Monday, September 01, 2008

Mark Waid On BRAND NEW DAY

Now, I like Mark Waid. I know, I know...he's cussed me out and all...and I've pointed to several of his flubs. But he's human, thus prone to the occasional mistake or a flare up of his temper.

But he said something (in a Newsarama interview) that makes me think that he must be reading a different BRAND NEW DAY or skipping most of the Dan Slott issues:

They're very careful and very respectful, whether the hardcore fans believe it or not; the team that I've seen on the Spider-Man books is very respectful toward them in terms of not going out of their way to thumb their nose at the readership, or try to make fun of them or mock their concern.
Slott has gone out of his way to put little nose-thumbing bits somewhere in every one of his arcs, thus far. From the opening of BRAND NEW DAY immediately showing Peter kissing someone (which even Quesada said was a way to slap the reader across the face, I believe) to MJ saying "it's magic, you don't have to explain it" to a bit or two already in the current arc.

So that bit, along with him guarding J. Jonah Jameson's relation to his upcoming story as if his life depended on it, yet giving away what happens with Venom in this current arc for no apparent reason, counts as a noticeably large mistake.

38 comments:

  1. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one noticing the disrespect. I've pointed out to my sister on multiple occasions how some of the structure and dialogue of BND seems designed to flip off the fans. It's one of the reasons why, in my opinion, BND has blown chunks so far ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've only really noticed it in Slott issues, actually. But yeah...there's definitely some flipping off. Maybe Waid's going over the brain storming sessions for the upcoming issues. Maybe there's hope for the thumbing/flipping to stop. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's one thing for Marvel to take cheap shots at DC in which I guess they are entitled to a bit, but to do it to their own readers is plain insulting. To be honest, I got a bigger kick out of the Steve Wacker interview and his very first proper line, "There were challenges for everyone, I think, particularly when it came to figuring out any continuity snags".

    Would those be the same snags that they still have not properly addressed and that Quesada promises us will all be revealed "if we keep reading" or "12 or so months down the line". What a load of nonsense. Now what I still don't get is that in New Avengers they had Spider-Man hanging about with him and they knew who he was but then suddenly no-one knows who he is and yet they do not question why he is there.

    In all seriousness though, if this current 'Anti-Venom' arc does not boost sales back over the 80,000 mark you would have to call BND a failure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm willing to bet the latest arc manages to get direct sales back above 80k. I mean come on, it's got Romita on art, the real Venom, the Thunderbolts and teases the return of the Green Goblin. Hell, I haven't bought an issue since OMD ended and I was sorely tempted and even considered picking up this latest arc.

    I will say my local shop's sales on Spider-Man have dropped off considerably and they have all kinds of back issues still on the stands, but there was only one of the latest issue left. So I fully believe the current arc will add some punch back into the slumping numbers.

    And believe it or not I can see where Waid's coming from about trying to be respectful. Yes, Slott has taken a few shots at some of us hold outs, but overall they haven't gone completely out of their way to insult people. I mean they could have had Peter sleep with someone else instead of just kissing (or imply he slept with someone since they'll probably never actually show that). And along those same lines they could have Mary Jane sleep with someone else (since I haven't been reading, I'm less sure as to whether they've showed this or not). So for now they haven't pulled that final plug and nose thumb. At least not yet.

    The part that irritates me so much about all this is OMD had obviously been planned as the way out of all the corners they were deliberately writing themselves into with Peter revealing his ID, May bumping uglies with a Skrull, etc. But the worst of it is Joe claiming they would never pull the plug and undo the marriage unless they had a spectacular story to do it. And then we get OMD which reeks of all the absolute worst story telling devices in comics. And on top of that it's basically a reboot which is something Joe had ragged on DC for ages about how they do that with their characters and it makes the continuity so hard to follow.

    Now I haven't gone so far as to drop everything Marvel puts out yet (although I'm considering it), but this has taught me that there's nothing of any real consequence that will ever happen that they won't undo sometime in the future, so really what's the point of following the story? I mean if every ten years of story is just going to be shunted off into an alternate reality / elseworlds continuity then why bother paying attention.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can get what you're saying, James...but have to disagree on a point (re: respectful). Each one of Slott's digs required him to go out of his way to make them. They didn't serve the story.

    The kiss? Served nothing. Mary Jane's "it's magic"? Served nothing.

    And I can't remember exactly how they framed MJ's relationship with the actor, but I'm pretty sure no actor goes through such pains to hide a woman he's not getting any from. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. @jamesf:

    Mary Jane and the actor she was dating were in bed together. Sex wasnot directly mentioned or shown, but clearly there was a heavily implied level of physical intimacy there ...

    ReplyDelete
  7. My Childhood's Hymen Is IntactTue Sep 02, 12:48:00 PM EDT

    "I can get what you're saying, James...but have to disagree on a point (re: respectful). Each one of Slott's digs required him to go out of his way to make them. They didn't serve the story."

    Slott's "digs" are aimed at those readers who peruse websites like Newsarama or CBR, & I don't know that he has to go out of his way to get them in either. It's not as if they're elaborate puns or anything.

    You REALLY need to let this thing w/ Slott go - every time you try to sling mud his way, you're not coming out any better for it.

    I personally think they're hilarious, as I find all the whining & crying about OMD/BND hysterical myself. I could make some serious cash if I started up an online therapy service for all the childhoods that Quesada, Slott, & company raped, anally & or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Spidertour02: Sex was not directly mentioned or shown, but clearly there was a heavily implied level of physical intimacy there ...

    Then I take it back, if they've done that then they are just rubbing salt in everyone's wounds and that's being really disrespectful.

    And Kev, I agree Slott seems to enjoy taking pot shots at those of us that are hold outs. But (and I'm not trying to defend him here, but just pointing this out) he's playing to his audience that has accepted the new status quo. In theory those of us opposed to it should never see those digs.

    I still say I was one of the people that wanted the marriage to stick around, but at the same time I realized Joe really really wanted to do away with it. I probably would have been okay with it had they done it in a story that at least had an ounce of thought put into it instead of this magic and "Devil with the Devil" crap. A resoltuion that was semi respectful of all the stories that had been told before rather than making the last 20 years into Elseworld / What If stories would have a nice consolation prize too.

    And despite that last comment by "childhood", I don't think I require therapy or that my childhood memories are destroyed (they're all sitting there in damn longboxes taking up way more room than I have in my house). Of course, it's rare that someone that *needs* therapy actually believes they do. So who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tah-MAY-toe, tah-MAH-toe, James. ;)

    If he's putting those bits in to make the early adopters laugh, they're still digs at the hold outs done to elicit a laugh rather than a groan...and still require going out of one's way, since they don't serve the story.

    Childhood, this isn't actually an anti-Slott thing. I'm not even trying to fault him for doing it any longer. I'm just saying the little extras he puts in there contradict Waid's statement that everyone is trying to be so respectful in the execution of their stories.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Im n yer longboxs, rapn yer childhoodzTue Sep 02, 04:53:00 PM EDT

    "Childhood, this isn't actually an anti-Slott thing. I'm not even trying to fault him for doing it any longer. I'm just saying the little extras he puts in there contradict Waid's statement that everyone is trying to be so respectful in the execution of their stories."

    They're being respectful to their readers, & not the (minority) "fan" base hurling slurs & insults their way. Compared to some of the posts on Newsarama, CBR, & elsewhere, the little Easter Eggs (& they are certainly Easter Eggs) Slott is dropping into his stories are practically compliments.

    I think it's amusing that people get so worked up about this, assuming that Slott is going out of his way, when people go "out of their way" everyday to bitch about it on message boards. This whole "Who do they think they are business" & "being respectful" is just laughable - fanboys can dish it out, but they can't take it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. is that you, Tom Brevoort?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Look, I've always considered myself a rational fan. Sometimes, I may not like a story, but I make judgments based on the overall CRAFT of how the story is told. For example, I HATED all the spider-totem garbage that JMS used in the first part of his run, but those are some of the best comics I have ever read, because the strytelling was excellent and the art was beautifully done.

    This is why I think my gripe with OMD is legitimate -- while I hated the idea, the reason that I believe it to be a terrible, terrible story lies with its failed execution. Similarly, I find BND to have many storytelling faults that prevent me from enjoying it.

    In other words, I'm not being a silly fanboy. I just think the comics are poorly executed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Impartial ObserverWed Sep 03, 12:36:00 AM EDT

    I think "Childhood's Hymen", et al are very obvious either Slott or one of his cronies.

    And we all know that Slott does rape the childhood of children. He just eats children.

    ReplyDelete
  14. impartial observerWed Sep 03, 12:37:00 AM EDT

    Actually, "And we all know that Slott does rape the childhood of children. He just eats children."

    should read

    "And we all know that Slott does not rape the childhood of children. He just eats children."

    I apologize. I had to drink myself into a stupor to be able to tolerate reading Slott's last arc.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, as a retailer and an old school Spider-Man fan. Sales end I can only tell you the numbers game in relation to my store. Roughly one month after OMD, our total sales on Amazing had dropped 50%.

    After a few months in, we had two local stores go out of business, to which those retailers recommended us to all of their customers. We are still around 50% of the original numbers. "New Ways to Die" has boosted local sales by 10%, if it be because of the initial incentive covers offered with part 1, the fifty-fifty split covers, or the marketing getting people interested in the title again....I could not tell you. But, they did go up 10%.

    Most of my customers that still buy the title are Amazing Spider-Man fans to the end, "buy it for the run", etc. Some love every other, or 2/3'rds of the story arcs that are coming out.

    As for the "pot shots" or whatever we want to refer to them as. Most of the readers that I have discussed it with, just rolled their eyes. The readers that stuck with (are sticking with) Amazing don't really want to recall OMD. They want to see the character move on. The "pot shots" aren't being received as humorous. More of a "salt on wound", "REMEMBER HOW WE GOT HERE GUYS", kind of thing. You know, like the "reverse the planet" kind of thing in the Superman movie. We don't want to remember it, and when you saw it happen again in Superman II: Donner Cut.....well.....

    Again, all the above are obviously not a general consensus but statements that adequately represent my customer base.

    Out of the 50% of original subscribers that still read Amazing at my store, only one has absolutely loved every issue. The reason....he was 7 years behind on reading his Amazing Spider-Man comics. So when OMD happened, I told him he was caught up. He has been tickled to read every issue.

    ReplyDelete
  16. My Childhood's Been Dr. Light-edWed Sep 03, 09:39:00 AM EDT

    "I think "Childhood's Hymen", et al are very obvious either Slott or one of his cronies."

    Right, because having a dissenting opinion makes me a "crony." Fanboy discussion tactic #247 - when faced with a dissenting opinion, accuse the opponent of being a sycophant.

    "And we all know that Slott does not rape the childhood of children. He just eats children."

    No no no - that's Sean McKeever. Slott just turns people into alcoholics.

    "I apologize. I had to drink myself into a stupor to be able to tolerate reading Slott's last arc."

    See what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Not going to get into the "Slott or crony" debate, Childhood (and, seriously, please consider picking a handle and sticking with it), but you seem to be blindly defending Slott here...even when he wasn't really attacked.

    Waid said that everyone is being respectful and being careful not to thumb there nose at anyone. Fans who are thrilled with the changes from OMD have nothing to have a nose thumbed at them about. So, clearly, the reference is to people frustrated with the change.

    And all the little bits Slott does to remind people about the OMD controversy are definitely aimed at people who complained. I'm not saying maliciously. These are the kind of jokes that Slott might have included if the change WEREN'T so controversial. But in light of it being a controversial topic, it is the very same nose-thumbing that Waid suggests isn't happening.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My Childhood Had It ComingWed Sep 03, 03:49:00 PM EDT

    "I've only really noticed it in Slott issues, actually. But yeah...there's definitely some flipping off."

    "I can get what you're saying, James...but have to disagree on a point (re: respectful). Each one of Slott's digs required him to go out of his way to make them. They didn't serve the story."

    A"nd Kev, I agree Slott seems to enjoy taking pot shots at those of us that are hold outs."

    "If he's putting those bits in to make the early adopters laugh, they're still digs at the hold outs done to elicit a laugh rather than a groan...and still require going out of one's way, since they don't serve the story."

    Those are all quotes from the discourse on this page, all directly pointed at Slott as being disrespectful. You can say that he wasn't being "attacked," which is true - no one insulted him directly or anything. But he was called out as being disrespectful towards the Internet community.

    I'm not blindly defending him either - I think that's an interesting choice of words. I've been (relatively) articulate in my position as to why I don't see the digs at the 'Net as being that big a deal (except to those in the target audience, of course.) How is that a blind defense?

    "...it is the very same nose-thumbing that Waid suggests isn't happening."

    Quite frankly, considering some of the language used towards the ASM crew on the 'Net, a little nose-thumbing is pretty tame, & should really be expected. The only people who are going to be agitated about it are the ones in the target audience - it doesn't bother me a bit. Like I said, I think it's funny.

    If it bothers you (or some of the other folks who don't care much for OMD or BND) than I suppose it's working.

    Not only that, but his "digs" aren't exactly without precedent. JMS did the exact same thing right after The Other, when the 'Net was all incensed about Mary Jane's arm being broken in one issue, but miraculously healed the next. He had Tony Stark give a very contrived explanation to Peter abotu he fixed up MJ w/ an invisible cast off-panel, then had both Peter & Tony give a knowing look out to the audience as if to say "Happy now?"

    Have you read Slott's run on She-Hulk? It's full of little moments like that. So the argument that he's "going out of his way" doesn't really hold water - he's just doing what he's always done.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wow, Childhood...maybe Impartial was right.

    You seem to be ultra-focused on the Slott angle of the discussion. Let's break it down for you:

    1. Waid says, "they're very careful and very respectful, whether the hardcore fans believe it or not; the team that I've seen on the Spider-Man books is very respectful toward them in terms of not going out of their way to thumb their nose at the readership, or try to make fun of them or mock their concern." (emphasis mine)

    2. Slott's jokes based on OMD changes (the ones he and others insist that you should not let impact your enjoyment of BND) are not an example of being VERY CAREFUL or VERY RESPECTFUL.

    That doesn't mean they're an example of him being a dick. Because...

    3. "They're being respectful to their readers, & not the (minority) 'fan' base hurling slurs & insults their way."

    First, I'd challenge the statement that they're being respectful to their readers, unless you at least through "most of" in front of readers.

    But that would mean Slott's not an ass if he's playing to his crowd. But that's not what Waid said. Slott's jokes ARE mocking the concerns of some of their readership and a large number of the readers they lost (that, I'd think, they would like to lure back).

    The difference in climate between the She-Hulk where Slott made the occasional fanboy-targeted joke and the Spider-Man jokes can't be ignored, though.

    Whether he intends to be malicious or benign with his jokes, it isn't a demonstration of being very careful not to mock the readers' concerns. Which isn't a crime; it just makes Waid's statement incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My childhood was touched inappropriatley by either Slott or one of his croniesWed Sep 03, 06:02:00 PM EDT

    Again, anytime someone agrees w/ a creator, it's sychophant time.

    "You seem to be ultra-focused on the Slott angle of the discussion."

    Let's get something straight - I'm not "ultra-focused" on Slott - I'm following the thread, & the thread essentially became about Slott w/ this quote:

    "I've only really noticed it in Slott issues, actually."

    Kevin, right there is where you focused the conversation on Slott. It's the 2nd post in the thread. You yourself say that the "flipping off" is only occuring in his issues. Then, each & every one of your subsequent posts brings the discussion back to Slott. Isn't that focusing the discussion on Slott?

    Why would I talk about what's going on in, say, Guggenheim's issues, if none of the "nose thumbing" everyone is protesting is going on?


    To your second point, that he's being disrespectful to readers - if you believe most of what is said on the 'net (& shame on you if you do) than you could draw the inference that most of the people who hated OMD or hate BND aren't buying ASM.

    To that end, they aren't insulting their readers, they're "flipping off" people who aren't even reading the book.

    So, if you want to get down to semantics, Waid's statement is still accurate. They aren't thumbing their nose at their readers - they're thumbing their nose at people who aren't reading the book. For people like me, who are picking up ASM, it's not a nose-thumbing since I agree with the sentiment.

    And honestly, if someone gets offended or pissed off because of some of the 'in jokes' ("It's magic!") than they might want to get some thicker skin - especially considering that most of the people crying foul are the ones doing the most insult-lobbing in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Wait wait wait...

    "if you believe most of what is said on the 'net (& shame on you if you do) than you could draw the inference that most of the people who hated OMD or hate BND aren't buying ASM."

    I believe you meant THEN, not THAN. But the important point is that you're telling me I SHOULDN'T BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HATED OMD OR BND AREN'T BUYING THE BOOK. You're acknowledging that a large number of the complainers are still buying the book.

    "To that end, they aren't insulting their readers, they're "flipping off" people who aren't even reading the book."

    No. According to your own statement (and one I agree with), a good deal of people complaining about the changes are still reading the book. That's the point. You argue against your own point here.

    Again, Childhood, the focus is the inaccuracy of Waid's statement...and it IS inaccurate as even you have demonstrated now.

    Bringing up that I've only really seen the mocking of concerns from Slott isn't focusing the issue on him. I'm just indicating what occurrences I can claim knowledge of. If someone else has done it, I'm unaware.

    I've taken pains over the last several response to point out that Slott sliding at least one mocking into each arc doesn't make him an ass or anything. I highly doubt he's trying to be malicious about it. It does, however, make Waid's statement wholly inaccurate.

    Thin-skinned, thick-skinned, who cares? That's not the point. Waid didn't say that they're being "very respectful and very careful" to only mock in a way that would bother the thin-skinned. He said they were being very careful and very respectful not to mock the concerns of the readership.

    The bits that have been cited are very obvious examples of mocking, which makes it impossible for the team to have been "very careful" or "very respectful" in their approach to the aforementioned concerns.

    It doesn't even have to be about feeling insulted. When DALLAS had Patrick Duffy show up in the shower and they pretended his dying had all been a dream, I'm pretty sure they didn't constantly try to drop reminders to how they brought him back in every episode. They've stated that they want readers to focus on where we are now, not how we got here. Hard to do that when the book keeps saying, "remember when we took a left at Albuquerque?"

    ReplyDelete
  22. Having read every BND and upcoming issue of Spidey, I've honestly seen nothing that I felt was intentionally disrepectful--IMHO--and I stand by my statement. Others' mileage may vary. I can see where certain lines of dialogue or moments might be subject to different levels of interpretation depending on the differing levels of prejudice that some readers (undertandably) bring to the table

    But, for the record, if anyone wants to believe me--and why should they, this is the internet--I've spent a lot more time with the Spider-writers than is probably healthy, and all I hear from them--ALL I hear--is enthusiasm and a love for the characters. No one speaks with contempt or goes out of their way to flip off readers. No one has the time. They're all busy trying to serve Spidey and the general readership in the way they think is best and most respectful to the character and most entertaining.

    Counting the seconds until he's called a liar,
    MW

    ReplyDelete
  23. Heh. No, I don't think anyone will call you a liar. It's your opinion; you're entitled to it.

    Somewhere in the mess that the comments have become, I allowed the caveat that maybe you were speaking of only since you arrived on the book. Obviously that isn't the case.

    We'll just have to disagree on this. It's all open for interpretation, even if I find it hard to classify the first page of BND (that Joe said was meant to slap fans across the face with the new status quo (not as an insult, but as in "that's right, we've changed things")) as very careful. I guess that's just because we're approaching from two different perspectives.

    I can understand the desire to go with shock value in those moments, but feel that they can't then be called careful & respectful at the same time.

    Thanks for sharing, Mark. And for not cussing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mark Waid made sweet love to my childhoodThu Sep 04, 09:52:00 AM EDT

    "I believe you meant THEN, not THAN."

    So you open w/ some grammar policing. Nicely done. Notice where I earlier said "relatively articulate?" There we are...

    "But the important point is that you're telling me I SHOULDN'T BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HATED OMD OR BND AREN'T BUYING THE BOOK. You're acknowledging that a large number of the complainers are still buying the book."

    Yes, I'll acknowledge that a vast majority of the OMD/BND 'Net haters are liars. I'm not arguing against my own point - I'm simply saying you can't have it both ways. You can't say "I'm not buying the book anymore, I don't like it" & then profess to be offended by something in the book, because you (clearly) had to have read it to be offended.

    Otherwise, you're in the same class of folk who cry about how offensive the latest episode of South Park is, even though you've never seen it.

    "I've taken pains over the last several response to point out that Slott sliding at least one mocking into each arc doesn't make him an ass or anything. I highly doubt he's trying to be malicious about it. It does, however, make Waid's statement wholly inaccurate."

    Eh, if you want to interpret it that way. I don't know that it makes it wholly inaccurate - that seems like mountains of molehills to me.

    Oh, & Mark is a liar - he expressly told my childhood that he would leave a $20 on the dresser, but he didn't. Bad news Mark - my childhood's Aunt Flo is late this month...

    ReplyDelete
  25. "'But the important point is that you're telling me I SHOULDN'T BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HATED OMD OR BND AREN'T BUYING THE BOOK. You're acknowledging that a large number of the complainers are still buying the book.'

    Yes, I'll acknowledge that a vast majority of the OMD/BND 'Net haters are liars. I'm not arguing against my own point - I'm simply saying you can't have it both ways. You can't say "I'm not buying the book anymore, I don't like it" & then profess to be offended by something in the book, because you (clearly) had to have read it to be offended."

    Well, you didn't make it clear that you were trying to argue against uninformed opinions. It came out of left field, especially since no one here pointing out parts that we felt contradicted Waid's opinion has claimed to not have read the work.

    So why trot that out in an argument with people that can clearly cite exactly what was written and how they interpreted it?

    ReplyDelete
  26. My Childhood Wants to Have Wacker's AbortionThu Sep 04, 02:32:00 PM EDT

    So let me get this straight? First, I'm accused of being a "crony" of Slott. THEN, I'm accused of making the argument all about Slott, even though the first person to bring up his name was you, & he's clearly identified (again, by you) as the only person invalidating Mark's claim. NOW, you accuse me of arguing off topic. Sheesh...that's a pretty stellar display of 'Net Debating 101 - try an invalidate my point by a) pretending I'm the enemy, b) suggesting I'm trying to hijack the discourse, & finally c) 'strawman' my argument. Well played sir.

    "Well, you didn't make it clear that you were trying to argue against uninformed opinions. It came out of left field, especially since no one here pointing out parts that we felt contradicted Waid's opinion has claimed to not have read the work.

    So why trot that out in an argument with people that can clearly cite exactly what was written and how they interpreted it?"

    I'm not arguing against uninformed opinions. Waid came out & said the creaors were being respectful to the readership. The argument is that Slott's (& yes, it's been Slott specific, since none of the other writers have been accused of it...yet)shots at the OMD haters are offensive to ASM's readership, that he's being "disrespectful," "flipping off" readers, & "going out of his way" to do so.

    My argument is that, if you believe the critics (& that's a big if) then the folks at whom those barbs are targeted aren't reading ASM, & therefore have nothing to be pissy about. Are some of them reading ASM on a thrice-monthly basis? Undoubtedly. If you wanted to pick at Mark's statement could you do so? Sure, as has been clearly demonstrated here.

    But I think the notion that Mark was wrong or is somehow lying is taking things to an unreasonable extreme.

    To anyone who's been regularly reading ASM since OMD/BND, it's clearly evident that the creators are doing everything they can to be respectful of the character as well as Spider-Man's long-time fanbase.

    Like the man said, "Having read every BND and upcoming issue of Spidey, I've honestly seen nothing that I felt was intentionally disrepectful--IMHO--and I stand by my statement." I agree with him - I don't view the toungue planted firmly in cheek barbs as being "offensive" or "disrespectful." They're in-jokes that acknowledge the change in status quo, & they're directed at a specific cadre of fans who, for the most part (or so they say,) aren't reading the books anymore. As you've said, there's nothing really malicious about any of them; they're more of a wink-wink nudge-nudge to the reader, the kind of thing that works in a comic book, but not necessarily serialized television. Spider-Man (& a host of other characters) have a regular history of breaking the fourth wall - I can't seem to recall a time where JR Ewing gave a smile to the viewing audience.

    Like I said previously, this isn't the first character Slott's written to break the fourth wall either. His run on She-Hulk frequently featured such "in jokes" that only "industry insiders" (read: 'Net Nerds) would get.

    Now, I know, you said "These are the kind of jokes that Slott might have included if the change WEREN'T so controversial. But in light of it being a controversial topic, it is the very same nose-thumbing that Waid suggests isn't happening..."

    You make it sound as if Slott is farting in church. We're talking about the Amazing/Spectacular/Sensational/Fantabulous Spider-Man here, not the Virgin Mary.

    All this consternation over an "in joke" is akin to Catholics getting pissed off every time Bill Maher...well, anytime he says anything, actually. It's funny to the target audience, but I'm sure the targets don't find it as amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Childhood:

    1. No one here is being critical of OMD/BND without reading it. You're taking an argument from somewhere across the 'net that has nothing to do with the discussion here. I'm not accusing you of a crime by doing that, but I'm lost as to how it really applies. We all acknowledge that OMD haters are still reading BND. They are part of the readership. Their concerns aren't quite being respected.

    2. There is nothing EXTREME about someone being wrong. No one accused Waid of lying, unless I've missed it or forgot it. I can understand why Waid would throw that "waiting to be called a liar" part, because that's how things can go after a creator responds. But you're bringing it up more to inflate the issue into something it isn't, IMO.

    3. Farting is a natural biological process. Sometimes you can't help it. You can, however, help writing jokes at someone else's expense. ;)

    4. You aren't seriously using Bill Maher as an example in a discussion about being "very careful and very respectful" about "mocking the concerns" of the readership/viewership? Wow. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  28. "No one speaks with contempt or goes out of their way to flip off readers. No one has the time."

    So you're saying they would if they could?

    AAAAAH! PUT DOWN THAT CHAINSAW!

    Kidding, though I think Wacker's public persona tends to set my teeth on edge YMMV.

    ReplyDelete
  29. My Childhood doesn't sleep. It waits.Fri Sep 05, 01:53:00 PM EDT

    "There is nothing EXTREME about someone being wrong. No one accused Waid of lying, unless I've missed it or forgot it. I can understand why Waid would throw that "waiting to be called a liar" part, because that's how things can go after a creator responds. But you're bringing it up more to inflate the issue into something it isn't, IMO."

    You're absolutley right, there's nothing EXTREME about being wrong. There are, however, times when people can take something to an extreme when trying to prove someone wrong. Case in point - we're now on post 29 of a thread that essentially breaks down a single line in an innocuous statement by Mark Waid.

    Hell, not even a single line, but rather the omission of the word "most." As in, "they're being respectful to MOST of the readers." It just seems like, instead of focusing on the OVERALL message Waid was putting across, a single line is being jumped upon. Just seems a bit, I don't know, EXTREME to me.

    "Farting is a natural biological process. Sometimes you can't help it. You can, however, help writing jokes at someone else's expense. ;)"

    If people avoided writing or telling jokes at the expense of other people, about half of the media in the world would disappear.

    I think you may be missing my point, or maybe you're being funny - if you are, than you're writing a joke at my expense, & shame on you :)

    My point, as far as the breakage of wind allusion was concerned, is that, even IF Slott were purposefully taking jabs at an extremely vocal segment of the 'Net fan base, so what? This is Spider-Man we're talking about here. "Controversial" is a word that gets thrown around far, FAR to frequently, at least in my opinion.

    Writing a comic in which Obama is portrayed as, I don't know, a Nazi maybe, would be controversial. Some industry in-jokes in a Spider-Man mag that maybe a few thousand people (at best) will actually get? Not so much, though your mileage may of course vary.

    "You aren't seriously using Bill Maher as an example in a discussion about being "very careful and very respectful" about "mocking the concerns" of the readership/viewership? Wow. ;)"

    Sure I am - do you think Bill's target demographic stops & goes, "Wow, look how disrespectful Bill is being to Catholics"? Hell no - they laugh & think "Yep, Catholics had it coming to 'em. Those wacky pedophiles."

    That's pretty much the same reaction I have when I read the little in-jokes in ASM.



    Well, minus the 'pedophile' part. That's usually reserved for the folks who are talking about how hot Pixie is...

    I mean, if you stop & think about it, EVERY joke is going to offend SOMEONE (at least the good ones - nothing too offensive about "Why did the chicken cross the road?". So, for that reason, Waid's statement holds up, at least in my mind.

    You'd have a point if the jokes were more direct - for example, if there were a character in ASM named "Calvin Hoxfard" who happened to be an Internet blogger, & said blogger got tea-bagged by Spider-Man, than you'd have a case that they were being "disrespectful."

    But we're talking about cutesy references here, nothing "malicious," as you've admitted. So, it's really one of those "your mileage may vary" moments that, like I said, depends on the thickness of one's epidermis. If people want to feel "disrespected" than they should go right ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Hell, not even a single line, but rather the omission of the word "most." As in, "they're being respectful to MOST of the readers." It just seems like, instead of focusing on the OVERALL message Waid was putting across, a single line is being jumped upon. Just seems a bit, I don't know, EXTREME to me."

    Actually, Childhood, that's not quite the case. If he had omitted "very" from in front of "respectful" or "careful" in addition to adding most, then you'd have a perfect point. Heck, if there wasn't a "very" in there, we might not have this blog. It was that emphasis that made it feel worth noting here.

    It, also, should be noted that he focused what he said they were being very respectful and very careful about. That helped drill it down.

    I don't know why we're arguing the interpretation, when Mark seems to have agreed that the interpretation is correct and that he stands by his opinion as being accurate.

    Re: Bill Maher: I'm pretty sure there are plenty of non-atheists watching his show. I cringe when he attacks a belief in God, rather than organized religions or groups that try to force their beliefs on everyone. Wait...this has nothing to do with...dammit.

    "If people want to feel "disrespected" than they should go right ahead."

    If you really believe that, why have we been debating this long? :)

    Can you see where the readership that is still buying the book despite hating the changes that came from OMD but willing to give BND a chance would feel like their concerns are being mocked?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dan Coyle: Wacker's jokes about OMD frustrations are at least for free on the 'net, rather than in the book...so I can't see people having as much of a complaint. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  32. My Childhood tries to force its beliefs on everyoneFri Sep 05, 04:06:00 PM EDT

    ""If people want to feel "disrespected" than they should go right ahead."

    If you really believe that, why have we been debating this long? :)"

    Because you won't admit that I'm right :)

    In all seriousness, people can feel whatever they want, & if they want to feel disrespected, then they should go right ahead on & climb up on that cross - no one can stop them.

    I didn't think we were discussing whether or not people could feel disrespected, but should. Perhaps my choice of words didn't get that across.

    "If he had omitted "very" from in front of "respectful" or "careful" in addition to adding most, then you'd have a perfect point. Heck, if there wasn't a "very" in there, we might not have this blog. It was that emphasis that made it feel worth noting here."

    OK - so my point still stands, with exception that we're up in arms over the inclusion, rather than omission, of the word "very."

    That's really quite the picking of nits, don't you think? Even just a little bit?

    I mean really, what did you expect him to say? "They're being mostly respectful of the majority of the readership, with the occasional inclusion of a light-hearted jab at 'teh Internetzez.'"

    Of COURSE we're arguing the interpretation - the interpretation of the word "very." As you yourself said, we take that word out & presto-chango no more bloggo. But it's there, & CLEARLY open to interpretation, as your (& others, it seems) interpretation of ""very" respectful" is different from, say, mine.


    Or, apparently, Waid's.


    "Can you see where the readership that is still buying the book despite hating the changes that came from OMD but willing to give BND a chance would feel like their concerns are being mocked?"

    Oy. Sure, I could see that. Not to sound insensitive (at least more so than I already have) but it sounds like a very "time-of-the-month" thing to say.

    I mean, say it out loud -

    "Why is Spidey's Brain-Trust mocking my concerns."

    That 'thud' you just heard is the sound of your balls falling off, hitting the floor, & rolling away as swiftly as possible.

    I swear, if all this conjecture leads to every issue of ASM being packaged w/ Mydol, I'm dropping it from my pull list.*











    * - I wouldn't really drop it. I just know it's the customary thing to say when expressing displeasure. My fiance used to get so confused when every time we'd fight I'd tell her she was coming off my pull list.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Re: sounds like a time of the month thing to say

    I'm using Waid's phrasing. He used the whole mocking concerns thing.

    Your whole argument is that it shouldn't matter what words are used in making a statement? The inclusion of VERY and the omission of MOST makes it distinctly different than what you're selling it as.

    Let me rephrase that: it makes interpretations contrary to your own much more rational than you're making it out to be.

    That, honestly, is probably why we're still discussing this: your taking it to an extreme that says your opinion is right and the opposite is pretty much insane.

    For the record, I'm not OFFENDED by the bits. I just think it flies in the face of being classified as part of a work that is very respectful & very careful to avoid mocking concerns of the readers. That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  34. My childhood is allergic to ScarecrowsFri Sep 05, 05:03:00 PM EDT

    "Your whole argument is that it shouldn't matter what words are used in making a statement?"

    HOLY SHITBALLS! THAT is some impressive straw-maning right there. I'm not even going to try responding to that.

    "Let me rephrase that: it makes interpretations contrary to your own much more rational than you're making it out to be."

    Grammar Police! Grammar Police! I think you meant to say "more rational than I'm making THEM out to be." Otherwise, that sentence doesn't really work for me.

    Not that it works w/ the change, either, because that's not at all what I'm saying. I actually had to go back & re-read what I'd written to make sure I hadn't gone off on some crazy tangent.

    Or started typing in Klingon.


    "That, honestly, is probably why we're still discussing this"

    Well, that & you won't just admit I'm right. :)

    "your taking it to an extreme that says your opinion is right and the opposite is pretty much insane."

    With all this "taking it to the EXTREME" you'd think we were in the middle of a Liefield comic. But, I have both my feet, & you don't seem to have 80 bajillion pockets or a 6 foot phallus...er, gun.

    In all seriousness, I'm not saying it's "insane." I'm saying it's nit-picking. If you want to say that nit-picking is insane, that's cool. We've argued enough shit in this thread that I'll spot you that one.

    So, from your lips to God's ears, nit-picking is insane.

    This whole thread is, therefore, by your own definition, insane.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You're arguing that modifiers don't really effect how the sentence should be interpreted.

    You're saying that the sentence should be taken as if it doesn't have VERY in it and as if it does have MOST in it. That is, essentially, what you're arguing. You're indicating that using the words (or lack thereof) is nitpicking. And you've implied, from the degree of your ridicule, that it is completely irrational to do so.

    No straw man argument.

    Now, Childhood, I do appreciate that you've stuck with some version of "childhood" in your posting so we could carry this on nicely. But I'd like to ask that you e-mail schwapp.online@gmail.com, as to confirm, for personal curiosity, who you are. You have my word that I won't share the information publicly or hint at it in further responses. I think I know who you are.

    ReplyDelete
  36. My Childhood kneels before Zod(complex)Fri Sep 05, 05:49:00 PM EDT

    I understand modifiers change the sentence. I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that seizing upon that particular modifier & suggesting that it is somehow an egregious falacy due to a few "in-joke" slights at the Internet is nit-picking the statement.

    Again, you yourself said the argument goes away if he doesn't say "very." So here are, 36 posts deep, & we've dived into "what does 'very' mean?"

    I'd actually call 'shenanigans' on the notion that the word 'very' is what's got everyone so riled up. If Waid had said the creators were just being respectful, period, this thread & many others like it would still exist. There's enough anti-OMD/BND sentiment on the 'Net that creators need to start Mirandizing themselves before they give a statement, as anything they say can & apparently will be used against them.

    "But, your Honor, he said 'very.' The prosecution rests."

    Now, before you start accusing me of CCKA (Comic Creator Kiss Ass) let me pose this question:

    Let's say you post a blog, saying that you're "very frustrated" with something (I don't know - the poor quality of Denny's pancakes.) You pledge to never eat Denny's pancakes again, but you'll happily suck up their skillets, 'cause thems good eatins. Someone comes in & says, "But Kevin, you said 'very frustrated.' Very frustrated means you'd never eat there again. OMFG Kev, WTF?"

    Granted, that's a pretty silly scenario I've come up with, but do you sort of see what I mean? I mean, for the love of (insert religious deity here) Waid himself says

    "Having read every BND and upcoming issue of Spidey, I've honestly seen nothing that I felt was intentionally disrepectful--IMHO--and I stand by my statement. Others' mileage may vary."

    Which means he hasn't seen anything intentionally disrespectful. Neither have I. So, I guess we're really here on two counts of semantics policing - what is the measure of "very," & what qualifies as "disrespectful" when speaking of men in colored tights razzing the audience.

    Again, if Spider-Man starts telling random pastiches of Internet bloggers to "suck my magic, fatty pig fanboy" then yeah, I'd qualify that as disrespectful. Hell, that would be "flipping off" territory.

    A few toungue in cheek quips though? I honestly haven't seen anything worthy of so much panty-bunching.





    Now that I stand "revealed" (I feel so naked without a clever, quippy headline, which I honestly only kept up because I like running gags) am I he who you think you thought I said I was?

    ReplyDelete
  37. We'll have to agree to disagree on the "very/most" stuff. I think you're trying to take it to extremes that it isn't being used in here.

    But when someone is in an interview and makes a measured statement about a situation, stressing the strength of what they're saying with VERY before not one but two terms, I think it is meant to be taken strongly.

    Heck, Waid's comment seems to indicate that the interpretation of the statement as strong and absolute was correct and that he stands behind it. So I don't see why we're debating the effect the words used were intended to have.

    The only real topic to debate is whether the bits slipped into the title referring back to OMD are very respectful and very careful not to mock the concerns of readers. Waid stands by that statement as being accurate and I strongly disagree. You could say I disagree VERY much. ;)

    And no, Zod, unless that's always been an alias used by the person I was thinking, no...you're not who I thought. But I do greatly appreciate you taking the time to share.

    ReplyDelete
  38. So, this all initally started because Mr. Childhood thinks that the "comments" made by Mr. Slott were meant to be humorus. While Mr. Huxford took them as more of a slap to the face. Right?

    Then it's opinion vs opinion.

    Mr. Childhood says that the comments were "in-jokes" used to target those readers that stayed with the title, and loved OMD.

    Though both Mr. Huxford and Mr. Childhood agree that there are ASM readers that still read the book, but hated OMD.

    With that agreed upon, I would assume that it would only be reasonable to agree that if the comments placed in ASM were "in-jokes" they just weren't very good jokes. Kind of like telling a sexual joke to an individual. Anyone there that is of that sex would probably become uncomfortable. So, taking it as an "in-joke", that was not an important plot driven line, it could have best been left out.

    While, I do believe Slott did not intend for the comments to be taken as a "flip off" to any fans. The jokes were in context to a "touchy" subject matter. That could have been avoided all together. Though at the time he wrote these issues, the jokes might have seemed more humorous. Probably less likely to offend anyone after months into BND.

    Mr. Childhood seems to want a satisfiable response saying that his opinion is right.

    Sorry, because you view something one way, doesn't make it right.

    We all have the right to share our opinion on here, though have no right to demand that ours is correct over another.

    That is unless your Mr. Slott and know of the true intentions behind the ASM comments. Then that would not be opinion, but fact.

    -T

    ReplyDelete

It is preferred that you sign some sort of name to your posts, rather than remain completely anonymous. Even if it is just an internet nickname/alias, it makes it easier to get to know the people that post here. I hope you all will give it some consideration. Thank you.