott’s Spider-Verse Epilogue: Wrap-up oddly more exciting than main story

February 25, 2015February 26, 2015by Douglas Ernst15 Comments

Dan Slott is an interesting guy — when he’s not trolling random women on Twitter or casting countless Peter Parker fans as racist rubes, he’s making the epilogue to his big Spider-Verse tale more exciting than the main story. In some weird way, the constraints imposed upon the writer by his epilogue — he had to wrap up countless loose ends and couldn’t engage in superfluous Spider-Ham jokes — forced him to put forth a tighter product. The result is, oddly enough, the most satisfying issue of The Amazing Spider-Man in months.

The good thing for Dan Slott with an epilogue like this is a.) there is no real need for characterization — readers are essentially told, “Hey, this is where are heroes ended up,” and b.) it provides the author with an easy opportunity in terms of providing fans with some “feel good” closure. With no defenders in his way, Dan Slott managed to sink a layup at the buzzer. He still lost the game…but at least he made his last shot.

With that said, Spider-Man fans might be disappointed when the thrill of seeing Peter Parker crack Doc Ock with a left hook wears off. As Peter Parker stands above Otto, the villain unmistakably telegraphs the vehicle that will carry him to revenge. Otto tells his hologram girlfriend “Now, Anna, as we discussed.” Was Peter Parker deaf, or did he just shrug his shoulders and say “What was that was all about? Eh, probably nothing.”

Another bizarre instance occurs when Karn reveals that the nuclear wasteland the Inheritors have been imprisoned on “fortunately” has a bunker “teeming” with spiders. What are the chances? It’s almost like Master Weaver giving the heroes a scroll with “everything” they need to succeed, or Silk conveniently teleporting to the planet and finding the bunker to begin with. Dan Slott’s Peter Parker is big on the “no one dies” mantra, but he’s apparently okay with the “shut you in a bunker and force you to live on spiders for all eternity,” verdict as well. Under normal circumstances such a panel could be laughed off, but since the writer has invested so much in “no one dies” during his tenure, it should not be ignored.

If you’ve purchased the rest of Spider-Verse and were thinking about skipping the epilogue, then you may want to reconsider. Dan Slott may have oversold the book when he promised “Big Things” (shocker, I know), but it’s still one of his better efforts in quite some time. If nothing else, Spider-Verse: Epilogue shows that Marvel might get tighter stories out of its scribe if it puts more constraints on him.

Dan Slott: Spider-Man writer slimes countless Peter Parker fans as racist

February 22, 2015September 2, 2016by Douglas Ernst82 Comments

Spider-Man scribe Dan Slott took a break from bullying random women on Twitter this week to demonstrate a new an improved way of showing how clownish and immature he could be — he painted anyone who thinks “Peter Parker is a white character who believes ‘With great power comes great responsibility,'” as racist.

Yes, that’s right, in Dan Slott’s world, if you describe the white character you’ve read for decades as “white” when someone asks you, then you “don’t get” him.

This is the man who is Marvel’s ambassador to Spider-Man fans. This is the man who, ideally, would unite Peter Parker fans of all ages. This is the man whose argument (by his own admission) boils down to: “Would you go up to a [non-white child] and say ‘You can’t be Spider-Man’?”

Notice what Dan Slott has done — he conflates the idea of a “Spider-Man” with the character millions of people around the world recognize as Peter Parker.

When Dan Slott started this weird conversation Feb. 12, I put it this way:

I understand that it is the essence of a man that is important (e.g., “The Phantom” lives forever as different men who embody his noble spirit), but once you essentially start going down the, “Let’s just arbitrarily make Peter Parker black tomorrow and if you get annoyed, then you’re a racist” road, then that’s where you’ve lost me.

Marvel successfully pulled that off with Nick Fury. That makes sense because he was never a figure with national/world-wide recognition. It’s a different thing when basically the entire world has a vision of what “Peter Parker” looks like and guys like Dan Slott start screwing with it.

It would be like if Nintendo suddenly made Mario and Luigi black and said, “What? What? There are black Italians. What are you, racist?” to people who started rolling their eyes.

Well, no. I’m not racist, Nintendo executives, but I think you’re just taking the racial sensitivity thing to an absurd level.

If someone asked me to describe Blade, one of my “thousand” adjectives used to describe him would be “black.” The same goes for James Rhodes. Or “Robbie” Robertson. Or any number of black characters. But perhaps in Dan Slott’s world, Marvel fans are allowed to describe long-established black characters as black and that doesn’t have an effect of their understanding of the character.

As I said Feb. 14 in the comments section of a previous post (I was hoping Mr Slott wouldn’t continue to belabor this conversation and prompt me to expand it into a full-blown blog post):

I’m not sure if Dan Slott is just a giant troll, or a complete doofus. He starts a conversation that he knows is going to annoy people by insinuating that maybe it might be a good decision to arbitrarily make Peter Parker black or Hispanic or Asian — when generations of people associate Peter Parker with a very specific look — and then he acts incredulous when people start talking about doing the exact same thing to other characters.

If Charles M. Schulz were still alive and he randomly changed Snoopy from a beagle to a golden retriever, would it matter? A dog is a dog, right? Yes, it would matter for many Peanuts fans because the world fell in love with a very specific Snoopy.

I wouldn’t want Marvel randomly making Blade a white guy, and I wouldn’t want Marvel randomly making Peter Parker a black guy. In both instances, it would be a weird editorial move.

Sounds reasonable, right? Not to Dan Slott. Here is how he responds to other reasonable Spider-Man fans (great customer relations, Marvel): “My grandma knew Jim Crow laws. Didn’t make ’em right.”

Some random Peter Parker fan essentially says, “Even my grandma would be able to describe Peter Parker to forensic sketch artist, and he’d be white. That’s pretty iconic. I think it would probably be odd to randomly make Peter Parker black.”

Dan Slott’s reaction is to start talking about Jim Crow laws. Seriously. You, dear reader, are apparently the type of person who would tell a little black child he couldn’t be Spider-Man and you would probably admit to supporting Jim Crow laws if it was just you and Dan Slott drinking alone at the bar one night.

In his never-ending quest to fish for compliments in his Twitter feed while also putting himself up on a gigantic moral pedestal, Dan Slott is now resorting to needless race-baiting conversations with Peter Parker fans. Does it get any worse than this? Why does Marvel let him get away with acting like a petulant man-boy with a penchant for burning bridges? Since when did Marvel decide that its business model for attracting attention to Spider-Man comic books was to hire a writer who invents ways to slime customers?

The ironic thing about all of this is that if Dan Slott were to magically make Peter Parker black tomorrow, then he could very well be fending off racial conspiracy theory charges soon afterward — Peter Parker is a shell of the character he once was thanks to Dan Slott, so making him black at this stage in the game would actually be an insult to race-goggle wearing comic book readers everywhere.

One day a writer will take on Spider-Man who will bring together fans from a variety different backgrounds, ages, and political persuasions. He or she will do it without all the unnecessary antics, and when that happens Dan Slott’s legacy will sink even lower than it already has up to now.

Update: No amount of race-baiting would be complete without Dan Slott referring to “white history months.” This is the man who writes The Amazing Spider-Man, ladies and gentlemen. Pathetic.

Related: Check out Hube’s take over at Colossus of Rhodey.

Spider-Verse ends with puerile pheromone talk, Dan Slott’s sex-crazed Silk called ‘honey’: ‘Nuff said

February 11, 2015February 12, 2015by Douglas Ernst83 Comments

It may have taken 20 issues and $80, but Dan Slott’s Spider-Verse is finally over. Unfortunately for Peter Parker fans, the writer was able to get in one last parting shot by making his sex-crazed concubine Cindy Moon (Can anyone deny that’s how she comes across?) try yet again to get into the pants of Peter Parker. Our hero then takes their relationship to another level by calling her “honey.” Shouldn’t feminist comic book fans be raging over this bizarre and puerile treatment of Silk? The muted criticism is rather strange, but I digress.

When reviewing Spider-Verse Part 6 there is much to cover because it became a giant discombobulated mess. Perhaps one of the main takeaways is that the final battle ends — fast. In fact, the whole final battle is wrapped up so quickly that one of the main villains understands that something does not add up. It’s almost like Dan Slott subconsciously knew what readers would be thinking. He seemed to think that by having Morlun draw attention to the villains’ rapid downfall that readers would believe Spider-Man’s answer: “Everything is going according to my plan.”

What plan? There never really was a plan. For a good portion of Spider-Verse, Otto was in charge. When Peter was nominally the leader, he couldn’t even control his own team members.

Kaine took off to do his own thing, which prompted a “son of a…” response. Cindy took off as well (twice), which prompted a “@#$%! She took off again, didn’t she?!” response, and Dan Slott literally inserted a deus ex machina into the tale, which gave Peter’s team “everything” they needed to prevail. When it all spun out of control, his response was “Whatever you’re doing — drop it! We’re going to Loomworld.”

That doesn’t sound like a plan. That sounds like, “Charge!” (and hope for the best).

Perhaps one of the biggest problems with Spider-Verse is that there is no intellectual consistency. The Inheritors are built up to be almost unstoppable enemies, who then essentially collapse like a house of cards.

In one instance, Solus defeats a version Cosmic Spider-Man in the blink of an eye, but in the next he is effortlessly impaled to death by Kaine. The Inheritors have survived for time eternal, have the ability to clone themselves and insert their life force into crystals, but yet they can’t figure out how to clone a body that is resistant to radiation. The Inheritors feed off the life force of men and women powered by the bite of radioactive spiders, but a landscape with nuclear fallout in the air sucks the life out of them.

Spider-Verse seems as though it was born out of a stream-of-consciousness writing exercise that never had an editor take the time to go over it with a fine-toothed comb.

And what of Superior Spider-Man, you ask? Answer: Dan Slott has him kill Master Weaver — the character who controls “the nature of reality itself,” and the “god in the machine” who gave the spider-team “everything” they needed to be victorious. Yes, in that situation Dan Slott wants readers to believe that Otto would have applied Occam’s Razor to the idea of killing Master Weaver and followed through. I’m inclined to think Otto would be smart enough to know that killing a being that is literally tasked with weaving together space and time would not be wise; he would have found a different (evil) path to victory, but we can always debate that in the comments section. (Luckily for him, Master Weaver’s death seems to have no immediate consequences. How convenient.)

Whether you’re a fan of Spider-Verse or not, let me know what you think in the comments section below. As long as you keep it respectful and don’t start soliciting people for sex like Dan Slott’s Silk, we should get along just fine.

Marvel inks Spider-Man deal with Sony, but will Amy Pascal become Kevin Feige’s Mephisto?

February 10, 2015June 14, 2018by Douglas Ernst12 Comments

Spider-Man fans are rejoicing today because Sony finally admitted that it has no idea what it’s doing with the world’s most famous wall-crawler. A deal was struck between Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios that will allow Spider-Man to appear in Marvel’s cinematic universe, but it also forces Kevin Feige to produce Sony’s next installment with Amy Pascal.

Question: Will Amy Pascal become Kevin Feige’s Mephisto?

Marvel’s Feb. 10 press release reads:

Under the deal, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film from Marvel’s Cinematic Universe (MCU). Sony Pictures will thereafter release the next installment of its $4 billion Spider-Man franchise, on July 28, 2017, in a film that will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal, who oversaw the franchise launch for the studio 13 years ago. Together, they will collaborate on a new creative direction for the web slinger. Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films.

Marvel and Sony Pictures are also exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films.

In the short run, this is great for Marvel. Kevin Feige has done a wonderful job bringing the Marvel universe to the big screen, and there is no reason to believe that he will screw it up with Spider-Man. However, in the long run Sony still has creative control over the character and now the company must deal with Amy Pascal. Sony’s S.S. Spider-Man was foundering and in many ways Marvel may have just come to the rescue of drunk captains who deserved to lose it all.

It will be a sad day if Kevin Feige’s name is attached to future Spider-Man failures because of Amy Pascal’s intransigence. While Spider-Man fans should be thrilled that the character will show up in future Marvel Studios movies, they should seriously ask themselves if Marvel made a deal with the devil when total victory was within reach.

G. Willow Wilson’s A-Force: Will Marvel put ‘the boundaries of diversity’ before good writing?

February 6, 2015February 8, 2015by Douglas Ernst27 Comments

Marvel’s upcoming Secret Wars will bring about the end of The Avengers and start of an all-female group known as A-Force.

Marvel confirmed Feb. 6:

Marvel Comics is excited to announce the new group of Earth’s Mightiest Heroes taking over an all-new era with Marvel Comics’ A-FORCE co-written by G. Willow Wilson and Marguerite K. Bennett with artwork by Jorge Molina .

This May, beginning in Marvel’s Secret Wars, the Avengers are no more! …

“She-Hulk, Dazzler, Medusa, Nico Minoru and other fan favorites, will take charge,” says series co-writer G. Willow Wilson. “We’ve purposefully assembled a team composed of different characters from disparate parts of the Marvel U, with very different power sets, identities and ideologies.”

Given that the current crop of Marvel editors and writers tend to prioritize political correctness over sound storytelling, one has to wonder if A-Force will actually be a creative juggernaut or a forgettable mess loved only by feminists for what it aimed to do instead of what it actually accomplished. Series editor Daniel Ketch hints at the answer, and it is not good.

The Huffington Post reported Feb. 6:

“Marvel has always celebrated the diversity of its family of characters and creators,” series editor Daniel Ketch said. “This new series will unite Marvel’s mightiest heroines with the exceptionally creative minds of writers G. Willow Wilson and Marguerite Bennett to craft a story full of epic battles, personal triumphs, and heart-stopping peril … and an all-new character who will push the boundaries of diversity in comic books even further.”

If a character just so happens to break new ground, then that’s great. It is a completely different situation when the creative origin of a character is “How do I push the boundaries of diversity?” The probability that the project will turn into politically correct psychobabble increases exponentially with the latter scenario because a writer will usually compromise his or her character’s integrity at the alter of “diversity” before allowing said hero to enter uncomfortable places.

Regardless, Ms. Wilson assured fans on Friday that she wasn’t going to “create yet another amazon.”

Marvel fans who rolled their eyes at She-Thor hope Ms. Wilson and Mr. Ketch are telling the truth. If they are, then perhaps A-Force will be a comic worth reading. If they are not, then it will be another embarrassing stain on a company that employs men like Tom take-your-devil-dealing-OMD-“medicine”-and-shut-up Brevoort.

Exit question: Marvel’s Daniel Ketch says the company celebrates the “diversity … of its creators.” Really? How many openly conservative writers are employed at Marvel? Can he name one? Where is the Captain America book penned by a writer who shares Nicholas Irving’s worldview? Has there been one since September 11, 2001? I don’t believe so.

Marvel’s ideological diversity seems to include a very small spectrum of political thought, which begins and ends with people like Dan go to “Christ-Land” Slott.

Update: If you’re one of the people bashing me over at Bell of Lost Souls, then … thanks for reading! I find it strange that you have such animated opinions of me that you’re willing to share with your friends, but not in the comments section here…but to each his own. It is telling, however.

And for the record, my avatar isn’t Tyler Durden from “Fight Club”; it’s Mickey O’Neil from “Snatch.” It fits with my “bareknuckled commentary” tagline. Your insults aren’t as funny when you can’t even get those straight.

Tom Brevoort says OMD’s devil deal was ‘medicine’ for fans; his hubris knows no bounds

February 1, 2015December 19, 2018by Douglas Ernst32 Comments

Peter Parker fans often wonder where it all went wrong. Marvel’s flagship character has, more or less, been an inconsistent performer in his own book for years. With each passing season there are glimpses of what makes the hero so enduring, but in general it seems like he is creatively adrift in a sea of editors who don’t know what to do with him. Enter Tom Brevoort, who went a long way in terms of clearing up why the character regularly disappoints in his own title.

In response to a question about the almost universally-panned “One More Day,” where Peter Parker made a deal with the devil (for all intents and purposes) and his marriage was magically dissolved deus ex machina-style, Mr. Brevoort replied:

“The medicine may not taste good, but if it makes you better, then you need to take it.” – Tom Brevoort on why Marvel refuses to undo “One More Day.” Jan. 30, 2015.

According to Tom Brevoort, deals with the devil are fan-medicine, and if they don’t like it, then they’re just being recalcitrant fools.

The hubris of modern Marvel editors like Mr. Brevoort knows no bounds. The reason why so many horrible stories go forward is because they think they’re beyond reproach. Marvel’s Orwellian message boards long ago cleared out evidence of just how much Peter Parker fans detested the story, but at least one can still go on sites like Amazon and read some classic one-star reviews.

Here one example from a reviewer named Cindy:

Yes, boys and girls… You are now told to believe that your hero makes deals with Satan, sacrifices his wife to keep his 80-yr-old Aunt alive (who would pinch his head off if she knew what he did) and that now, in this “new” reality, Peter Parker, a.k.a. Spider-Man, Mr. Responsibility, just “shacked-up” with a live-in lover, even tried to make a baby with her, but never got around to marrying her. Yeah… it didn’t work out, they split up and they are moving on… Whatever.

Cindy, Cindy, Cindy… Don’t you get it? Making a deal with Mephisto had to happen because apparently that’s a better option than divorce.

Here’s what Joe Quesada said to CBR on Jan. 28, 2008:

“First and foremost, I think Peter getting divorced to me says that they gave up on their love, that their life in love together was so awful, so stressful, so unfulfilling that they had to raise a red flag and walk away from it. They quit on their marriage and even more tragic, they quit on each other. In other words, Peter would rather be alone and single than to spend another moment with MJ.” — Joe Quesada

This, according to Tom Brevoort, is “medicine.” Even though there are countless examples of people who divorced and then eventually got back together, it was for your own good that Peter Parker made a deal with a devil to save his … ancient aunt who should already be dead and reunited with Uncle Ben.

Here is the bottom line: Tom Brevoort and his team of geniuses killed Peter Parker’s marriage and the stories still stunk. Then they literally killed Peter Parker off for over a year and made Doctor Octopus the book’s “hero.” Nothing says “good reads” like making a deal with the devil and then making the villain the hero… Then, Marvel brought back Peter Parker and made him a supporting character in his own book with Spider-Verse. Was Mary Jane the problem all along, or is it narcissistic know-it-alls like Tom Brevoort?

Years ago doctors gave women Thalidomide to alleviate nausea during their first trimester. Their babies were then born with arms and legs that were too short and incredibly deformed. If Tom Brevoort were a doctor, he probably would have been the guy who gave out large doses of Thalidomide to pregnant women. Luckily he decided to work at Marvel, where his “medicine” only damages fictional characters and his employer’s reputation.

Related: Dan Slott’s Spider-Verse: Peter Parker sadly gives off ‘Where’s Waldo?’ vibe in his own book

Dan Slott trolls random woman on Twitter, then has the gall to bash GamerGate supporters

January 29, 2015February 13, 2015by Douglas Ernst43 Comments

If comic book industry journalists did their job, then they would take Dan Slott to task for behaving like an immature clown on social media. The appropriate websites have abdicated their responsibility to discuss what it means to be a professional, so douglasernstblog.com will fill the void.

Those who follow The Amazing Spider-Man scribe probably remember the time he stalked The Main Event and got smacked down via YouTube. Readers of this blog will remember the time he tried to sic his Twitter followers on yours truly. Fans of Spider-Man Crawlspace and a host of other message boards undoubtedly have their own tales to tell. Now comes the time when Dan Slott tracked down and trolled a random woman on Twitter who said that The Superior Spider-Man sounded lame, and then afterwards he had the gall to bash GamerGate supporters.

I’m not sure when a man’s behavior qualifies him to be labeled a “douche canoe,” but it seems as though Dan Slott’s online impulse control problems can serve as a sound litmus test.

Ami Angelwings took the high road and simply pointed out how ridiculous and weird it is for the Marvel comic books writer of The Amazing Spider-Man to be manically searching through Twitter streams for criticism that he can use as an excuse to lash out at young women in front of his 65,000 + Twitter followers.

Slott, rightfully feeling shame, apologized. Then, without even picking up on the irony, he soon was bashing GamerGate supporters.

Despite the fact that GamerGate supporters are both men and women from a variety of different backgrounds, and despite the fact that many of them — including the Main Event — have very legitimate gripes about the gaming industry and the journalists who cover it, Dan Slott then goes on to slime all of them. Dan Slott — the man who just moments before found a random woman online and made jokes about the value of her life — said he will block people who merely defend guys like The Main Event. Telling.

Luckily, guys like Raúl get it: “She didn’t even tag you. You actually searched for people to bully. How is that okay?”

It’s not okay, Raúl. You are 100 percent correct. The problem is that Dan Slott — the guy who complains about deadlines — is busy finding random women on the internet to spout off to because they didn’t like the premise of The Superior Spider-Man.

The next time you read The Amazing Spider-Man and ask, “Isn’t that sort of lazy for a writer to literally insert a deus ex machina into his big Spider-Man project,” you can now say “Yes” without skipping a beat.

The reason is simple: Thin-skinned writers who feel the need to sift through Twitter streams looking for women to troll are not very efficient with their time.

In the future, Dan Slott can go back to stalking random Twitter users and then mocking them in his own Twitter feed without identifying them by name. The thing is, he doesn’t even realize that such a bizarre way of fishing for compliments is just as sad.

Exit question: What are the chances that “Mister Mets” over at Comic Book Resources will ever take Dan Slott to task over his online behavior? And if you talk with Mister Mets, ask him what I’ve done on Twitter that comes remotely close to Dan Slott’s behavior. I’d really like to know. Please, go through my feed. All of it. Or not, because I don’t act like Dan Slott.

Notice that Cameron Samuri was banned? Why do I think it has more to do with him not adhering to Orwellian message boards rules than actually speaking out of line?