Tag: Peter Parker

The Amazing Spider-Man has relaunched yet again, and this time around Peter Parker is a CEO of his own worldwide company. He apparently took driving lessons to handle a car like a young Mario Andretti. He apparently took Mandarin and became fluent in a matter of months. He is “very” close to his Asian business partner, and he’s fortunate to have new technology on hand for almost any dilemma. At the end of the day, a review of this relaunch boils down to whether or not Peter Parker fans should embrace The Amazing “poor man’s Tony Stark.”

Like much of Dan Slott’s work, he offers a mixed bag of interesting ideas with the downright bizarre and embarrassing.

Take, for instance, Parker’s refusal to fire the woman he knows has a.) pro-actively worked to undermine his core vision, and b.) actually attempted to ally with a super-villain who destroyed his New York offices and almost killed everyone inside.

For those don’t remember, here is a flashback to The Amazing Spider-Man #17:

Sajani Jaffrey: I think we can be allies. I’ve heard of you. The Ghost – corporate saboteur, right? Which means someone hired you, probably to torpedo our super-prison. Well, guess what? Nothing would make me happier. It’s all my partner’s idea. I think it’s a stinker. I’ll make you a deal: Don’t hurt anyone, leave the rest of our projects alone…and I’ll show you the best, fastest way to wreck the prison stuff beyond repair. What do you say?

The Ghost: You’re a shrewd negotiator, young lady.

To CEO Peter Parker, working with corporate saboteurs to destroy his company is only worth a “talk.”

As was the case with The Superior Spider-Man, Mr. Slott must dumb down his characters in order to get from Point A to Point B. Characters during SSM needed to not realize Doctor Octopus was inside Peter’s mind to keep Slott’s story going, and so their intelligence dropped 20 points.

Mr. Slott now needs Sajani to move his plot along, so Peter Parker blithely overlooks a betrayal that any normal person would fire – and sue – her over.

One of the more interesting aspects of the book comes when it is revealed Peter has hired Hobie Brown (aka: The Prowler) to be his “decoy” Spider-Man. While the decision offers the potential for a very fun relationship to form, one cannot help but wonder if Brown is a “poor man’s James Rhodes.”

Is The Amazing Spider-Man #1 worth buying? That’s a good question. If you like Guiseppe Camuncoli’s work, then sure. If you want to read about Peter Parker-Stark, then sure. If you can put up with Dan Slott’s “sweet” ideas being drowned out by others that are seriously “sour,” then sure.

If, however, you read Renew Your Vows and felt as though Marvel finally captured the essence — no matter how fleeting — of the “real” Peter Parker, then you will probably want to withhold your cash.

Editor’s Note: Regular readers know that I am in the process of learning Mandarin. Let me just say that one does not simply begin taking Mandarin lessons and become fluent in a matter of months. This is the kind of writing that drives fans mad. Dan Slott could put Peter in Saudi Arabia tomorrow, have him speak fluent Arabic, and then make the character say, “Yeah, so…in addition to expanding this global tech-empire, fighting super-villains, inventing new technology, and learning Mandarin over the last couple of months, I just-so-happened to take a few Arabic classes as well.”

If you think that is jarring and lazy writing, then it is likely Dan Slott will call your criticism invalid.

Dan Slott, the Marvel writer who regularly whines about people taking him out of context, has no qualms taking others out of context when his personal politics are at play. The same guy who had his “Superior” Spider-Man blow a guy’s face off with a handgun from point-blank range had no problem chopping up a lengthy conversation by Jeb Bush on the Umpqua Community College shootings into Tweets devoid of any context.

Before we move on, let us examine a Dan Slott quote from Aug. 1, 2015:

“Jesus. Could you at least link to the exchange instead of paraphrasing and misinterpreting?” – Dan Slott.

Dan Slott’s standard of fairness when it involves his reputation or things he cares about is at least a link to a full conversation. The rules he applies to others do not apply to himself. And then he wonders why it’s impossible for people to have mature, honest discussions on complex issues…

Back to Mr. Bush. Regular readers know I have little love for his campaign, but I will now provide context:

Jeb Bush: “The tendency when we have these tragedies that took place yesterday, it’s just heartbreaking to see these things, but this is the broader question of rule-making I think is an important point to make. That whenever you see a tragedy take place, the impulse in the political system, most, more often than at the federal level, but also at the state level, is to ‘do something,’ right? And what we end up doing lots of times is we create rules on the 99.999 percent of human activity that had nothing to do with the tragedy that forced the conversation about doing something. And we’re taking people’s rights away each time we do that, and we’re not necessarily focusing on the real challenge. …

We’re in a difficult time in our country and I don’t think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else. It’s very sad to see. I had this challenge as governor. We have, look, stuff happens. There’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to ‘do something,’ and that’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”

Unlike Dan Slott, Jeb Bush had to deal with the aftermath of hurricanes, budgets that affected millions of people, etc. Jeb Bush actually had to make gut-wrenching decisions as the governor of Florida. He understands that with a stroke of the pen, politicians can turn the lives of entire communities upside down.

When Dan Slott doesn’t go to a comic convention or misses a deadline, civil rights are not eroded.

Here is the full context for Bush’s “things” quote. Politico reported:

“‘Things’ happen all the time. ‘Things,’ is that better? … A child drowns in a pool and the impulse is to pass a law that puts fencing around pools. Well it may not change it or you have a car accident and the impulse is to pass a law that deals with that unique event and the cumulative effect of this is in some cases, you don’t solve the problem by passing the law, and you’re imposing on large numbers of people, burdens that make it harder for our economy to grow, make it harder for people to protect liberty, and that is, the whole conversation today was exactly about that.”

Mr. Bush was trying to have a serious public policy debate when he made those comments. He acknowledged that what happened in Roseburg, Oregon, was a “heartbreaking” tragedy, and then talked about the broader public policy question at hand.

Unfortunately, Mr. Slott couldn’t resist acting like a political vulture to exploit the situation.

For those who want a better idea of what Dan Slott does, I will now provide a clear example.

Last Thursday, 26-year-old Christopher Harper-Mercer specifically targeted Christians in a massacre that killed nine and injured seven. He took his own life during an exchange of gunfire with cops.  Imagine if I shared that information and then juxtaposed it with Dan Slott’s infamous “Christ-Land” tweet – without any context. Do you think Mr. Slott would be upset? I do.

Here is the full context to Mr. Slott’s “Christ-Land” tweet, for those who are interested.

Ask yourself this question before reading it: If there was another Boston Marathon-type bombing and a politician Dan Slott didn’t like said, “Scared by the number of Muslims who are silent on domestic terrorism. This is America. Go to Muslim-Land,” do you think he would call that person a bigot? I do.